Cross-border Crime

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr McCrea]

I concur. This is not an issue for just one community. However, there is an area of the Province along the border that lends itself greatly to cross-border crime, and republicans are up to their neck in that.

There is a query about whether fuel launderers are tipped off ahead of raids. After the 2013 major cross-border police raid on Thomas “Slab” Murphy as part of Operation Loft, the authorities at the time believed that the IRA chief of staff and his associates had been tipped off just hours before, as salvaged from the embers were the burnt remains of laptops, documents and computer discs. The status quo approach to tackling fuel smuggling and laundering is untenable. When the operators of filling stations are successfully prosecuted—this is not really happening at the moment—for selling illegal, laundered fuel, provision should be made in legislation to ensure that these outlets cannot simply be reopened again after a few weeks, as happens at the moment. The community is sickened by this.

The challenges we face are grave. We must take them head on and the Government ought to take them head on. These fraudsters must be stopped and the criminals must be put behind bars. However, a number of questions must be asked regarding Government proposals that are supposed to tackle this problem. Why are the Government continuing to designate the Dow fuel marker in legislation, when they knew a year ago that it was not fit for purpose? Why do the Government not support their own British science company, when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven—invitation to make submissions—indelible markers recommended? Why did Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs director, Mike Norgrove, give evidence to the 2012 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry that he would travel anywhere in the world to find a solution for fuel fraud, when he personally turned down an invitation a year earlier by the same British science company that saved the Brazilian Government billions of US dollars and reduced fuel fraud to less than 1% by 2012? Why would any Government allow billion-pound fraud to continue, when a British science forensic solution already exists? Even more troubling to me, however, is that I am told that a Treasury Minister wrote to the NIAC Chairman asking him to keep the Dow launderability confidential. We must do all within our power to stop illegally traded fuel raking in massive profits for the criminal gangs mentioned today.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the loss of revenue to the Exchequer and the financing of criminal gangs, immense problems are being caused to the environment as a result of toxic chemicals being poured into water courses?

[Dr McCrea]

Concern for the environment was also mentioned by a Minister of the Irish Republic recently. The House should be taking this matter very seriously, because damage is being done and we cannot turn a blind eye. The concern that many of us have is that the Government could do more. I cannot understand why those involved in this activity have not been brought before the courts. That is totally unacceptable. The last time anyone was brought before the courts was 2002, even though there are those who are known to have committed this crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Civic Forum. It is clear that we need to hear those voices in Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom where politicians are not necessarily all held in high regard, Members of this House excepted. It is important that we look for alternative voices, and I am sure that in the months and years ahead, with the assistance of the Stormont House agreement, that civic voice will be heard more and more.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that we will never deal with the hurt and the poison of the past in Northern Ireland while the past actions of police and Army officers and personnel are subject to extensive investigations, police investigations and court action, while terrorists are given letters that enable them to escape the consequences of their crimes?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his usual robust fashion. It is clearly important that justice is done in Northern Ireland as it is throughout the United Kingdom, and that when there are failings they are properly investigated.

On-the-Runs Scheme

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that inquests were a key matter that were considered at great length in the Stormont House agreement talks. Although we could not build a consensus on the way to reform inquests, we did reach a consensus on the fact that the inquest system needs to be reformed because, at the moment, it is not working effectively enough to give proper answers to families. I am working with the Justice Minister and others in the devolved Executive to do everything we can to take that reform process forward; it is vital that we do that. Disclosure was also debated at length, and I can assure the House that the Government are committed to the fullest disclosure in relation to the new bodies to be set up under the Stormont House agreement. But when it comes to onward disclosure, we will of course need to put in place national security measures, which are broadly equivalent to those that apply in respect of current institutions. In conclusion, I wish to pass on my condolences to the O’Connor family, who must have been distressed and upset by recent events.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand why the people of Northern Ireland are cynical about her oft-repeated mantra that no one can rely on these letters, when we have already had two people relying on them, and she has indicated today that there could possibly be another 36. Will she tell the House who was responsible for the error, and what the nature of the error was? In that way, we can at least determine whether this was a deliberate action to ensure that a killer was not brought to justice or a genuine mistake.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Hallett report indicates that the error may well have originated within the PSNI, but we should not rush to judgment on that. As I have said in relation to the John Downey case, wherever the error arose, the problem was that the scheme was not designed to guard against errors or to pick up on them when they were made. The overall responsibility for the errors still rests at ministerial level. There is a consensus on both sides of the House that the Ministers in power at the time need to take responsibility for what happened, even if, at the end of the process, the error may have been made by the PSNI. It is a matter on which we should not rush to judgment. The hon. Gentleman may wish to look at page 108 of the Hallett report to assess how the error occurred.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I trust that I will do what the shadow Secretary of State did and give a balanced view, from a Northern Ireland perspective, of where we see the Bill taking the Northern Ireland economy and the impact that it will have on the economy.

