Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

In my opening remarks, can I first thank the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for what I regard—this is probably the death knell for him in his position—as a very balanced presentation of the situation we face in Northern Ireland? He recognised, because of the experience he had over the period when we were remembering the signing of the Belfast agreement, the balance that is required there, and the fact that devolved Government in Northern Ireland cannot operate without the support and consent of both communities and their representatives in Northern Ireland.

That is something I think the Minister has still failed to recognise: he does not understand. It is quite clear from some of his remarks today that he does not understand the deep opposition to the current arrangements for governing Northern Ireland, and the difficulties that those arrangements cause for the Unionist population. Quite frankly, we still see the arrangements—whether the Northern Ireland protocol version or the Windsor framework version—as ones that damage our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom to which we belong, and that will lead to divergence in the long run between Northern Ireland and the country to which we belong.

While the Minister may be prepared to accept the compromise, as he says, of some EU law applying to Northern Ireland as the means of having what he described as an “infrastructure-free border”, we do not see it as an infrastructure-free border. An infrastructure is being built in Northern Ireland, and further infrastructure will be built. Indeed, as I pointed out during Northern Ireland questions earlier today, it is not just in Northern Ireland that we are now going to have that infrastructure; we are going to have it in Cairnryan, Liverpool and Holyhead for goods moving from Northern Ireland into GB. I am afraid that is not what he or I campaigned for when we campaigned to leave the European Union. I do not think he should expect Unionists to compromise on being part of the country that many of them fought and died to remain in during a terrorist campaign of over 35 years in Northern Ireland.

The Minister’s second point was that, despite calls for the Assembly to get up and running, he is concerned—I will quote his words back to him—

“about the long-term sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland”,

as well as that the pressures are “extremely challenging” and the Northern Ireland Executive have “difficult …decisions” to make. However, he knows that even if the Executive were up and running, and working splendidly, and everyone was co-operating and prepared to make the hard choices, there still would not be enough money in the pot.

The Minister knows—he actually referred to this—that the Fiscal Council has already made it clear that, in relation to the application of the Barnett formula, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that falls below the needs assessment on which public finance, spending in Northern Ireland and the block grant should be based. We are below it, and we are falling further below it. We are continuing to fall, and the gap is getting wider. When that happened and it was identified in Wales, there was immediate recognition of the problem. Wales had not actually fallen below the percentage, although it was moving towards it, and the Holtham commission made recommendations that ensured not only that a floor was set for moneys to be made available in Barnett consequentials for Wales, but that there were transitional arrangements.

I think this is important, because a lie is being spread around Northern Ireland. The Minister says he is not hectoring us today about getting us back into the Assembly, but I am afraid he does plenty of hectoring when he gets across the water, including putting on Facebook, or wherever, about chanting with groups to get back into Stormont, when he knows full well that getting back into Stormont is not going to grow the purse, change the financial situation or make it any easier. The extremely challenging difficulties for long-term sustainability will still be there, so let us not fool anybody.

I do accept that the Assembly had some responsibility for the situation we are in, but when I was Finance Minister in Northern Ireland we always balanced our budget. In fact, we were able to get three-year rolling budgets, so there was certainty for Departments, and we were able to make efficiency savings of 3% almost every year. However, some bad decisions have been made, and the fact that Sinn Féin could not get any of the parties to agree to the budget proposals brought forward when the Executive was functioning is an indication that there is such a role there. The Finance Minister was not capable of delivering a budget on which we could reach agreement, hence the overspend that has occurred. The impact of all that is that even if the Assembly were up and running, the detriment to public services in Northern Ireland would not disappear.

Let us look at some of the implications of the current budget and draw some comparisons. This year, Whitehall Departments will have an increase of 1.8% in resource spending. People argue that is not enough—it does not meet inflation, pay pressures and so on, and I accept that—but in Northern Ireland resource spending will fall by 0.9%.

For education, the budget in England will go up by 6.5% in the next year; in Northern Ireland it will fall by 2.7%, and £100 million of that fall is on special education. Almost every week we see people coming to our constituency offices who are desperate about their youngsters, who need support because they are autistic or have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or one of many other educational disadvantages, yet they cannot get assessed, let alone get support. Of course, the pressure on teachers’ pay will further add to school budgets.

