Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As I will explain, the primary legislation enabled by the Bill has had extensive scrutiny over the last four years. The Order in Council published alongside the Bill reflects the proposed welfare legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly that fell as a result of the tabling of a petition of concern. That proposed legislation had a First stage, a Second stage, a Committee stage, a Consideration stage, a Further Consideration stage and a Final stage, and there was an extensive debate on a legislative consent motion. It has, therefore, had extensive scrutiny, including 21 weeks of cross-party talks this year and last year. It is not an ideal way to legislate, but the proposed legislation, at its heart, has had extensive scrutiny.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has outlined what debate there has already been on the terms of the Bill. Will she accept that one reason for urgency is that, until the Bill is passed, Northern Ireland will continue to lose money by the day to the Treasury by way of payments that have to be made back because of the differences in the welfare arrangements, and the Northern Ireland budget cannot sustain that?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The difference between the level of benefits in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is £2 million a week, which is a drain on the resources of the Executive that they can ill afford at this difficult time for the public finances. Successive attempts to resolve the welfare question over the last four years have foundered, which has contributed largely to a political crisis in Northern Ireland and the Executive’s finances. By early autumn, it looked increasingly likely that the issue would bring down the devolved institutions themselves. As he points out, this has been costing the Executive money—approximately £2 million a week. That is the difference between what the Treasury is prepared to pay—to fund up to parity with Great Britain—and the cost of continuing to run an old, unreformed welfare system in Northern Ireland. The Executive estimate that the cost to their budget will rise to more than £200 million next year and to more than £500 million a year by the end of this Parliament. That is simply unaffordable, and the figures do not even take into account the costs of IT.

Although welfare is technically a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, up to now it has always retained parity with the rest of the UK and been fully integrated into the UK system, through the Department for Work and Pensions. Once Great Britain moves entirely to the new system, based around universal credit, Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the DWP computer systems on which it currently relies to assess and deliver people’s benefits. It would be left with no option but to devise, implement and maintain an entirely separate and more expensive system and meet the massive costs of the IT needed to support it. For a small devolved Administration, that cost would be prohibitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I beg to move amendment (a), after sub-paragraph (6)(b), at end, insert—

“(ba) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chair for separate decision;”

I am glad to move this amendment, which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) as well as mine.

The Secretary of State has tried to explain the circumstances in which we face this programme motion. The amendment does not alter the time taken by the House in respect of that motion—I wish it did. We would have liked to have more time, just as our colleagues in the Assembly—not just SDLP Members, but Members of other parties—wanted more time to debate the issue last week. The original vote in the Assembly—on whether the business should be taken there this week to give the Assembly parties time to digest things—was 58 to 33. That meant that the legislation would have come here following what happened in the Assembly.

The Secretary of State suggested that the legislative consent motion followed standard practice. It does not. Paragraph (6) of the timetable motion makes it clear that at the conclusion of the Committee stage, no amendment or new clause tabled by anyone other than the Government can be put to a vote. The right of the House to vote, properly, on an amendment has been completely circumscribed by the timetable motion as it stands.

The Secretary of State actually had the neck to say that if the amendment were withdrawn, that would allow more time for debates on crucial amendments and new clauses. By providing only two hours for the Committee stage and Third Reading, the Government have ensured that there will not be any significant time in which to debate any amendments or new clauses, and also—in paragraph (6)—that no new clause, and no amendment other than a Government amendment, can be put to a vote. That is a very unusual procedure, which Members should not tolerate. If they do, they will risk creating a precedent that they will regret.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is advancing this argument. Does he not accept that the legislative consent motion sent legislation back to this House for this House to pass on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Is he saying that he would prefer this House to override the wishes of the people who are elected in Northern Ireland? That is what his argument amounts to.

[Mark Durkan]

It is not what my argument amounts to. If the Assembly is saying in the legislative consent motion tabled by Sinn Féin and the DUP that it wants the legislation to come here, we should do our legislative business in proper order. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should not be any debate at all, and that we are lucky to have the right even to table amendments.

Let us look at what the legislative consent motion says. Members of other parties might like to know what they are being asked to support. If they are being told, “Take this on foot of the legislative consent motion”—if they are being told that the legislative consent motion is holy writ—they should bear in mind the fact that it says:

“That this Assembly consents to the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015 being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament”—

that is a reference to the Bill with which we are dealing today—and

“approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster”.

Many of us in this House did not approve those clauses as initially introduced. Many of us, in a number of parties, voted against aspects of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Is the idea that we must now, on foot of the legislative consent motion, turn ourselves inside out—members of the Labour party, the SDLP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and the Green party Member—and say, “We opposed the Bill when it was debated in this House, but we no longer oppose it? We now approve the welfare clauses that were in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster.” Well, my position on those clauses has not changed, the position of my hon. Friends in the SDLP has not changed, and I should be very surprised if the position of members of the other parties had changed.

The legislative consent motion goes on to approve

“the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015; and the Executive’s proposals to enhance payments flowing from the agreement announced on 17 November 2015.”

Members might want to take a careful look at just what is in the legislative consent motion, and note that they are being asked to contradict their position in relation to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced here.

Some of us are trying to use the Committee stage to table due amendments which would be relevant to the Bill. The Secretary of State again tried to confuse things by referring to the amount of scrutiny that had been given to the Bill that was before the Assembly, which has now been largely transposed into a draft Order in Council running to 126 pages. What we are being asked to consider today is not that draft Order in Council, but the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill, all 58 lines of it. Meanwhile, we are being asked to nod through 237 lines of a timetable motion so that we will not have the right to table amendments and put them to the vote. If the Secretary of State really meant what she said about time for debate on crucial amendments and new clauses, she would not be resisting this amendment; she would be agreeing to it so that paragraph (6) would be amended and the Chair could put other matters to the vote if that is what Members and the House so wished. This is about good parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I know that there is an attempt by the SDLP and others to try to derail what has been agreed by parties in the “Fresh Start” document. The amendment before us today is an attempt to do that and also shows the inconsistencies that have existed since this impasse was reached in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We support the programme motion because we want this issue dealt with and we want it dealt with quickly. We want it dealt with for the following reasons.