It would be churlish if we did not acknowledge that considerable work has gone into the proposal. It has taken many years, and as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) indicated, a large number of people have been involved in making the case for the devolution and then doing what was necessary to bring it about.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the role that he has played in this change, although I would point out that the cudgels were first taken up by the leader of my party, who was then Finance Minister in Northern Ireland and was convinced that the decision made after the Varney report was published was incorrect. He started the ball rolling on this issue in Northern Ireland. Many businesses also supported the campaign.

I also pay tribute to the work done by the Financial Secretary and his officials during the time that I was the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland. I know that sometimes we made progress and then were knocked back a bit, and it was frustrating at times. But many of the issues addressed during those discussions were essential if the issue was not to fall foul of European legislation or decisions by the European Court. Much of that groundwork was very necessary.

One of the things that drives this change is the desire in Northern Ireland to transform our economy. Our region has not always been in the economic doldrums. In fact, for a long time during the 20th century, Northern Ireland was a driver in the UK economy. We had world-leading, world-renowned industries that drove a healthy economy. Many of those industries declined because of changes in world demand, distribution patterns and global trends, which also coincided with the start of the troubles. As a result, major industries declined and Northern Ireland was an unattractive place for new private sector companies, resulting in an unhealthy increasing dependence on the public sector.

One of the aims of the Northern Ireland Executive is to rebalance the economy as well as to grow it. To do that we need the right economic levers, but—as the Secretary of State said and the shadow Secretary of State alluded to—there is no point having those levers in our hands if the right conditions do not exist. I agree with the Government—although some frustration is felt back home on this point—that it was right for them to insist that the Executive have a budget that showed the tax change was sustainable and that we could absorb its impact. It was right that we should not pay money annually to the Treasury because we had not concluded the welfare reforms, because that was of course a drain on the resources that were available to the Executive.

The conditions that were laid down were correct and the Executive has now proposed a budget, although it has not been supported by all the parties. Some parties, even though they are in government and their Departments would benefit from the savings in the budget, have taken an irresponsible attitude. They think they can benefit from the budget and at the same time distance themselves from the more difficult aspects of it—

[Naomi Long]

And you would never have done that.

[Sammy Wilson]

I seem to have hit a sore spot or at least the tender parts of the body politic among those parties that have engaged in such activity.

We have to get the welfare reform proposals through the Executive, but agreement has been reached and I hope that, as this Bill makes progress, we will also see the passage of the welfare reforms in Northern Ireland, albeit with changes—mostly secured by my party—to the Welfare Reform Bill that will make it less draconian. Indeed, I think that some of the changes in the Welfare Reform Bill will have to be revisited by this Parliament at some stage.

[Ms Ritchie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will, because I know that the hon. Lady is feeling sore from some of my remarks.

[Ms Ritchie]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not feeling sore in any way. He is avoiding the reality to suit a certain political situation. He used to be a sceptic about corporation tax, but he has had a damascene conversion. Notwithstanding that, can he tell us what measures will be introduced to achieve the benefits of welfare reform for the people of Northern Ireland?

[Sammy Wilson]

If the hon. Lady is not feeling sore from some of my remarks, she is more brazen than I thought she was—[Laughter.] As she has not yet heard the rest of my speech, she does not know what I am going to say or the balanced arguments that I am going to make about corporation tax.

Everyone who has spoken so far has suggested that there is widespread support for the Bill in Northern Ireland. That is, of course, not true. The Green party opposes it, but then that party opposes economic growth apparently, according to its latest manifesto. I can understand, therefore, why it would not want to see any measures that would encourage economic growth in Northern Ireland. I do not know how the Green party expects us to tackle our unemployment or standard of living problems with no economic growth, but in any event it opposes the Bill.

The other opponents of the Bill are the trade unions, which are organising a one-day strike against it and other measures some time in March. At the same time as they complain about youth unemployment and the low-wage economy, they oppose a measure that has the potential to address all of those issues and want to strike against it. I do not understand their logic.

The only other party that opposes the measure is the traditional Unionist voice, but I think that is because we support it. That seems to be the rationale for anything it does.

All parties in this House are agreed that tax incentives can be beneficial in stimulating business growth. Some may disagree about the actual form the tax incentive should take or the degree to which it should be used, but there is an undeniable correlation between such incentives—be they small business rates relief, corporation tax reductions or oil industry taxes—and growth. Shareholders are attracted to putting money into businesses, which in turn have more profits to plough back into investment. Tax incentives can also give businesses a competitive edge over those in other countries. That is the rationale behind the Bill and no one can deny that it will have an effect.

In Northern Ireland there is an additional reason to make the change in that we share a land boundary with a country that has had a lower corporation tax rate. Some people say that this will not have a beneficial effect, but it is significant that, even when the Government of the Irish Republic were having to slash public expenditure and incur the wrath of the population by reducing wages in the public sector, putting up taxes, introducing new charges for water and so on, the one area for which they were fiscally responsible and did not make any changes was corporation tax. They had obviously judged that when it came to fighting for business, corporation tax—albeit along with other measures—was a shock and awe tactic they could use to try to attract businesses to the Irish Republic. That is a significant argument.

