Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

And of course the point that I am making is that these people do not need an excuse, because they are committed to changing Northern Ireland’s status through violence. Whether Stormont is working at full tilt or not working, that is sufficient reason for them to continue what they are doing.

I welcome the comments that were made about the incident by Sinn Féin’s North Belfast spokesman this morning. He talked about how vile it was that a school should be used as a basis for an attack on the security forces, but let us not forget that Sinn Féin and Kelly’s comrades used schools as a means of attacking members of the security forces in the past. Indeed, they walked into classrooms and shot part-time members of the security forces. They blew up buses that were taking children to school. They killed the drivers of buses who were taking children to school. Although we welcome the fact that there now appears to be a change of heart on the part of Sinn Féin, it does us well to remember that the tactics used by the dissidents are no different from those that were used by Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA for more than 30 years in Northern Ireland.

We support the Bill—it is a necessary piece of legislation. When the Secretary of State spoke to it, he could have gone further by making it clear to Sinn Féin—I will address this further later on—that it has created the current situation and is responsible for the stalemate we face. He should have made it clear that the alternative to progress is direct rule. That possibility ought to have been spelled out in this House.

The Northern Ireland Office has made not offending Sinn Féin into an art form. The Secretary of State should pay less heed to the Northern Ireland Office and more to the political reality on the ground. I simply say to him that had he acted more quickly at the beginning of the crisis, we could have avoided this situation in Northern Ireland. Despite the pleas in this House from Democratic Unionists, the Labour party, the Scottish nationalists and some of his own Back Benchers, he did not initiate the investigation that could have taken the sting out of Sinn Féin’s accusation about the renewable heat incentive. Time and again, he said at the Dispatch Box that because there was no agreement between the political parties, he could not initiate an investigation. Cynically, as soon as Sinn Féin had got what it wanted—mainly to bring down the Executive—the first person to announce the inquiry was no less than Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister. The Secretary of State should have initiated an investigation.

The Labour spokesman talked about the need to get away from this particular part of the impasse, but Arlene Foster never refused to take part in a public inquiry. She never refused to give her account to or to be questioned at a public inquiry. The problem was that there was not an inquiry. Had the Secretary of State been prepared to grasp that nettle, we could have avoided a situation in which Sinn Féin was able to use the excuse that until it had clarity on the issue, it could not possibly work with Arlene Foster. The lesson for the Secretary of State to learn from what happened is this: despite the threats that might come from Sinn Féin, sometimes it is important not to listen to the wets in the Northern Ireland Office, but to act on political instincts.

[Mark Durkan]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government here should have acted more quickly as the RHI scandal emerged, but he is painting a complete fiction by trying to say that the DUP wanted a public inquiry—it entirely opposed a public inquiry. It was on the same page as Sinn Féin in opposing a public inquiry. It said that an inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly would be sufficient, and it was on that cue that the Secretary of State ensured that he and Treasury colleagues stayed out of the issue.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to bore the House with the details of what happened last December, but the First Minister made it quite clear at that stage that she believed that she had nothing to hide. She was prepared to face an inquiry of whatever status was required to get to the truth, and that is still her position. In fact, she is co-operating on this.

The Bill is also necessary because of the way in which the finances in Northern Ireland have been left. Again, there are lessons to be learned from this. I suspect that the Secretary of State will have to come back at the end of June with another Bill to implement the budget in Northern Ireland. It will not be a satisfactory budget, because it will probably be based on last year’s distribution of finances to ensure that 100% of the budget is spent, and no new priorities will be set. As the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), stated, one of the central planks of the Executive’s economic policy cannot to be contained in that budget, because it will not be possible for this House, while we remain in the EU, to legislate for the reduction of corporation tax and, of course, to allocate funds for that. That will be a missed opportunity for many firms and prospective investors in Northern Ireland.

Let us look at why we have no budget, because this gives an indication of where Sinn Féin is and the prospects for an agreement. We do not have a budget in Northern Ireland not because the Executive could not agree one, and not because it was rejected by the coalition partners, but because there was never a budget brought forward to the Executive. Why was that the case? I think that Sinn Féin could not face the reality of having to introduce a budget in which hard decisions needed to be made. Of course, that was true about the restructuring of the health service. There was a report on restructuring the health service that set out how money could be saved and how some of the problems it faces could be addressed, but Sinn Féin did not act on it. Why? Because that involved hard decisions. When it came to welfare reform more than a year and a half ago, Sinn Féin did not act either. It was quite happy for that to be dealt with by the Government here.