First, despite what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there is urgency given the financial consequences of delay for Northern Ireland. The issue is not just the haemorrhaging of money to the Treasury on a daily basis because of the differences between benefit rates in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. I must also say that it is not unfair of the Treasury to be asking for this money. The parity principle has always applied when there have been changes in welfare and benefits in the rest of the UK. Although the matters had been devolved to Northern Ireland, the principle applied that provided Northern Ireland replicated and reflected the changes that occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, the payments would be made in full by the Treasury, and as part not of the block grant but of annually managed expenditure. It was always clear, however, that if Northern Ireland decided that it wanted the luxury of having a different system—the Secretary of State has described the problems that that would cause—that difference would have to be paid for. When the SDLP and others blocked welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland, they knew what the penalty would be. That penalty is being paid today, and it will be paid tomorrow and every day for as long as the delay lasts. That will have an impact on the amount of money available for dealing with hospital waiting lists, for schools, for roads and for everything else.

Another problem has arisen as a result. It is not just a question of money haemorrhaging to the Treasury. There has also been an impasse in the rest of the budget, so money that should have been allocated as a result of monitoring rounds has not been allocated, and budgets that should have been set have not been set. We were heading for a budget overspend, which would have brought devolution to a halt. There cannot be devolution if there is no money to pay for the work of the Departments and the expenses that the Departments incur.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the sooner we get this legislation done, the sooner we can apply to the Treasury to reclaim some of those overpayments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not think there is any chance of reclaiming those overpayments. I wish that there were, but there is not. Unfortunately, we just have to pay. This issue needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency today, and we support the Government’s proposal for the limited time.

The second reason for dealing with these matters quickly is that we have already had a debate on them in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I listened to the SDLP Assembly Member for West Belfast, Mr Attwood, talking in the Assembly for about 60 hours about his opposition to the measures and giving us his fanciful ideas on how we could avoid having to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This debate is on the allocation of time motion. I know that the hon. Gentleman is building the basis of his argument, but I am a bit bothered that he is going to tempt other Members to talk about the same issues. I want to be able to get everybody debating the depth of the Bill.

[Sammy Wilson]

I hope that what I am saying is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The relevance is this: we do not need an extensive debate here in this Chamber because these matters have already been extensively debated, and decisions made on them, in Northern Ireland. The irony is that, only last week, the SDLP was arguing that there should not be a legislative consent motion because welfare reform should be decided in Northern Ireland. Now that the Bill has been shaped and agreed on by the parties in Northern Ireland, SDLP Members want Members of this House to be able to change it. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that they do not want anyone else to get their sticky fingers on welfare reform, only to argue when the Bill arrives here that the House of Commons should make decisions that override the Northern Ireland Assembly.

For that reason, we support the Government’s allocation of time motion, which will allow these matters to be dealt with quickly. It will not allow amendments to be tabled that would change the Bill or the will of the Assembly. We want the will of the Assembly to be reflected. The Secretary of State knows what the will of the Assembly is, and the Bill reflects the views of the majority in the Assembly. We should therefore get this done quickly tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we believe that this instrument is an abuse of parliamentary democracy, an abuse of this House and an abuse of the role of Parliament and of the Cabinet. This should not happen. There will be no diminution of the time available for debate on other aspects of the Bill. This is a matter of procedural priority and propriety, and of the accountability of this House. In any liberal democracy, there will be questions about accountability and about the role of Parliament and the Cabinet. The Cabinet should not seek to subjugate Parliament in this regard. We believe that this matter has serious implications for devolution in Northern Ireland, and that it could set a difficult and dangerous precedent for other devolved institutions in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady recall that last week, in a flurry of rhetoric, her own spokesman on this issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly asked, in terms, “How dare anyone take this issue, which we have fought for so long to have devolved, to the House of Commons so that people outside this jurisdiction can make decisions about what happens in Northern Ireland?” Is she now saying that he was wrong, and that she wants this House to make those decisions, over the heads of Assembly Members?

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to direct me down a certain path. That debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly dealt with the measures in the Bill and with the legislative consent motion. Tonight, we are debating my party’s amendment to the allocation of time motion. I remind Members of the motion’s statement that

“the Question on any amendment moved or Motion”

can be made only “by a Minister”.

That means that we can debate our amendments but we cannot move them. Is that not unquestionably undemocratic, in this particular House? Therefore, I second and support our amendment.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the fact that we now have this Bill before the House of Commons. Had the Government listened to us some time ago, we might have saved a year in which we would we have saved the money that is now being returned to the Treasury. More importantly, we would have saved the damage that has been done to devolution. Apart from the costs involved, the stalemate that has arisen from the failure to agree the welfare reform proposals that we thought had been agreed this time last year in the Stormont House agreement has led to a budgetary crisis in the Assembly. During that stalemate, many of the spending proposals could not be undertaken, with a budget that we knew would have been overspent had we gone through to the end of the year. All that has played out badly in Northern Ireland with regard to the credibility of the Assembly.

This agreement, and the fact that we have now removed one of the most toxic issues that was affecting the work of the Assembly, namely welfare reform, is therefore to be welcomed. I am glad that we have now got this issue on to the Floor of the House.

[Lady Hermon]

The hon. Gentleman is a very senior member of his party, and rightly so—he has been in it for an awfully long time. Will he therefore give us some insight into the negotiations which—thank goodness, after all this waiting—managed to persuade Sinn Féin to agree to this deal? What was the turning point? What was the significant agreement with Sinn Féin whereby it agreed to welfare reform? I am intrigued to know what his new leader, or future leader—[Interruption.] I would be delighted, in fact, if there was a new leader, but will he just answer the question instead of speculating about the leadership?

[Sammy Wilson]

If the hon. Lady had thought of the trend that there has been since the DUP became the largest party in Northern Ireland, she could easily have identified the reason why this has happened. We were told that we could not get devolution because Sinn Féin would never divorce itself from violence, and then it did; we were told that we could never get policing and justice devolved because Sinn Féin would never support the police, and then it did; and we were told that we could never get welfare reform through because Sinn Féin was opposed to it, and we faced it down on that. The record of the DUP should not be compared with the record of the Ulster Unionist party when it was the largest party in Northern Ireland, because it rolled over to Sinn Féin whereas we have stared it down on all these issues and succeeded. I cannot get into the mindset of Sinn Féin. All I know is that a year ago it was saying that under no circumstances would it accept Tory diktats on welfare, and now it has asked the Government to bring forward this legislation, to take it through the House of Commons, and to implement the changes.