I have a degree of scepticism about economic modelling. As I am sure the Financial Secretary would tell us, we can put whatever finely tuned assumptions we want into economic models, but they can be upset fairly quickly. In the next 15 years, it is estimated that output in the Northern Ireland economy will grow by 11%, creating about 37,500 jobs. Any economic model must come with a warning that the assumptions on which it is based can change fairly rapidly. However, the estimate has been made using the economic data we have at present: assumptions, past trends, information from other economies and so on. In Northern Ireland, we cannot afford to ignore that estimate, even if it is not totally correct, especially if it will grow the private sector and bring in well-paid, above-average jobs.

We had concerns about a number of issues. We did not want a Bill for people who simply moved their profits to Northern Ireland and did not create jobs. There is no benefit to us in having companies with just a brass plate outside the door, but no substance. I believe the Bill addresses that issue, as much as it can, by indicating that it will benefit trading profits only. In addition, there will be strict investigation by the Treasury of companies who try to move profits. As I understand it, there will be a charge for ensuring that compliance measures are put in place to avoid such scenarios.

If we do that, what about small businesses? Many small businesses, especially in the construction industry, have a substantial amount of work in Great Britain because of the decline in the construction industry. We did not want small businesses to have huge administrative costs imposed on them for differentiating where they made their profits. I welcome the proposal in the Bill that businesses based in Northern Ireland with 75% of their activity and employment there, will be exempt on all their profits. That should cover 99% of small businesses in Northern Ireland so there should not be administrative costs for small businesses.

Oil and gas is excluded from the legislation. I hope that very shortly, despite the endeavours of the Social and Democratic and Labour party Environment Minister, we will have a substantial oil and gas industry that can exploit the shale gas resources that we believe are buried under the ground in Northern Ireland. There may be some who play the populist line and say, “Let’s just keep those resources there. After all, they’re nasty CO₂-producing fossil fuels.” I want them to be exploited for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The profits from those companies would not currently be subject to the corporation tax arrangement, but I hope that if and when we develop such an industry, Northern Ireland will benefit from the kinds of promises that have been made to the north-east of England, including a sovereign wealth fund to take in part of the profits from those businesses and plough them back into public expenditure projects. I understand, however, why that has not been included at present.

On financial sector profits, there were two issues. I was not all that supportive of the argument about why those nasty banks, who nearly destroyed our economy, should benefit from reductions in corporation tax, paid for by reductions in the block grant. I understand the emotional rhetoric in that argument, but I am more concerned that the profits of banks and other financial institutions are much more volatile and more easily moved without detection than the profits of manufacturing or other companies. One has only to look at the difference between 2007-08 and 2008-09, when banks’ profits changed from £255 million to £45 million. That kind of volatility in tax revenue was a compelling reason why we should not include the profits of financial institutions in the Bill. I am glad that the Government have responded to that.

[Mrs Villiers]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is important to bear in mind that certain activities relating to banks and financial services can fall within the scope of a new Northern Ireland rate, in no small part because of the election provisions in relation to back-office functions. For example, the kind of work that is currently done in Northern Ireland by Citigroup could fall within a new reduced Northern Ireland rate.

[Sammy Wilson]

That was exactly the point I was going to make. Having said that there are exceptions to this, the exemptions are important because one of the fastest-growing sectors in the higher wage end of the Northern Ireland economy has been those back-office financial services jobs. We would not want to lose the ability to attract them. There is provision in the Bill to allow for that. Whether they are brought as separate or spur companies to the main company, they will nevertheless be subject to the new regime.

There are some dangers. One danger we have heard about time and again—it was alluded to by the shadow Secretary of State—is the potential loss of public sector expenditure. Under the Azores ruling, we will have to pay for whatever the forgone revenue happens to be. That will depend on the rate we eventually set. At maximum, it could be about 3% of the current revenue budget available to Northern Ireland. In the current circumstances, to try to find that immediately would be very difficult, which is one reason why the decision to introduce this will not be implemented until at least 2016-17. That will give the Executive time to plan.

We must remember, however, that the reduction in the block grant and money available for public expenditure in Northern Ireland will be offset by the expansion in other parts of the economy. Yes, that is a gamble, but can we politicians in Northern Ireland sit on our hands and do nothing, knowing that public expenditure is going to tighten, regardless of whether there is a Labour or Conservative Administration, given how heavily reliant we are on public expenditure? That would be wrong. The shadow spokesman wants to know the reason for my alleged conversion. This is one of the issues to weigh in the balance. Can we just drift along, knowing that regardless of which party is in government at Westminster the public sector is going to contract, and make no provision for expanding the private sector?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. On the reduction in the block grant, however, we do not know what the block grant will be in 2017. It might be higher than expected, in which case perhaps the consequential drop would not be felt. It could also be argued that the recent agreement at Stormont House already mitigates any reduction.