There is a question that must be asked by those of us who are involved politically in Northern Ireland: is Sinn Féin serious about getting out of the impasse, or is it quite content? Those in Sinn Féin will never answer this, but are they quite content for the process to roll on and on, to have direct rule, and to have difficult decisions about the budget, the allocation of resources, Brexit and all the other things that concern them decided here? They can then blame the big bad Brits, but keep their hands clean and maintain the myth in the Irish Republic, perpetuated by the bearded guru, Gerry Adams, that somehow they have an economic policy that can avoid any austerity measures. The one thing they do not want is to have to introduce austerity measures or cuts in Northern Ireland while they are promising people in the Irish Republic that they have some kind of economic magic wand they could wave if they were only in coalition down there.

This is the question that the Secretary of State has to ask. It is the question that we as a party have to ask, too, as well as the other parties in Northern Ireland. What concessions does Sinn Féin really want, or might direct rule suit its purposes until the election takes place in the Republic? Why did those in Sinn Féin not bring forward a budget? Why did they not make hard decisions when they could in the Northern Ireland Assembly? They consistently—this has always been their position—run away from these decisions. If that is the case, we will have an impasse after the election on 8 June.

The difficulty in the talks is that we have seen the reason why Sinn Féin cannot or will not go into government change almost weekly. First of all it was the RHI, but RHI is hardly mentioned now. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was right—was the RHI such a big scandal that it should have resulted in a constitutional crisis? At the risk of causing some anger among Government Members, let us look at the RHI throughout the United Kingdom, and at Drax power station, where a coal mine down the road was closed while wood pellets were brought from halfway around the world. There is no cap on the subsidy—it started at £400 million, it is now £600 million, and by 2020 it will be £1 billion. Did any Minister resign? Did the Government fall? No, yet a £25 million overspend that has now been corrected in Northern Ireland caused a constitutional crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

No. The biggest abuse of the petition of concern comes whenever it is used to prevent motions in the Assembly—even non-binding motions and valid and credible motions of censure—from having any standing whatever. If people are going to use the petition of concern in relation to motions of censure in one way, they should recognise that others are going to say, “If you are going to veto things in one way, you are creating the rules, and you are going to have to live by them.”

As on so many things, we need to return to what was originally provided for in the Good Friday agreement. The petition of concern was not included in the agreement as a veto; it was provided as a trigger mechanism for an additional form of proofing by a special committee in relation to concerns about rights or equality—that is all it was provided for. Unfortunately, the legislation did not properly reflect that, and it left things up to the Standing Orders in the Assembly, but those Standing Orders have never been right. Sinn Féin and the DUP have always been happy to leave the petition of concern as a dead-end veto under the Standing Orders of the Assembly. That was never in the agreement, as people will see if they care to look at the relevant paragraphs. Let us return to the petition of concern as an additional proofing mechanism for rights and equality, not as a prevention mechanism against the advancement of rights and equality in areas such as equal marriage.

The hon. Member for East Antrim excoriated the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and told him that devolution is the opportunity to best make the laws that reflect the views of society. I absolutely agree with that. I am quite happy for the Assembly to make the laws that apply to abortion and to equal marriage. The Assembly is showing a clear wish and a clear intent there, and there have been clear indications of where the support of the people of Northern Ireland lies—it is similar to that in the south, as shown by referendum. The problem is that the DUP is vetoing and stopping the devolved Assembly having that legislative power. The DUP is criticising Sinn Féin for not allowing the government function to be created in circumstances where the DUP itself is regularly using a veto to prevent the legislative function of the Assembly. It is a “Whose veto trumps whose?” situation.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who argued for power sharing and safeguards within a power-sharing Executive and Assembly, is now happy with majority rule. I am sure that will go down dead well with his constituents.

[Mark Durkan]

I am entirely happy with operating the Good Friday agreement as the people voted for it—people of Ireland north and south. A petition of concern would mean that a mechanism could be checked and proofed. If there were not concerns in relation to rights and equality, it could proceed in the normal way through the Assembly; if there were, it would require cross-community support. I make no apology for my part in negotiating and drafting the Good Friday agreement and in helping to establish the institutions. I regret the fact that we have departed from the Good Friday agreement in so many ways.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Like her, I listened to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) saying that we need to change things and get to a different way, and that there should not be a situation where one party can veto. Let us remember that the St Andrews agreement limited the appointment of the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister to two parties and two parties only. It specified that the biggest party of one designation would appoint the First Minister, and then the biggest party of another designation would appoint the Deputy First Minister. There was to be no role for the Assembly any more in electing and having a free choice in the joint election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as the Good Friday agreement provided. If the right hon. Gentleman is in any way serious about what he is saying, then next time we are tabling amendments in respect of changing how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are appointed, he should join us in supporting those amendments, not oppose them. I checked with the Clerks as to whether the Bill’s reference to ministerial appointments would have allowed me to table such an amendment. I was advised that the narrow terms of the Bill would not have allowed me again to table the amendment that I have tabled in the past.