I welcome that, because our party never accepted that the devolution of welfare was necessary. Given the parity principle, we would always have been caught in a position whereby we either reflected Westminster legislation or paid the cost of it, which, even in terms of different systems, was never going to be sustainable. Now we are where we are, and I am pleased about that, because it removes one of the biggest barriers to making devolution work in Northern Ireland. I hope that we have now laid the foundation for more workable devolution in future, because we are a party that believes in devolution and wants to see it work. I think that the sacrifices we have made indicate that.

Secondly, this measure brings immediate benefit to Northern Ireland. It removes the toxicity that existed around welfare reform, but also enables us now to move on to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) said that one of the reasons he is not happy is that the agreement does not provide for jobs. I want people in my constituency to be off welfare and to have the dignity of work, but the hon. Gentleman said that the deal does nothing to get people into employment. However, it paves the way for corporation tax changes in Northern Ireland, which will be a job creation measure. Half the savings made from fraud and error in welfare can be retained by the Northern Ireland budget. The agreement specifically says that we can deal with training and youth unemployment. A capital financial package will be available for shared education and shared housing, which will create jobs for people in the construction industry. The Northern Ireland Executive will also be able to keep some of the capital receipts from the sale of assets, and they can be ploughed back into the economy.

The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, wrong to say that the Bill does nothing but penalise people on welfare without giving them an alternative. The Executive now have in their hands the means to provide some of the things that he and I are concerned about. I know that he was not making a cheap political point, because he has a record of being concerned about unemployment not just in his own constituency, but right across Northern Ireland. At least this agreement secures the resources by which some of those issues can be addressed.

Thirdly, although we cannot deviate from parity without there being some cost to Northern Ireland, the Executive have taken it upon themselves to look at where we could change some of the welfare issues and put our own imprint on the Northern Ireland welfare system. Over the next few years, £585 million will be devoted to just that. On cuts to the spare room subsidy, for example, we took the view that we did not have the housing structure to allow for the flexibility required in the housing market, so we have put money into exempting people from the benefit reduction that would have incurred. On the changes to rates—or council tax, as it is known in the rest of the United Kingdom—we have put £17 million aside so that low-income families will be supported and not lose out. Money has also been put aside for tax credit changes. The approach has been tailored. The Bill will go through—as has been agreed by the Executive, and asked for by the Assembly—with those flexibilities. It is a good deal, which is one of the reasons we will be pleased to go through the Lobby tonight in support of the Bill passing through this House.

Finally, there are still those who wish to conduct guerrilla warfare against the institutions in Northern Ireland. Some of them do so because they want to score points against other political parties. We have seen an example of that today. Last week, the Social Democratic and Labour party criticised Sinn Féin in the Assembly, saying, “How dare they dilute devolution by asking for this welfare reform Bill to be taken to the House of Commons? The House of Commons should have no say over it, because it’s a devolved issue.” Now that the Bill has come here, however, SDLP Members are complaining because the House of Commons cannot have a say on making changes. That was, of course, a convenient way of beating Sinn Féin.

Others, such as Traditional Unionist Voice, would have liked the Bill to have been delayed, because they hoped the whole deal would unravel as a result. They want to destroy devolution, despite all the benefits it has brought to Northern Ireland. For that reason, it is important that we address the issue urgently. It has taken long enough to strike the deal, and now that it has been struck let us deliver it for the people of Northern Ireland. Tonight the House of Commons can play a role in helping to improve conditions in Northern Ireland by passing this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan]

I take that on board, but only to a certain point. We were not listened to as much as we wanted, and we were certainly ignored quite a bit at the end as the two main parties took control.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kinahan]

Not at the moment.

Was it a case of, “Any deal will do,” perhaps to keep the Prime Minister happy or, more importantly, to fit in with the First Minister’s resignation and glorification at his party conference last weekend? That is deeply worrying.

Some five weeks ago I spoke about the Stormont crisis in an effort to show this House that the present Stormont devolved system does not work. The current Government do not work and I intend to show why that is the case. During that debate we highlighted the fact that, out of the £80 million in the social investment fund, only £1 million had been spent. I also showed that shared education, the racial equality strategy, same-sex marriage and many more things were all stalled by the Executive. I also raised the fact that welfare reform could not be agreed, because Sinn Féin had pulled out of the Stormont House discussions after initially agreeing with them. The consequence is that all our Departments are grinding to a halt; no budget was agreed as a result of welfare not being agreed. So, here we are, passing it over to Westminster to do it for us.

I remember it being made very clear in the Stormont Chamber that, in effect, all the Finance Minister had to do was allocate the Barnett formula funds to the various Departments and that she was no more than a glorified accountant. It seems that we cannot even do that. We have had to hand over the responsibility to Westminster so that it can do the allocation for us.

Stormont is a legislative Assembly—its job is to legislate. May I make it absolutely clear that my party—the Ulster Unionist party—has all along been against handing power back to Westminster? Yet here we are, handing back to Westminster the power to legislate. It is very sad that Stormont cannot even do what it was set up to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why we paid money back was that his party, when it was having its Jeremy Corbyn moment, was prepared to oppose the welfare changes and was therefore responsible for some of those payments? He cannot run away from that and blame it on somebody else; his own party took that stance.

[Danny Kinahan]

We had very good reasons for taking that stance at the time. We can certainly complain because we are where we are today.

We really need help on welfare in Northern Ireland. It pains me to say so, because I do not want to be part of a begging bowl Government. I want to see Northern Ireland thrive. We have the high-tech skills, the best schools and the entrepreneurs, but we also have the unemployed, the disadvantaged and mental health problems that the years of troubles have left us with. As other hon. Members have said, we do not have the jobs and skills base for those at whom the welfare reforms are aimed. We need reskilling and the right manual jobs for this new welfare system to work.