[Sammy Wilson]

Given the comments from the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Labour party, I suspect the grant will not be higher. Furthermore, we still have to deal with our dependence on public sector expenditure. It is being squeezed all the time, and therefore we need to look at rebalancing the economy.

[Naomi Long]

I agree that public finances will continue to be under pressure and that therefore we need to grow the private sector to counterbalance that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that Northern Ireland’s reliance on the public sector is even worse than the Secretary of State mentioned, because many of the privately owned companies are almost entirely reliant on Government contracts? It is not just about those directly employed in the public sector; it is about the number of private businesses that rely on the public sector for their employment.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the reasons, of course, that some people say the public sector accounts for as much as 62% of employment in Northern Ireland. Some of it is disguised in the way the hon. Lady suggests.

We have to consider whether we can simply sit on our hands. However, there is a second consideration for the Northern Ireland Executive. Yes, there is some risk attached to the policy; all economic policies carry some risk, but in measuring and trying to balance that risk, we have to consider the impact of the policy elsewhere, especially in areas similar to Northern Ireland. I have already mentioned the approach of the Republic of Ireland Government.

As the changes to the rules on accounting and disclosure come forward, I know that some of the financial services issues might be addressed, but we have not touched on the ongoing cost of the devolution of corporation tax, which is currently reckoned to be about £300 million. However, as the economy grows, a formula will be imposed in respect of the loss of revenue, and given that there could be a substantial reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland, the formula must not be draconian. For example, if it was set at an unrealistic rate, based on the performance of better performing regions or of the UK economy as a whole, the burden could become substantially higher as time goes on. We need clarity on that issue.

The right hon. Member for North Shropshire said that from this day on the Executive should be proceeding with this matter, but we cannot do so because the Bill has not yet been passed. I know he is enthusiastic, but I think his enthusiasm has run away from the reality: the Bill has to pass its stages as normal.

[Mr Paterson]

I said that the Northern Ireland parties should make an announcement now about what they intend to do with the powers once the Bill has passed. If such an announcement were made, in the two years between now and April 2017, local businesses, UK businesses and, above all, foreign business could begin to plan in the knowledge that they would benefit from a much lower rate of tax. The hon. Gentleman is right—we have to pass the Bill, and I am delighted it has the support of the Opposition—but it is vital that, from today, the local parties say what they would do with these powers, on the basis that the Bill will pass before Dissolution.

[Sammy Wilson]

On the last point, given that the ongoing cost is not known yet, there remain some issues to resolve.

There is a challenge, not for politicians, but for the businesses that have campaigned for the devolution of corporation tax. As the shadow Secretary of State said, those businesses have a responsibility not to use their profits simply to pay higher salaries for managers, for shareholders or for vanity projects. Having campaigned for this change, and given its implications for expenditure in Northern Ireland, they have a responsibility to ensure that the additional money that results from forgoing tax revenue is invested in their companies to increase productivity, make them more competitive and create better-paid jobs. Only then will this campaign have been a success.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who drew on his experience in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make a very useful speech. I also congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill, which has taken a good deal of skilful negotiation, and on doing so before the election. It would have been easy to push it back. I think the whole House is grateful to her.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). I had the pleasure of working with him in opposition when he thought outside the box and came up with this idea. Yes, it had been discussed to some extent, but it had not been fully discussed in this place. At the time, there was opposition, as there always is when somebody comes up with a radical new idea, but he had the foresight, determination and courage to press ahead, and when he became Secretary of State, he made it clear that it was one of the most useful things we could do for Northern Ireland. We are now seeing the benefit of his work.

A few years ago, this proposal was the first thing the Select Committee looked at when we wanted to find something that moved us away from the orange and green issues and the security situation—serious though it was—to look at different ways of helping the people of Northern Ireland. We thought that the economy was one way we could do that. We took evidence from a great many witnesses—businesses, trade unions and very many other people—and eventually came up with a report that recommended the devolution of corporation tax to the Assembly. I should point out that it was not a unanimous decision. Several Committee members had concerns or reservations, a number of which have been addressed by the hon. Member for East Antrim. However, we felt that the benefits would be overwhelming and that we could address the problems that the decision might throw up.

As has been said, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another country, and that country happens to have corporation tax at a much lower rate. As has been pointed out, southern Ireland—the Republic of Ireland—stuck to that policy through thick and thin. I remember going to see the EU Commissioner when the Select Committee was looking at the issue. He was rather dubious about the Republic of Ireland’s low level of corporation tax and expected that it would have to roll over, give way and increase the rate. However, as I said to him, that might have been okay in the short term, but what would it have done for the Republic of Ireland’s longer term prospects? I am glad that that country won the day.