In health, over the period to 2024-25 spending in England will go up by 32.9%. In Northern Ireland it will go up by 18.1%. So, again, we will fall further behind even though we have the difficulties and waiting lists that we currently face.

In policing, the Government have recently been boasting that they have reached their target of 20,000 extra police officers in England. In Northern Ireland, despite the promises made in New Decade, New Approach, as a result of the budgetary pressures we have a fall in police officers to well below what Patten recommended was needed to police Northern Ireland.

To add to that, although the Minister knows that Northern Ireland is not being fully funded—the Fiscal Council has told him that—that the Barnett squeeze is getting greater and that the gap will increase, we are being told that if there are any Barnett consequentials for Departments in Northern Ireland this year as a result of, for example, the Government nicely agreeing to pay increases, Northern Ireland will not get them, because they will be used to repay the overspend on what is already accepted to be an underfunded budget. It was last year, the year before and the year before that—in fact, I think it goes right back to 2017. That is what we are facing.

Just last week, I spoke to a school principal who said, “If there’s a pay increase for teachers, as the education budget has been cut by the degree that it has, I cannot afford to pay it unless I sack teachers.” It will be the same with nurses and right across the public service. Indeed, at a time when cuts are biting, the Department for Communities has said that it has got a £27 million deficit, so it does not have the money to recruit the extra staff it needs to process benefits, because of the increasing demand for them.

Those are all the consequences. So given the scale of the gap, let us not pretend that, somehow or other, if the Executive were up and running tomorrow, fairy dust would just fall on Northern Ireland and all of those fiscal problems would disappear—they would not. That is not a reason for not wanting devolved Government back, but it is an indication that we should not be selling the lie to people in Northern Ireland of, “Get back into government and suddenly all of the problems that you are facing—in health, education, communities, policing and everything else—will disappear.”

One of the reasons for amendment 5 is that the DUP recognises that, in order to look at the long-term sustainability of public services in Northern Ireland, we need to know what the Fiscal Council is saying and put in place an arrangement—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but Committee consideration will follow this stage, so I would be grateful if he confined his remarks to Second Reading.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not going to go into the amendment in any detail—we can do that later—but I just wanted to refer to the fact that the Fiscal Council had made its comments.

When we look at the Bill, as has been described by a party leader in an earlier comment in Northern Ireland, we see that most of it is actually about ways of raising finance and advising how there should be consultation. Clause 2 talks about the consultation on different ways of raising finance as if that is how we will fill the gap. That takes money out of an economy that the Government have already damaged through the protocol, with the difficulties that has caused to Northern Ireland businesses and the costs that people there now face as a result of it being more difficult to get goods from the cheapest source—GB—with which they would normally have traded. Now they have to buy more expensive, and probably lower quality, goods from an EU supply chain. There are also the extra costs on businesses, and indeed the extra cost on the public purse, because £500 million now has to be devoted to the trader support service to help companies over the hurdles caused by the protocol.

Is the answer simply to raise more finance in Northern Ireland? I accept that people in Northern Ireland have things such as free prescriptions that, it could be argued, we could well look at. I remember a debate about free prescriptions. As Finance Minister, I was not keen on them, but I was told at that stage—it was true—that the cost to be spent on administering the distinction between people eligible for free prescriptions and those who were not would hardly compensate for the amount of extra money.

However, let us look at the extensive source of revenue that we do have in Northern Ireland: the rates. It has been estimated that even if we increased rates by 107%—if we more than doubled them—which would have a massive impact on households in Northern Ireland, we would raise only about 5% more revenue to the block grant that we have at present. The argument could be made if rates in Northern Ireland were much lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, but actually they are higher than those in Manchester, Sunderland, Liverpool and many other parts of England. So it is not as if we do not already tax people in Northern Ireland where we can to a level that is commensurate, we believe, with their ability to pay.

Clause 2 is included in the Bill to say, as has been widely spread around Northern Ireland, “If the Assembly is not up and running, it is more likely that other ways of raising revenue will be imposed on people in Northern Ireland, so get your politicians back, because otherwise you’ll be charged for things for which you weren’t in the past, or given extra charges on things you are being charged for at present.” I must say to the Minister that that kind of blackmail is not the way to restore the Assembly.