The roll-out of universal credit in Northern Ireland has experienced major delays and other problems while dealing only with the easy cases. On the disability living allowance and personal independence payment, Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of DLA claims for poor mental health than in Great Britain: in 2010, mental health issues were the disabling condition for 23% of all DLA claims in Northern Ireland, whereas the equivalent figure was 12% in Great Britain. When it comes to tax credits, the changes will hurt far too many, and even with the Chancellor’s minimum wage plans, the childcare help and housing plans, 121,000 people will still be left short by just under £1,000 a year, which will affect our economy, our health service and, of course, our mental health numbers. We need to mitigate the tax credit cuts. With Westminster as yet not changing its plans, Stormont will have to pick up the effects of these cuts. That is one reason why this deal is not as good as it could be. As I have said, it is worse than the original Stormont House agreement.

The Bill really shocks me in that it is only agreed by the two main parties. It is almost as though the Government wanted a deal at any cost, but many have felt that we needed a whole new deal—not a Stormont House agreement, but a complete reworking of all post-Belfast agreement deals. We could have done not with a fresh or even a false start, but with a new start to tie up all the loose ends, such as the legacy issues; better government with a proper opposition; proper action not just on speaking rights and finance, but on a change in the committee structure; and a reworking of the petition of concern, but not into the damp squib of what looks like an effectual code.

So much more could have been included in the deal. I wish we had seen it as a way of drawing a line in the sand. I believe today is a sad day for Northern Ireland. We have shown how big a failure our Stormont is in its present hands and how it cannot agree on anything. I want to see Northern Ireland really thrive. It has the skills, and if we could have more action and more decisions, it can get there. I am grateful for what we have got today, but it could have been so much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

It is interesting to note that, according to research carried out by the Library, 112,500 people in Northern Ireland are in receipt of tax credits and the annual £60 million of tax credit top-ups for the next four years will meet only 40% of what Northern Ireland will lose.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not mean to cut the hon. Lady off during a flourish of rhetoric, but does she accept that the welfare reform legislation does not include changes to tax credits? Those have been made through other legislation that is totally separate. It is wrong to set up a straw man by indicating that there is a connection between this legislation and tax credits.

[Ms Ritchie]

My understanding is that the British Government, whose representatives are here today, including the Secretary of State, are claiming that that is the situation.

The people of Northern Ireland fought long and hard with political parties and both Governments to secure the democratic political structures. The SDLP wants to see the bedding down of those institutions through political stability; economic prosperity; greater devolution in respect of fiscal flexibilities, broadcasting and telecommunications; and the deepening of the north-south and British-Irish structures that were facilitated by the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We do not want to see power removed from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive to be given to the Secretary of State and this Chamber. That was not the purpose of the Act that we voted for in 1998, when power was given to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, but it would be much more helpful if he and his colleagues supported our amendments, which would help to clarify matters and to further delineate such measures. Before he winds up the debate, will the Minister reflect on our amendments as we move to the Committee stage?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady does at least engage in debate on these issues. We might appreciate her anger against the welfare reform proposals were it not for the dual standards that her party has adopted. She is railing against some of the measures in the Bill. For example, her party opposes the bedroom tax, as she calls it, but it was her own Minister who introduced the removal of the spare room subsidy for people who live in the private sector. On the one hand, she condemns the Government for picking on people in the public sector, but her own Minister introduced it for people in the private sector, where rents are even higher.

[Ms Ritchie]

I well recall that measure being debated and it related solely to the private rented sector.

I regret that the Bill has not been taken in the Assembly, where it rightfully belongs. I hope the Minister will reflect on our amendments in his winding-up speech and provide greater clarity. I hope Northern Ireland can be a place of work, endeavour and prosperity. That is our job, the job of Parliament, the job of Cabinet and the job of the Northern Ireland Executive.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, even if it is not a pleasure to be dealing with this sort of fast-track, microwave legislation. It is unfortunate that, under the terms of the allocation of time motion, although my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and I have been able to table these amendment and will be able to speak to them, we will not be able to vote on them. We tabled amendments 1, 2 and 3 and new clause 1 in this group and another amendment that will be discussed along with clause 3 stand part in a later group. I will stay off that for now.

The Second Reading debate went a lot wider than the content of the Bill. In Committee, we will look at the Bill as we debate the clauses and amendments. I will introduce our amendments by following up on what we said on Second Reading. Our amendments would create a different delineation and more definition in respect of what functions will be exercised, following the legislative consent motion and the passage of the Bill, by the Secretary of State and what functions will remain to be exercised by a devolved Minister working through the devolved Assembly. For us, that seems to be a more sensible way to do things.

Our amendments relate to issues that Members of this House from different parties in Northern Ireland and, indeed, from beyond Northern Ireland have expressed concerns about and that a wide range of people in the Northern Ireland Assembly have expressed concerns about. Therefore, we do not think it would do any injury to the course that the Secretary of State says will be open after the passage of the Bill or to the path forward on welfare reform that the DUP has talked about for these amendment to be considered.

We are told that it is entirely compatible for the same powers to be held concurrently in the Assembly and in Westminster. It must be equally compatible if we make sure that there is agreement and understanding about who will take the lead in respect of each particular function, given the sensitivities and issues involved. If the powers that are taken by the Secretary of State are about satisfying the requirements of the Treasury and others in respect of levying fines and penalties and controlling the rules and rates for benefits, some of the other matters, such as the flexibility of administration and sanctions, could safely and properly be left with the devolved Assembly and the devolved Minister. That is the purpose of amendments 1, 2 and 3. I will address new clause 1 separately.

Amendment 1 would provide some exceptions to the powers that will come to the Secretary of State. Clause 1(3) provides a sweeping range of powers for the Secretary of State in respect of Orders in Council or subsequent regulations, and the amendment would introduce a new subsection to qualify those powers. Amendment 2 would restrict the exercise of powers that would come to the Secretary of State, so that direct rule powers could not be used to

“prescribe a period of more than 3 days for which a universal credit claim does not arise”—

again, that picks up on an issue that has been voiced by many people, not just those in Northern Ireland but people coping with benefits in Britain.