I recognise—I say this as a Unionist—that there was some concern about setting the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland to match that in the Republic, as though that was somehow giving up or compromising on Britishness. It is nothing of the sort. We have a single electricity market across Ireland. Ireland is promoted as one for tourism—I think we could do more on that—and there are experiments with common visa arrangements. All that is sensible. To me, that is not about green or orange; it is not about Britain or a united Ireland. These are sensible measures. Giving the Assembly the ability to cut the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland to compete with the south would be a simple and sensible arrangement, and there is a need to do it.

As we have seen from the economic statistics, which have been discussed in the House and repeated many times, Northern Ireland lags behind on many measures when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is doing okay—it is improving and getting there—but it really needs a boost to move it along rather more rapidly. That is why, interestingly, as well as most members of the Committee and most witnesses agreeing with the proposal to devolve responsibility for corporation tax to the Assembly—along with every political party in Northern Ireland, which is rather unusual—the Irish Government agree with it too. I have heard the Taoiseach on more than one occasion say that he thinks it would be a good idea for Northern Ireland to be able to have the same level of corporation tax. He does not see it particularly as a threat; he sees it as a sensible move.

The Committee also found that corporation tax in itself is not necessarily the silver bullet. It is not going to transform the whole economy—other measures are needed, such as improvements in the planning regime and many other areas—but it is a good headline grabber. It will grab the attention of the business world, and that can only be a good thing. For example, just a few weeks ago the Committee travelled to Belfast and had a meeting with Senator Gary Hart, who was over to help with the discussions. We put the point to him, and he said the change would remove one of the reasons for not investing in Northern Ireland, because when people look from afar and see the island of Ireland, where are they going to go? Of course, other factors come into play too, but if corporation tax is 12.5% in the Republic and 20% in Northern Ireland, surely that is a draw towards the Republic of Ireland. He said he would be willing to try to set up a trade delegation from the United States to come to Northern Ireland with a view to exploring the investment opportunities. That has to be a very positive move indeed.

Again looking from afar, it is not just that Northern Ireland shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland that is a compelling reason for making this move. Northern Ireland is also part of an island off an island. If it is exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, what is the benefit of investing in Northern Ireland? We have to ask ourselves that question. What will draw companies to Northern Ireland rather than investing on the mainland? If everything is the same, perhaps they will not do that, but if things are more attractive in Northern Ireland, surely companies and investors will consider their options in the Province. To an extent, it is the same with the United Kingdom, which is one of the very many reasons why I am not for making ourselves exactly the same as the European Union. If we are exactly the same as mainland European countries such as Germany or France, what is the attraction of coming to the United Kingdom and investing here? There has to be a reason for people to come here, and it is up to us to give them that reason.

I want to touch on another point, which is slightly off the issue, but which is important when we consider the extent of the benefit that reducing corporation tax might bring. When we were in the United States on a Select Committee visit about 18 months ago, we discussed this issue—very positively—and a number of others, but one thing that came up time and again was the violent scenes that we see on our television screens and which are flashed across the world. No matter what this place or the Assembly does on tax or any other incentives, it is destroyed in a single night, with a single vision of any violent scenes or paramilitary activity that is flashed across the world. Nothing could drive people away from Northern Ireland in a worse way or more quickly than that. Anybody in a republican organisation or a so-called loyalist organisation who engages in such activity is betraying the people they purport to represent. They really ought to bear that in mind.

There are a number of issues that perhaps need to be looked at in greater detail. I am not making a criticism, but I would ask the Secretary of State whether she has given any thought to how the Bill might be considered during its Committee stage. As I understand it, it will be considered in Committee upstairs. However, there are a number of issues that still need discussion, so it might be an idea to consider holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. As we move towards the election, sometimes the Chamber is not as heavily used as it might be at other times. Maybe we could consider discussing these issues in a way that allowed all Members to take part, rather than just a few Members upstairs.

I understand why this change cannot be introduced absolutely straight away, but I am a little concerned that it is being pushed back two years. A lot can happen in two years. However, while we have the full agreement of people in all the political parties in Northern Ireland—on this issue at least, if not on any other—let us take advantage of that. Let us drive this forward as quickly as we can.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, first, budgetary planning must be put in place to deal with the payment that will come off the block grant? Secondly, as many firms make investment decisions over a long period, it makes sense to announce the change soon, but for payment to be in two years’ time, because that will reduce the cost to the Northern Ireland Executive, while at the same time attract firms that are thinking about investment now, but which will perhaps not implement it for a couple of years.

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point, which I suppose goes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, who said we should get on at least with saying what we are likely to do, as that will start the ball rolling.