The Assembly will be restored when, first of all, the terms of the Belfast agreement are adhered to so that the views of Unionists, as well as nationalists, are respected, and Unionist Ministers are not required to sit in the Assembly and implement the very arrangements that we then come here and complain will destroy us as a part of the United Kingdom. I hope Members understand that. That is what is being asked of Unionists: to go into the Assembly under court direction and implement the Windsor framework, even though we know that in the long term it will be detrimental to the Union. We will talk about amendments later, but departmental officials will have to make some very controversial decisions. That will require some ministerial direction, hence why we believe there should be provision in the Bill for ministerial direction of civil servants, so that difficult decisions can be made and we can try to make some reforms.

I will make one last point, which relates to one made by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). Can we not look at ways to better use public money? I say that with some knowledge of the steps that Unionist Ministers have taken in the past in recognition of the fact that there are better ways. The Altnagelvin cancer unit, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), is a good example. It was indicated to us—I was Finance Minister at the time and the DUP held the health Ministry—that we could not afford a cancer unit in the north-west and the Irish Government could not afford a cancer unit of their own in the north-west, so we co-operated. They provided some of the capital and we provided some of the capital. They provided some of the running costs—they still do—and we provided some of the running costs. So this idea that Unionists are not willing to look at how we can make reforms, take decisions and make public finance more sustainable is just not on.

I look forward to the day when devolution is restored and we can work in a co-operative way, but it will not happen until there is respect for the Unionist view in Northern Ireland. And even when it does happen, it will not be effective if the resources are not there to enable us to make the kinds of changes that are required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker: as so often in this House— and there is nothing wrong with this, by the way—I am called last, but always very pleased to make a contribution to the debate.

My colleagues who have preceded me outlined the precarious situation we are in due to the punishing budget that has been set. The Minister may well say that that is a different debate—and perhaps rightly so—but there can be no other topic. Interim arrangements within which the Secretary of State will continue to act in the absence of the Assembly can be acceptable only if the Secretary of State intends to act, instead of sitting and watching foundational aspects of the country crumble, in an attempt to strongarm Unionists into accepting an incomplete and damaging framework.

We are happy—I state this very honestly and truthfully— to work with the Prime Minister, and with the Secretary of State and Government, to find a workable solution, but there must be a massive effort to find that solution, with engagement that understands the position of Unionism. I understand that the mechanisms in place need the assent of this House to continue. However, the question that Northern Ireland MPs must ask themselves today is whether we are willing to play a part in this distraction from the harm that Government are seeking to do to Northern Ireland and their people, who dare—that is us: we dare—to demand parity of esteem within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Obviously, different political parties are making their plea to find a way forward, and we have different interpretations of that, but we are all trying to secure a way forward for everyone.

In preparing for today’s debate on the Bill, I met a number of playgroups in my constituency to discuss the interim arrangements. I want to flag the removal of the pathway fund for early years, due to the ridiculous funding cuts faced by the Department of Education under the budget, which is only one of the harms that I am concerned that this Bill will perpetrate. A constituent of mine emailed me in the last two weeks regarding the likelihood that the pathway fund project that her child attends will cease at the end of June 2023. This is a massive issue in my constituency. I have met a number of playgroups over the last week or 10 days, and they have all made similar requests. I quote this lady:

“The project offered by the local provider helps support the social and emotional, cognitive and physical development of my child, using a holistic approach, delivered in a safe and engaging environment. My child should not have to miss out on being able to access this service which provides them the opportunity to learn and develop because of the removal of the Pathway Fund in our local community.”

She continues:

“As parents we continue to be reminded that the early stages of a child’s life is the most important and we inevitably try our best to ensure our children have the best start in life. Opportunities to access and engage in projects that support, not only my child’s development but my own as a parent, are not readily available within this area. I am significantly worried about the negative impact the loss of the Pathway Fund will have on my child, our family and the local community.”

This debate on the interim arrangements Bill gives us the opportunity to highlight this issue. The same concern has been replicated in my constituency of Strangford by more than eight playgroups that have contacted me. Early years development, as outlined in the Prince of Wales’s groundbreaking report, is absolutely essential—there is not an MP in this House, and certainly not on the Opposition side of the Chamber, who does not recognise that. This situation will have a dire long-term effect on the children in my constituency, as well as throughout Northern Ireland.