Under amendment 2, the Secretary of State would not have power to

“provide for any sanction period of more than 26 weeks”,

or to amend housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The Secretary of State would also not be allowed to

“provide for a benefit cap”,

and as the Minister told us when winding up the Second Reading debate, changes to the lower rate of the benefit cap under the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill will come in a subsequent Order in Council following this Bill. Many hon. Members—including DUP Members —expressed concern about the lowering of that benefit cap and voted to amend or oppose it, so I would have thought it entirely consistent for them to support an amendment to limit the power of the Secretary of State in that regard.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has gone through a list of the changes he wishes to see. His colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), said that he believes that these changes will be cost-neutral. Will he explain which of his amendments will cost money to the Executive, and which will bring more money in so that they balance out?

[Mark Durkan]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, I said that some of these amendments are cost-neutral. That was what the Minister told us at the time, and some of those points can be repeated for this exception. The Minister in the Assembly said that some of these proposals were cost-neutral. However, some of them will not be cost-neutral, and I make no pretence in that regard.

Proposed new subsection 3A would deny the Secretary of State the right to

“make any limit on the number of children for which any child benefit, child tax credit or child element of universal credit can be claimed”.

Many people have opposed the two-child rule, and the amendment would mean that we do not hand that rule to the Tory Secretary of State when many of us are opposed to it.

Parachute Regiment: Arrest

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you called my hon. Friend. He is right—we need to put all this behind us. However, I cannot interfere in a police investigation or any of the processes. To do so would jeopardise the course of justice and may jeopardise someone’s ability to clear their name.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister says that the Army is not above the rule of law, and that there is no blanket amnesty for those whom they were seeking to prevent from killing the people of Northern Ireland. However, the perception of the casual observer is that either because of political position or because of scandalous certificates handed out by the Labour Government, or by an action of the PSNI, there is a group of killers in Northern Ireland who are immune from prosecution. That stirs up animosity and puts police officers in fear while they are dealing with the current bunch of republican terrorists, that at some time in the future their families will also whinge for inquiries and those same police officers will stand in the dock. Can the Minister not see that some mechanism, such as that used in the past against IRA killers, must be used to ensure that Army personnel are not pursued in this way?

[Mr Wallace]

I can see the hon. Gentleman’s last point but I will not equate IRA killers with British forces. They are not the same, and I will not encourage an alternative mechanism that somehow equates them. My view and the Government’s view is that the police, and our forces, must follow the rule of law. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about perception, we must all do more to correct that perception. I shall do more to correct that perception, and next week when I meet the police and the security services, I shall certainly press on them again the need to pursue those people who are still at large and those terrorist crimes that have not been solved and for which people have not been brought to justice.

Paramilitary Groups (Northern Ireland)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a tendency among some to try to rewrite history. That is something that this Government will never support and will always firmly oppose. There is no possible means by which one could romanticise a campaign that saw thousands of people murdered. That is at the heart of our approach to the institutions on the past to be created under the Stormont House agreement. They must be balanced, objective, fair and impartial to make sure that we establish all the facts about the history of the troubles, and do not enable anyone to seek to rewrite the history of the troubles and to draw some wholly unacceptable form of equivalence between terrorism and police officers.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The report indicates that individual IRA members remain involved in criminal activity and describes a range of acts, from smuggling right up to murder. What it does not say is that those people are defended by Sinn Féin political representatives who eulogise them, discourage people from giving evidence against them, and make excuses for their activities. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the biggest impediments to making devolution work in Northern Ireland is the ambivalence of Sinn Féin’s political representatives to the criminality of their associates?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can provide the hon. Gentleman with at least a degree of reassurance on that. Sinn Féin has always been very clear with me that it condemns criminal acts and criminality. It has certainly done that in relation to whoever was responsible for the murder of Kevin McGuigan.

Stormont

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kinahan]

I thought that might be the question. We certainly were the architects, with others, who took great risks. I have already said it was an imperfect system. What came later was much more imperfect, but I do not want to change this into a petty debate.

Changes, such as the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, have removed ownership of the process from the Assembly and forced every future election to be a purely sectarian headcount. Northern Ireland is now locked into mechanisms that actively stop any improvement happening. Today, we need the support and leadership of this House to help us to move forward. We have an election process for the First Minister that means we have, in reality, a co-equal First Minister and Deputy First Minister, neither of whom can do anything unless the other agrees it. It is an admirable idea, but one doomed to failure as so often neither First Minister—that is what they both are—can agree with each other. It is almost an endless game of brinkmanship, a game of chicken that sees Northern Ireland’s people suffer each time there is a disastrous crash because neither First Minister will give an inch. We have an Executive of all parties, with the intention that those parties will work together and decide together. Again, that is an admirable idea, but not when the two main parties squeeze and ignore the other parties at every turn, forcing matters through and then claiming that they were agreed under the excuse of collective responsibility. All this must change.

Part of the structure of the Good Friday agreement was the creation of a petition of concern. This was a legislative tool to safeguard the rights of minority groups by offering either the nationalist or Unionist community the ability to veto legislation that would infringe their rights. This tool, designed with the right intentions, has been misused in the most underhand of ways. Since the last Assembly election in 2011, it has been used no fewer than 34 times to block issues including: better recycling, allowing the National Crime Agency to work in Northern Ireland, the provision of services and support for military veterans, to prevent Ministers even being held to account, and, of course, to stop same-sex marriage. It is obvious that the petition of concern no longer protects minority groups, but in many instances has actively been used to undermine them. The intention was never to use this as a vehicle to reinforce such politics, but that is exactly what it does.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the dysfunctionality of the existing Assembly. Does he not accept that for the past eight years, while the Democratic Unionist party has been the largest party, the Assembly has not had to be suspended once? It has not collapsed on numerous occasions, which it did when his leader and the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party were in charge and First and Deputy First Ministers in the Assembly.

[Danny Kinahan]

Thank you very much. I take those points very much on board. Rather than get buried in petty Northern Ireland politics, I will just point out that most of those collapses were actually caused by the hon. Gentleman’s party.