We also have to be careful not to expect too much of the Assembly when it comes to looking like an efficient decision making machine and getting this matter devolved. As everyone in this House knows, it was not designed for the purpose of being an efficient decision making machine; it was designed to bring people together to bring about peace, and there can be no greater cause than that. That issue has already started to be addressed through the Stormont House agreement; nevertheless, the Assembly is not the most effective machine. It has its problems—there is of course the need for votes on both sides to be in a majority. All that is not how this place works; nor would we get very much passed if we worked in that way. The Assembly was set up in that way for a different purpose, so I do not think too much store should be set by that. We should get on with this proposal in any case.

There are other important matters, including planning. Skills and education are important, too. We must ensure that we have a skilful and well educated work force in Northern Ireland, and then it becomes important for Northern Ireland to retain the people it educates. So many times we see a number of countries training and educating their people well, only to see them attracted to work abroad rather than bring the benefits of their skills and education to their own country. We need a peaceful society in Northern Ireland for that to happen—otherwise we will continue to lose people—and we need to create the sort of prosperity that people want to enjoy. If we can do all that, I think we will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy greater prosperity and greater peace than was available to past generations.

Stormont House Agreement

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

These are hugely sensitive issues and these matters have been under discussion in various forums for many years, and the proposal to have a broader civic conversation and debate about finding a way forward is a good one. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was first proposed by Dr Richard Haass in the work that he and Meghan O’Sullivan did. We simply do not have all the answers on how all these matters need to be resolved. Including as many people as possible in finding a way forward on these sensitive and crucial questions of identity is an important step towards that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The additional money made available to Northern Ireland through flexibility and borrowing, and the extra money for the additional institutions, will be welcome. Despite what the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said in his little Englander outburst, which helps nationalism more than the nasty nationalists of this House do when it comes to the break-up of the Union, this is something that Northern Ireland needed.

The important thing is to rebalance the economy as well. Will the Secretary of State spell out for us what exactly she means when she says that the Government will use their “best endeavours” to get the legislation on corporation tax through Parliament? Does that mean that that might not happen, and if not, why can she not give total clarity that the legislation will go through before the end of this Session?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said before, the reality is that introducing legislation at this stage of a Parliament runs the risk of running out of time for it, in which case we become dependent on the Opposition for getting it through. We will try to speed it through as best we can, assuming that the Northern Ireland Executive do their bit. We had hoped to introduce the legislation in December, in which case we would have been pretty confident of getting it through on time without the support of the Opposition. Given the delay of a few weeks, it is more uncertain. That is why I put the question I did to the shadow Secretary of State, but we will certainly try our very best to get this legislation on the statute book.

Northern Ireland (All-party Talks)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that the credibility of the institutions is on the line. If the Assembly cannot get its budget right, it is very difficult for it to perform its basic functions, and it would be in for significant criticism if it cannot resolve these matters. As to the hon. Lady’s comment that the parties recognise the importance of delivery, and her question about whether they have the will to do it, I hope they do and I believe they do. Time is running out. It is crucial that we seize this opportunity because we will not get another one for months, if not years, to come.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The main reason that the talks failed this week was Sinn Fein’s deluded belief that Northern Ireland should be totally exempt from the implications of UK budgetary policy and welfare reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm and put it on the record for those head-in-the-sand ostrich economists who advise Sinn Fein that if Northern Ireland wishes to deviate from the welfare reform package which is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, that money must be found from the Northern Ireland block grant and there is no additional money available?

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes, I can certainly do that. There will be no new money for welfare reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

One of the main ways in which we can help is through the tax system. That is why we have cut corporation tax, which will be the lowest in the G20 by April, and why we are cutting job taxes for employers for the benefit of, in particular, young unemployed people. We think that it is vital for more people to have the security of a pay packet to take home to their families, and our tax policy has been driven by that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

10. What the cost to her Department was of the Parades Commission in each of the last five years.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The cost of the Parades Commission was £1.01 million in 2013-14. In the preceding four years it was £1.37 million, £0.93 million, £1.07 million and £1.01 million respectively.

[Sammy Wilson]

Rather than reducing the tension surrounding parades, the Parades Commission has actually contributed to further tension because of its bias against the Orange Order, its incompetence, and its propensity to give in to republican protesters. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a root-and-branch change in the way in which contentious parades are dealt with in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Parades Commission faces a hugely difficult task in adjudicating on highly sensitive parades, and I think that it performs that task well. If the political parties in Northern Ireland want a different system for parading, that is open to them, but the only way in which to achieve that is to get round the table and consider future reform in the cross-party talks that are now under way.

JTI Gallaher

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and congratulate him on the robust way in which he has put the case. His constituents will be very pleased with that, and I think that it does him great credit. The closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in Ballymena and the loss of hundreds of jobs and some £60 million from the town’s economy, and indeed from the whole economy of Northern Ireland, is a major blow. He is quite right to put that in proportionate terms, making a comparison with Great Britain and how we might view such losses on the mainland. He is quite right that this is indeed a major blow for the whole of Northern Ireland. I will do what I can to assure him that the Government are doing what we can, under the terms of the 1998 agreement, to protect jobs in his constituency and promote the prosperity agenda in Northern Ireland at this difficult time.