I had three boys. They are young men now—35, 33 and 31—but when they were small, they attended the playgroup and nursery. I could see the engagement at an early stage that my boys had at that playgroup, which is similar to the one I have mentioned. It gave them social engagement and the chance to build friendships. They kept those friends from nursery and the playgroup the whole way through to primary school and secondary school, and today, in adult life, they still have those friends.

I have often said that Northern Ireland has been used as Europe’s political football to score points. When I look at my children’s education, I can see how vital it is, and yet children’s education will potentially be reduced. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have received my meeting requests, which I sent to him just last week, to discuss this very issue. Following that action, let me say that the education and future of our children is not, and can never be considered—I use these words deliberately—as cannon fodder. Continuity funding is what we are requesting, and it needs to be allocated. That is my plea today on behalf of parents throughout my constituency and across Northern Ireland, including in constituencies whose MPs do not even take their seats here—we are here to advocate for them as well. This interim arrangements Bill allows for things to continue. The view of Unionists on the ground in Northern Ireland who I have spoken to is that they are to be punished by the Government here.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is not here—I am sure he is not too far away—referred to the Republic of Ireland as the place we should be looking towards. I will give the House a couple of wee facts about that. In the Republic of Ireland—which is where he seemed to indicate he wishes to be—anyone who wants an appointment with their GP has to pay €45 to €60 each time. If they have to go to accident and emergency, they pay €100 every time. Anyone 16 or over who has to stay overnight in the hospital pays €80, while the cost of living in the Republic of Ireland is 21% higher than in the United Kingdom. And anyone who wants a Big Mac from McDonald’s—I am not a fan; I do not buy them—will have to pay £2 more in the Republic of Ireland than they will in Northern Ireland or across the United Kingdom. Those are just examples of that paradise that the hon. Gentleman refers to—which is not a paradise at all—so let us keep things in perspective when we look at costs.

I spent last weekend, as I know my colleagues also did, at community events and meetings with constituents. The huge majority, reflecting that opinion, urged us to work for a solution: to get back to Stormont while standing firm for Unionism. That is the key, and it is disappointing that, while we are pushing for a solution that recognises the position of Unionism where it is, we are unfortunately not getting the reply from Government that we would wish for. That is the challenge for the United Kingdom Government and the Minister of State, and that what we are attempting to do. I humbly ask my Government to work with us and not against us to find the solution to the difficulties for our businesses and to legislate for our constitutional position, so that we are not at the whim of Government and whatever position they have taken that most expediently deals with the Northern Ireland issue.

It is important to put on record where we are with the Windsor framework. One of the reasons why, at this moment in time, my party has not accepted the Windsor framework is that we have sought legal opinion on whether it is worth the paper it is written on. The legal opinion from one law firm is that it is not. The Loyalist Communities Council, the Orange Order and the Unionist Forum each sought a legal opinion from three different law firms, and every response was the same. The Stormont brake is not worth the paper it is written on. The European Research Group, of which the Minister was once the leader, also sought a legal opinion, and the response it received is that the Windsor framework is not worth the paper it is written on. I have great respect for the Minister, but what a disappointment it is to find that his opinion today is so different from that which he had when a member of the ERG.

I understand the necessity for this Bill, but the Government have to take a giant step to embrace Unionism and its viewpoint. Northern Ireland Unionists are being treated abysmally.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is not just a case of asking the Government to embrace Unionism. This is about the Government standing up for the country they claim to govern, because through the protocol and the Windsor framework they have handed responsibility for lawmaking to a body outside the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

Those words are salient. I am sure the Minister is taking note, and hopefully he will give a positive reply. My right hon. Friend is right. We are clearly second-class citizens.

This punishing Bill hurts not only Unionists but everyone in Northern Ireland. If I am to endorse the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State to continue wielding the necessary powers, I ask for an assurance that the extension will bring about a signal change, which the Government are currently not doing. As my right hon. Friend said, this Bill causes great concern even to the staunchest British heart in Northern Ireland. What are we clinging to? That is the question he asked.

I remind myself of those who shed their blood to protect Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, including many relatives of mine. Every year we celebrate the anniversary of the Ballydugan four, who were murdered by the IRA 33 years ago—no one was held accountable. My cousin Kenneth was murdered by the IRA—no one was held accountable. Billy Montgomery’s son Stuart was murdered by the IRA in Pomeroy—no one was held accountable.