Those who were involved in the construction of the Good Friday agreement recognised that a simple or quick fix could never be an option. Indeed, those who were key in bringing this agreement to the people saw this as a first step towards a fair and equal society. They recognised that paramilitarism, segregated education, identity, culture and how to deal with victims and survivors were all complex issues that would need to be addressed many years beyond implementation of the 1998 framework. Sadly, in the 17 years since the signing of the agreement these issues have simply not been addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. I entered the Chamber with hope, and I intend to keep fighting for exactly the same things as she—

[Sammy Wilson]

You’ve been very negative so far.

[Danny Kinahan]

It is better to start off negative and end up with hope. The hon. Lady gave some good examples, but they have happened despite, not because of, the Government in Northern Ireland.

I want to offer some examples of the failures. The social investment fund was created in 2011 with the intention of providing £80 million for key programmes and infrastructure projects that would directly benefit the most economically and socially challenged communities in Northern Ireland. By 30 March this year, £2 million was all that had been allocated; £78 million might now never be spent, with community groups and the most vulnerable being the ones who suffer. As of this June, only £3.5 million of £12 million available for childcare provision had been spent, which meant another £6.5 million had been lost. This is appalling, considering the number of working families struggling owing to the lack of accessible and affordable childcare in their area, especially given the present welfare debacle. Some 20% of the population are currently on health waiting lists, some of which reach beyond 18 months. It is a situation recognised as unacceptable by national experts.

On shared education, which most recognise as the holy grail in addressing so many of the issues, recent research found that almost half of Northern Ireland’s school children were being taught in schools where 95% or more of the pupils were of one religion. In the 2011-12 academic year, 180 schools had no Protestant pupils on their rolls, and another 111 taught no Catholic children. In October 2010, the First Minister said:

“I believe that future generations will scarcely believe that such division and separation was common for so long.”

He said that consideration should be given to tasking a body or commission to bring forward recommendations for a staged process of integration. Five years later, little if anything has changed. Under the Stormont House agreement, if it can be agreed, we are about to tie ourselves to spending £150 million on investigating the past, yet our own Justice Minister has said it will only really clear up one or two cases. Just think how much better that money could be spent elsewhere. Our victims and survivors need justice and support, but there has to be a better way.

There are many more examples, especially from the last four years of the dysfunctional Northern Ireland Assembly, but time prohibits me from listing every one.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kinahan]

I will keep going, otherwise the hon. Gentleman will not have time to speak later.

Commentators inside and outside politics recognise that the primary reason for this continued dysfunction is the creation of what we in Northern Ireland call the silo mentality of Ministers. When the coalition Government was agreed in 2010, neither coalition partner got exactly what it wanted out of government, but both parties were able to set personal and ideological positions aside to do what they deemed was right for the nation. Sadly, the opposite is now true at Stormont. Ministers are challenged by Executive colleagues not because of their policy approach, but because of party political or ideological differences. It is said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Stormont Executive have proven that nowhere is that more true than in that political Cabinet.

If the UK Government were to design an education policy that ran contrary to their health policy or an inclusion policy that ran contrary to their housing policy, the electorate would quickly become fed up and ask for a new Government. That is unavailable to the people of Northern Ireland. Without a formal Opposition, there is no chance for change. Again, I congratulate my party as the one that made that brave step in creating the ’98 agreement and now, 17 years later, is doing the same for a strong Opposition. If those elected cannot be held to account, removed from Government or placed in a position where party comes second to the needs of those they represent, is it likely they will ever produce an effective Government?

Finally, I come to the elephant in the room of political debate in and about Northern Ireland: the continued undermining of political and social progress by criminals under the guise of terrorism—those who wish to rely on the violent struggles of our past at the expense of a political future. The House must recognise that the vast majority of acts carried out by these groups are not ideological but criminal and range from drug dealing to tobacco and fuel smuggling, punishment beatings, prostitution and racketeering. These ugly groups use Northern Ireland’s dark past and the Assembly’s inability to deal with these issues as cover to get away with the most heinous of crimes, including cold-blooded murder, with absolute impunity.

If any Member sitting on these Benches were considered to have a direct link with an active criminal or terrorist gang, I am sure that every other Member would not let that person remain here, occupying a seat in the greatest of all Parliaments. We all know that one party will not take its place in the House, meaning that we cannot include its Members in the debate or hope they will have the courage to speak and defend themselves in front of Members. I do not stand here to call out individuals, political parties or groups, although to make certain points I have had to do so; I stand here to highlight that without confidence in those we expect to govern with a fair hand, no citizen can truly support any elected body.

I have perhaps painted what some might see as a negative and rather depressing landscape for Northern Ireland, but I wish to emphasise that nothing could be further from the truth. The resilience of the people of Northern Ireland ensures that no matter how tough the challenge or how demanding the task, they rise above it and do what they have always done best: show hospitality to those who visit, continue to see the funny side of the challenges facing them and do what is best for them, their families and their neighbours. Many years ago while travelling, I met an Alaskan pipeline worker who had travelled around the world three times. When I asked him where the best place was, he replied, without knowing where I was from—surprising that!—“Northern Ireland”. He said that its inhabitants were the friendliest and loveliest of people. Above all, I wish to ensure that that remains the case.

I know you want me to finish, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very nearly there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I entirely agree. Even before the resolution of the crisis became unavoidable because of the killing of Kevin McGuigan and what flowed from it, we had the deadlock and chaos that resulted from the failure to implement the Stormont House agreement, and the failure to get on with welfare reform that had been agreed by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, resulting in the fact that we could not have a proper, sustainable budget on which to base future plans for the Assembly of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

My right hon. Friend has referred to criminality. In the wake of the killing of a member of the Garda on the border this week, the Garda have said that there is a corridor of criminality along the border. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that needs to be addressed?

[Mr Dodds]

I totally agree, and I want to take this opportunity to express the sincerest condolences to the family of the Garda officer who was so despicably murdered as he went about doing his duty on behalf of people in the Irish Republic.

We must create some kind of high-profile taskforce to take on the terrorist godfathers and their criminal activity. We should give Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, MI5, the National Crime Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Army and our friends in the Irish Republic security forces the tools they need to do the job. We need targets and we need results. The public have suffered at the hands of these crime lords for long enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman says, but, as I said earlier, this is not what I am saying; it is what was said to me by those who represent people on the ground in Northern Ireland. That is their view, and the view of the people who try—

[Sammy Wilson]

It shows how partisan they are.