As my hon. Friend said, the factory in his constituency has been producing tobacco for 150 years and is the last tobacco manufacturing concern in the UK. I recall my own visit to one of the last tobacco factories in the UK, in Bristol 30 years ago—ironically, I was at medical school. Cigarette factories then were commonplace, and I think that he would admit that their decline is in some respects a good thing, since it tracks the fall in smoking, but not if production is simply shifted abroad. Of course we would all much rather have those jobs here in the UK and, specifically in the context of this evening’s debate, in Northern Ireland.

The announcement takes place against the background of the Northern Ireland economy continuing to move away from its reliance on industrial production. It is still too reliant on the public sector for jobs, as he knows. The economy in Northern Ireland is rebalancing, with the generation of creative industries, life sciences and the knowledge-based sector, which accounts for the large majority of all foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. Aerospace, for example, continues to perform well in a very competitive market.

I accept, of course, that it is cold comfort for JTI employees to be told that software and financial services are experiencing the fastest growth or that Belfast is the No. 1 destination globally for financial technology investment. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, that the prospects for the tobacco industry overall are not very good. Indeed, they point to long-term decline as demand for cigarettes continues to fall and smoking rates edge downwards all the time. This is of course good news for health, but very bad for jobs in his constituency.

In 1974, almost half the UK population smoked—a remarkable thing to reflect on now. Last year, the figure had fallen to 18.7%. About 68% of smokers want to quit and are increasingly aware of the dire health implications of smoking. The tobacco industry has recognised the declining market caused by consumers’ health concerns and is diversifying into electronic cigarettes and associated technology that is deemed to be safer.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

If my hon. Friend wants to intervene, I ask him to do so briefly as I do not have much time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that while there may be a decline, the irony is that while the Government are encouraging the private sector to grow in Northern Ireland, in this instance Government policy has squeezed the private sector?

[Dr Murrison]

I think that is a little unfair. Perhaps as I go through my remarks, my hon. Friend will be somewhat assured that the Government are doing what they can to promote the private sector, in particular, in Northern Ireland. I think he should know that from his experience of Northern Ireland overall, where the private sector is doing relatively well and the economy is, without a doubt, rebalancing, albeit at a rate that is perhaps not as fast as we would have liked.

There have also been job losses from the mechanisation and streamlining of tobacco production, and that has had a greater impact on jobs than tobacco control measures implemented by this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim would probably accept that, given the changing nature of this industry, which he will have seen over many years.

On the tobacco products directive, my hon. Friend should know that I am generally loth to accept anything that comes out of the European Union, particularly when it results in regulation. However, it is fair to say that the tobacco products directive aims to protect health—that of his constituents, my constituents, and all constituents. Tobacco use is responsible for an estimated 700,000 avoidable deaths in the EU every year, and smoking accounts for over one third of respiratory deaths, over one quarter of cancer deaths, and about one seventh of cardiovascular disease deaths. I have seen these cases; I saw them day in, day out when I was practising regularly. I am sure he would agree that if we are to make any progress in improving public health, we have to cut the consumption of cigarettes. I do not think there is any difference between us on that.

Massereene Barracks Shooting 2009

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Murrison]

Given that they have faced trial, one must assume that they are not. However, I cannot tell the hon. Lady whether those names appear on the list of 200 people issued with such letters. Given that they have faced trial, it seems unlikely to me.

Before I come to the burden of my response to the right hon. Gentleman’s points—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Murrison]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only a few minutes to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s points, so I would like to crack on.

It must be understood that those who continue to favour violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland are few in number. Those individuals are acting in defiance of the clear will of the people of Ireland, both north and south, and holding democracy, decency and the rule of law in contempt.

Turning to the important issue of barracks security, many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive under the devolved settlement. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on areas for which I do not have direct responsibility. However, responsibility for the armed forces is not devolved, so I will start by saying that the Government take the safety of military personnel very seriously indeed. Security measures for members of the armed forces are made and set in accordance with a specific threat level relating to them, which is kept under regular review.

In Northern Ireland, armed guarding and security is undertaken by the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service, which consists of Ministry of Defence employees specifically trained for the job. That is similar to guarding provision in the rest of the UK, and it is not accurate to say that the use of civilian MOD employees results in an inferior service to what would be provided by soldiers.

Security measures at Massereene barracks on the night of the incident were set and implemented in accordance with the threat level pertaining to the Army at that time. At the time of the murders of Sapper Azimkar and Sapper Quinsey, those guarding the barracks carried pistols. I will return to that point in a minute. Security guidance for personnel visiting Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been reviewed since the incident; there has also been a security review at all establishments in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. It has led to the introduction of a number of measures in order to match the increased sector-specific threat assessment following the attack, including the introduction of long-barrelled weapons for the NISGS. Where required, security infrastructure improvements have also been made to barracks in Northern Ireland.