All these people gave their life, and their family’s lives, for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In their name and memory I once again ask that we are treated justly and fairly, because we have shed our blood and served in uniform for this country. I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) served in the Ulster Defence Regiment too. We are not afraid of serving in uniform because it is the right thing to do. As British people, we think we should do that, and many others do too.

When this extension is granted once again, as I am sure it will be because of the Government’s strength, I urge the Government and the Minister to take this fresh opportunity to engage with constituents and work for the benefit of the whole Province, both those of a Unionist persuasion, as we are, and those of a nationalist persuasion. I love this country, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I say we are better together, but that means everyone being equal, and at this moment we are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am confident that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I will not confirm the figures when I do not have them immediately in front of me in the terms that he has put them. As I mentioned in oral questions earlier today, for all of us in this House, and indeed in all the devolved institutions, we do need to engage with the fiscal projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is no doubt in my mind that, for the rest of our political careers and far beyond, there will be a problem with meeting the many demands of age-related spending. All of us will need to rise to that challenge, as it will need, in particular, healthcare reform. The Bengoa report is long since overdue in implementation. I also talked earlier about healthcare.

A total of £600,000 a day is spent maintaining a divided education system. It cannot be right just on a cost basis, never mind all of the social divisions that it leads to. That conversation needs to be had. I have made that position clear. The Government’s position is very clear: we are in favour of integrated education. I know that there will be a spectrum of views on this, but when it comes to funding, we are all clear that the problems that are faced will endure. We are clear that there will need to be a conversation about the Barnett formula—I am aware of the Barnett squeeze—but none of these things will be anything like plausible to solve, in a way that will be acceptable to all sections of the community, until the Executive is restored.

[Sammy Wilson]

I ask the Minister, whose party talks all the time in this House about choice in education, why he wishes to shoehorn education in Northern Ireland into one particular system. Does he not accept that, in Northern Ireland, there are those who choose to have church education, those who choose to have grammar school education, and those who want to have integrated schools? Does he not accept that the same choice that he would have for his constituents should be available to people in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Baker]

I absolutely do. Since the right hon. Gentleman mentions my constituents, I am happy to tell him that we are a grammar system in Wycombe and that the Highcrest Academy has built what it calls an “all ability” school there, which I regard as a comprehensive. Strangely enough, I helped it against the forces of the hard left, which were trying to avoid building an all ability school under the grammar system, and I rather approve of its ability to bring back choice for parents.

We have a co-operative school in my constituency, which I support, and a Catholic school—by the way, Muslim parents, and there are many in Wycombe, choose freely to send their children to the Catholic school. I am all in favour of school choice for my constituents and for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, but the question is at what cost. That question is one that he and his colleague Members of the Legislative Assembly need to answer in a re-formed Executive.

However, when I go over to Northern Ireland as a Minister and meet young people who say to me, “I was 16 before I met my first Catholic”, or “I was 18 before I met my first Unionist”, there is so much wrong with that. I find myself amazed that that is even a conversation in the 21st century. Yes to choice, but at what cost?

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

On numerous occasions today the Minister has urged the Northern Ireland parties to get back in. It is my job to hold his feet to the fire as well, and to point out that he, as a UK Government Minister, has skin in the game on this one. It was, of course, some of the actions of the UK Government that led to some of the challenges that are faced in Northern Ireland, which proves that what happens here in Westminster—the decisions taken in Downing Street and in Whitehall—has a profound impact over there. So rather than always looking to those parties to sort out the problems that have sometimes been created through decisions taken over there, the Minister must be a very active participant in that process.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while the Minister may say that he has built bridges with the EU and the Irish Government, he has built a bonfire on the bridge with the Unionists?

[Peter Kyle]

My job, at times like this, is not to take the opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman has put before me, but to stand to one side and allow this conversation to unfold between his party and the Government. Clearly there is some healing to do in that relationship—a relationship that has at times been so close that it has led to the two parties serving in the same Government, and to his party supporting the Government—but at present there is dysfunction there, which I accept and acknowledge and view from afar, while trying as hard as I can on behalf of the Labour party to do everything possible to ensure that we can build strong relationships that can heal the divides and get Northern Ireland going again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.