[Mr Anderson]

Well, what I said is the case.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which represents trade unions across the whole of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, took a motion to the European TUC, which represents 60 million workers across Europe. The ICTU is convinced that without the input of both Governments and the US Government there will be no movement forward in Northern Ireland. The congress supports fully the devolved Administration of Northern Ireland, wants the Government to be involved and to give a financial stimulus to ensure the continuation of the political institutions, and believes:

“The austerity measures being imposed on the citizens of Northern Ireland by the…Government are a major impediment to the resolution of the political impasse.”

Despite all the progress, Northern Ireland remains a society emerging from conflict:

“A society which has the lowest levels of any region in the UK of investment, educational attainment, and the highest levels of mental ill-health.”

The suicide rate is some 70% higher than in any other region, and poverty, the security spend and economic inactivity are all higher on any scale. The unions believe:

“The failure to achieve a political resolution in the talks…will result in the fall of the political institutions and direct rule...by the Westminster Government”,

which is the last thing that anybody over there wants. That will be unforgivable. The unions believe it will take us back to where we were and will

“result in the emergence from the shadows of the so called…para-military groups”.

While Members speak about the fact that one thing that led us to where we are now was what the police lead us to believe was the involvement of the IRA in the killing earlier this year, the unions believe that the failure to get the system up and running again will take us back to the full-blown impact of what we saw for far too many years.

I suggest that the people involved on behalf of the Government should sit down with the trade unions once in a while. I know that they are not very keen on talking to the trade unions on this side of the Irish Sea, but perhaps they might like to talk to the trade unions on the other side of it, which are genuinely committed to seeing the community go forward. Their track record shows that they have been there and shows their work with people on the ground, so the Government should ask for their view and work with them to try to make things go forward. At this moment, we are facing an impasse that will not be helped by having direct rule imposed in any shape or form.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) who introduced it was almost apologising that we should be discussing Northern Ireland again. I far prefer to have politicians sitting in the House of Commons talking about Northern Ireland than have young men out on the streets of Northern Ireland killing each other, so it is always a pleasure to be able to take part in such a debate.

Murder should have no place in politics. It is ballots, not bullets, that should decide issues in the 21st century in this United Kingdom. When a culture of violence develops, we see a Garda officer from the Republic to which the person in question claims to have loyalty shot dead while going about his duties. That is what happens when a culture of violence and criminality is allowed to fester under the excuse of a flag of political belief.

It is also important that we have budgetary and fiscal responsibility. It is safe to say that there are considerable differences between the Administrations in Westminster and Edinburgh on Scotland’s future fiscal direction, yet they have managed to agree a balanced budget, and will implement it regardless of the outcome of the Scottish Parliament elections next year. That sends a message to others.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in Scotland we are dealing with a one-party Government, while in Northern Ireland we are dealing with a five-party Government, some of whose members would make the leader of the Labour party look like a member of the Conservative party?

[Kevin Foster]

It is clear that in Northern Ireland everyone, not just some Members of the Assembly and the Government, needs to take responsibility for making balanced budget proposals and agreeing an effective Assembly Government based on sustainable finances, a point that I have made following the last two statements to the House by the Secretary of State. If people do not agree, it behoves them to state what they would agree to and then be prepared to discuss that to keep the whole system going. We could spend all night listing issues with how the Assembly works, and there are some who are not prepared to accept some of what was signed up to. It can be easy to get an agreement, but implementing it is usually slightly more difficult.

There is a golden opportunity to secure a peace process for the future. The speech that I was looking for in this debate was the one made by the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). We could have a fascinating debate lasting until the early hours listing all the problems, but the hon. Gentleman set out solutions. I may not agree with every point that he made, but he was certainly right to say that there needs to be a positive approach to finding a solution to the current impasse. All parties, not just some, need to take responsibility.

I hope that the Government will continue to move down the path set out in the Belfast agreement, support the implementation of the Stormont House agreement and support Northern Ireland’s politicians in coming to a point where they are able to govern on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and deliver many of the benefits that devolution should be bringing. That, for me, is the core of the matter. I want to see a time when Northern Ireland debates in this Chamber are about the economy, jobs and the future, rather than the past and the constitutional situation. I am as fervent a Unionist as the next person; I believe that the four nations are better together than they are apart. Clearly, there are those in the Chamber who disagree with that statement, but to be fair they show that one can pursue their argument through democratic debate, not by any other means. For me, the solidity of the Union lies in being able to discuss those issues rather than constantly coming back to the constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), I will respond to his challenge to my party, but I do not want to respond only to the issue of welfare reform and the challenges in the devolved budget resulting from the Treasury’s budget bullying tactics. The Treasury is imposing a fine on the block grant that is given to the Northern Ireland Executive under the Barnett formula. It adopted that tactic because it thought that creating budget stress for the Assembly would force through welfare reform, but that budget stress became a budget crisis, and that in turn is feeding a political crisis.

The Treasury needs to take a different course. I ask hon. Members to contemplate what would happen if the British Government decided to introduce a provision in the Scotland Bill that would require any disagreement between Ministers in London and Edinburgh on welfare issues in Scotland to be resolved according to the terms they are using in Northern Ireland. How would those on the Treasury Bench react if some of us proposed a new clause that would specifically forbid the Treasury ever doing in Scotland what it is now doing in Northern Ireland: using budget interference to impose a different view of welfare reform?

Although the scheme for devolution set out in the Scotland Bill is different from the notional legislative devolution that Northern Ireland has, the fact is that there is a scheme for devolution there, and it requires and presumes, by the nature of the legislation, agreement between Ministers, but there is no provision for when there is disagreement. It certainly would not work if Scotland were to be treated in the way Northern Ireland has been treated. Therefore, if the Treasury would not treat Scotland that way in relation to the future of devolution and welfare, it should not treat Northern Ireland that way now.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that using the word “fine” misrepresents the situation? The money that is being paid back to the Treasury is the difference between what is being spent and would have been spent had the welfare changes introduced across the rest of the United Kingdom been introduced in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly has made a choice means that there is a difference in the amount of money spent, and that is why the money has to be paid back.