Although the Army originally intended to hold a service inquiry to examine events leading up to the incident, it was quite properly put on hold pending criminal investigations, following which it was decided that as a result of the enhanced security measures that had been put in place, no further lessons of consequence could be learned. However, in accordance with normal practice, a learning account exercise was undertaken. It recommended a number of further security measures, such as arming the NISGS with rifles.

An assurance inspection was carried out in June 2012 at Massereene, which was deemed satisfactory. The barracks were then sold in 2013 to Randox Laboratories Ltd, which I believe is relevant in this case. In 2013, the director of personnel services for the Army judged that as a result of the enhanced security measures, the closure of the barracks, the two PSNI investigations and the passage of time, a service inquiry, whose purpose would be to learn lessons and not to apportion blame, would not add materially, a view endorsed by the Adjutant-General and noted by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I understand that the families have been invited to meet to discuss the reasons behind the Army’s decision. I feel that the families may find it useful to have that meeting, and the offer remains open to them.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to how the investigation of the Massereene shootings was carried out. I emphasise that I cannot comment authoritatively on matters devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. Justice is devolved, and with it the PSNI and Forensic Science Northern Ireland. However, I know that the PSNI continues to investigate the murders of both men at Massereene barracks, and the cases are still open. Both the PSNI and this Government share the families’ frustration that no one has yet been brought to book for that heinous attack. It is my sincere hope and expectation that justice will ultimately be brought to bear in this case.

I cannot comment on the specific concerns raised in connection with the investigation and how it was conducted or discuss specific concerns about forensics, as it could affect any future investigation. However, it is my understanding that the senior investigating officer tasked to the case has met with Patrick Azimkar’s parents to discuss their concerns in detail. Furthermore, as a result of the judgment by Justice Deeny in the second trial, both the PSNI and Forensic Science NI conducted a review to examine the issues raised. I am assured that all the recommendations contained in the reviews have been implemented.

I am also aware of the concerns raised by the Azimkar family about the trials, re-trial and acquittal in the case, but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will agree with the proposition that judicial independence is fundamental to criminal justice. Judges must be free to act without pressure, threat or interference. In light of that, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on either the judicial decision or the process, and “Erskine May” specifically discourages me from doing so, but I too remain disappointed and dismayed that no one has yet been made accountable for those appalling crimes. I want convictions, and very few in Northern Ireland want terrorists to get away with their barbarity. It is cause for regret that although Northern Ireland has moved on, its public face is still marred by its association with violence.

I will turn briefly to the use of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland, an important point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. As he knows, there is now no system of Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, as they were abolished in 2007. What we have in Northern Ireland is a system that allows for non-jury trials in specific circumstances where it is deemed necessary to secure a fair trial. The decision is not taken lightly, and it is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland based on the facts of the case in question. That was the case with the trial of those accused in relation to the Massereene shootings.

Although there is rightly a general presumption in favour of a jury trial, the non-jury system is generally recognised as removing the risk of perverse verdicts by reason of intimidation or bias. Furthermore, non-jury trials have the advantage of a written judgment explaining the reasons for conviction or acquittal and are an effective way of securing a fair trial for all parties and mitigating the risk of intimidation or subversion of the judicial process. However, the current non-jury trial provisions are due to expire in July 2015, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will review the current provisions in the coming months.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the support being provided to the families—

Hallett Review

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take whatever steps are necessary to remove barriers to prosecution, based on the advice I am given by police and prosecutors. We will do everything possible to ensure that we do not see a repeat of the collapse of the Downey trial in another instance.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The report makes it quite clear on the cover-up of this scheme that the authors and indeed the former Prime Minister and Secretary of State—appallingly—made representations about murderers not being prosecuted. The least we could have expected from the shadow Secretary of State today was an apology, instead of which we got a brazen defence. The Minister has at least apologised for the way in which the scheme was administered, for the ambiguity, and for the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were not informed. Will she now go further and assure us not only that will cases be left open but that she will be request from the police that everyone who has been issued with a letter will have their case reinvestigated, that new intelligence will be sought and that new investigative channels will be looked at so at least the victims can be sure that those who have received these letters will not be able to live in comfort for the rest of their lives?

[Mrs Villiers]

Let me take this opportunity to repeat the apology that I gave for the lack of transparency and the failure to discuss this scheme. I repeat my concerns about the way in which this scheme as a whole was run, including under my predecessors. I think that has been the cause of much of the distress to victims. The hon. Gentleman asks about the exact steps that will be taken to ensure that errors are corrected and problematic cases dealt with. I counsel against statements of that sort at this stage. We need to be careful to ensure that there is nothing that could be said in haste, which might end up hindering rather than helping a future prosecution. As soon as I am able, I will give further information on how we intend to implement the recommendations. Today, we need to be careful about commenting on specific cases and how they will be dealt with.