[Mark Durkan]

Whether we call them fines or penalties, as the hon. Gentleman and his party have done previously, or savings forgone, which is the language the Treasury uses, they are the same thing and the result is the same: serious pressure on our budget. There are other pressures on our budget as a result of some of the choices that the Executive have made. They are not choices that I would have made when I was Finance Minister—given that my period in that office has been brought up—but they are not choices that I had to make either.

Let me return to the issues that now confront all the parties in the Stormont House talks. Serious attention is rightly being paid to the question of paramilitarism in its various manifestations and manipulations. We are glad that that issue has come to the fore, although we regret how it has come to the fore. In the scoping for the original Stormont House negotiations late last year we said that we wanted paramilitarism, organised crime and criminality on the agenda. Unfortunately we did not get support from others, because they did not seem to believe that it was a relevant issue. It clearly is. Many hon. Members have touched on some of the features of criminality that clearly derive from our troubled experience. Whether people want to pretend that some of these people are simply privateers, having been privatised from some other paramilitary group, or something else, the fact is that collectively we have to confront what that means. We have done that before in previous debates on a cross-party basis—for example, when looking at organised crime in the border areas and elsewhere.

We, as parties, must also ensure that we are not divided on the issue of paramilitarism by taking a differential approach to it depending on what side of the community it appears to come from. We should avoid making different demands on and criticisms of the police according to their response or non-response to one feature of paramilitarism, as opposed to another, because that would send out a signal that we are still divided and that the paramilitaries are somehow attached to and serve particular sides. Nor should we create difficulties for the police. Parties should be robust in using the accountability mechanisms for policing to challenge and engage policing at all levels, but we should not catch the police in the middle of our party political differences.

That is why at Stormont House my party is advocating a whole-community approach to dealing with paramilitarism. If we are to create a whole community in Northern Ireland, we need to overcome historical sectarian divisions and all the convulsive ruptures that aspects of our culture and traditions have sometimes brought about, such as parades. At Stormont House—this is often forgotten—we agreed new financial commitments on shared and integrated education, but we need to go further. We need to invest in shared housing to build more intentionally shared communities close to the new shared education estate so that one will reinforce and support the other in changing society.

When people voted for the Good Friday agreement—I am probably the only person in the Chamber who was there negotiating it, and I take my share of whatever people want to say in the way of blame or criticism—we were proved absolutely right in the way we had done it. It was about creating transformational politics in Northern Ireland, and not, at best, episodes of transactional politics where people appear to share power now and then, and turn their backs on each other and let the community down at other times. We need to use these Stormont House negotiations not just to make good the better promises of Stormont House but to go back to the original promises of the agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, may I say that the negativity in some of tonight’s speeches is not representative of the record of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Indeed, parties as diverse as Sinn Féin and ourselves have been forced to work together, yet have brought forward a programme for Government that, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, has seen the economy through the recession, kept employment levels higher than ever through that kind of trough in economic activity, and introduced innovative policies, including taking unemployed teachers off the dole queue, helping young people with literacy and numeracy problems, and changes to business rates, which have now been replicated in Scotland and Wales. There have been innovative policies and good work has been done, despite the fact that many of the parties’ views have been so diverse.

We have a problem at the moment. Economics was always going to be an issue for the Northern Ireland Assembly, given the fact that there are people there who are to the left of the leader of the Labour party, and others who would be quite happy sitting on the Tory Benches. There was always going to be a problem with economics and we have now come to the issue of welfare reform.

Part of the problem is the way in which the Government have handled the issue. Instead of making it very clear from the start that no leeway would be given beyond the substantial changes made and that no handouts or further money would be thrown at the problem, that hope was always held out. There are still people in Northern Ireland who say, “If we went collectively, we could somehow or other escape the changes that have had to be made in the rest of the United Kingdom.” That is nonsense, but unfortunately it has been assisted by the unwillingness of the Government to take on Sinn Féin and tell it and the SDLP, “Look, we have allowed changes to be made on welfare in Northern Ireland and it’s going no further.”

The Government have to make it clear to Sinn Féin that criminality and the party’s association with criminals who launder money and engage in illegal activities, and its defence of them because they are former comrades, will not be accepted and that it has to be dealt with. Until that clear message goes out, I believe the present impasse will remain.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I am anxious to see the devolved institutions continue and operate parallel to the talks. I encourage all parties to continue to work constructively. There is an important job to be done in the talks, both within the Executive and beyond, and I will be encouraging all parties to work together to keep the institutions going and to reach a successful conclusion to the talks.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Rather than share the shadow Secretary of State’s belief that some political Kyle Lafferty will pull a match-saver out of the bag, I believe it is more likely, given the attitude of some of the parties in Northern Ireland, that more own goals will be scored during the talks. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance today that if the rumours circulating at the moment in Belfast are true—that senior people associated with Sinn Féin are likely to be arrested for serious crimes—she will not hesitate to show the red card to those Sinn Féin associates and put them back behind bars, where they should be and from where they have been released under licence?

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on specific matters relating to what future arrests might take place, but I reiterate that this Government believe firmly in the rule of law. Therefore, if the police have reason to believe that criminal offences have been committed by individuals, they must be allowed to pursue those individuals and bring them to justice, regardless of their political background or political status.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I know that is a matter of great importance to the hon. Lady and her party. The reality is that the Government have to act with caution when it comes to reductions in taxes. We have identified further increases to the income tax threshold as our priority, but no doubt the Chancellor will be able to share more information on those matters in his Budget.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the last party that should be seeking additional fiscal flexibility for Northern Ireland is the SDLP, given the way in which it and Sinn Féin have put the budget in Northern Ireland in jeopardy. But will she spell out for us the implications for the budget of the financial mess that the refusal to implement the Stormont House agreement has made? What are the implications for the devolution of corporation tax, which has already been agreed?

[Mrs Villiers]

The implications are very serious: if the welfare question is not resolved, it means that the pressure on the Northern Ireland Executive budget grows considerably and, ultimately, that the Executive will get to a point where they cannot pay their staff and bills, and front-line services will suffer as a result. Without resolving the welfare question, the prospects of corporation tax being devolved and reduced are remote.

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.