Given the way in which acronyms are used in this place, no doubt this Bill, which we might call the ministerial appointments and regional rates Bill, will be referred to as the MARR Bill. However, there is nothing memorable about it. It is purely ephemeral in the sense of making exigent provisions in relation to the striking of a regional rate so that rates bills can be issued and councils can get their take of the district rate. I regret that it has been necessary to bring the Bill forward in this House, but I support it in terms of allowing the revenue to come in to support public services, both those run by councils and those provided by regional government departments.

The Bill is also ephemeral in the sense of resetting the meter on the appointment of Ministers. I note that the Secretary of State has chosen a timeline that would broadly equate to what the timeline under the current legislation would be if there was an Assembly election on the same day as the general election. Therefore, those who have argued for an election on the same day can have no objection to that timeline. As we heard from other hon. Members, there is another coincidence in relation to the timeline with regard to the budgetary pressures and the fact that the civil service is now having to assign a percentage of the budget in the absence of an elected Government in the Assembly. All sorts of groups and budget holders, including in the community and voluntary sector, but not only there, have been given the indication that their funding is guaranteed, as was, for the first 13 weeks of the financial year. Those 13 weeks will bring us to within a calendar week of the same deadline that we have. That should concentrate minds—I hope that it does—about what the consequences of an absence of the institutions would be.

Concentrix

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

Not just at the moment—I must make some progress.

Particular individuals in particular circumstances are more prone to error. Over the years that tax credits have been running quite a substantial picture has built up of where error is more likely to exist.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for introducing the debate and setting out her points so cogently, particularly in relation to some of the details of the contract itself, and the opportunities and responsibilities that that contract gave to HMRC to better deal with the problems that did emerge. Both HMRC and the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), must have been aware of those problems, given the number of representations and complaints that were coming through from Members, and the range of questions that were being asked. None of those questions was properly dealt with, and all the complaints were treated fairly dismissively along the lines of young Mr Grace—“You’ve all done very well!” There seemed to be no problem whatever as far as that Minister was concerned. I am glad that, today, the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury is indicating that she will take a more personal interest in how these details are handled in future.

The motion could have been wider. It could have put into its sights the role and rationale of HMRC itself, as well as the responsibilities of Ministers. This debacle happened in the context of a progressive rundown in the capacity and character of HMRC, which then led to it outsourcing bits of work. It is the nature of that work and outsourcing that really raises questions about the mentality in HMRC.

In a written answer yesterday, the Minister confirmed this to me:

“during the course of the contract, HMRC delegated a total caseload of 2,209,500 cases for high risk renewal checks by Concentrix.”

It was HMRC itself that decided that more than 2 million cases could be appraised as high-risk renewals. When Concentrix received those cases, 1,635,676 of them were not the subject of further investigation for fraud or error, which means that it screened out 74% of the caseload that had been identified by HMRC. I ask Members to think about what we would have been dealing with if there had not been that screening. We would have had multiple versions of this problem—the adversity endured by our constituents; and the absurdity in the grievous conjecture that was being used against people.

The high-risk cases referred to Concentrix were placed in three main risk categories, and those three categories were decided by, and designed by, HMRC, not by Concentrix. The first was undeclared partner, which accounted for 1,398,908 cases. The second was work and hours, which accounted for 564,983, and the third was childcare, which amounted for 245,609 cases. Now that this work is returning to HMRC, I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is a change of culture there so that there is no longer such hostility and suspicion towards HMRC’s customers.

[Sammy Wilson]

The incentive for Concentrix was that it got paid only for those cases in which, eventually, it could be shown that there was genuine error or fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if that incentive does not rest with HMRC, the situation could become even worse, because HMRC will have no incentive to screen out any of those cases?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about future performance. Many of us have had our own difficulties when dealing with HMRC about tax credits. Certainly in my constituency, I have had some particular issues in relation to the plight of cross-border workers, whose position is constantly mishandled by HMRC. At times, it seems that there is no end in sight to the difficulties.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question, I note that payment by results is the outcome after the mandatory reconsideration stage, so some of the arguments about the degree of incentivisation have to be measured against that point. Let us remember that what drove the cut-off of tax credits for most people was the application of the compliance requirement of 30 days. Therefore, officials using the HMRC system and the HMRC standard that was contracted to Concentrix sent letters to people saying, “Unless you return information within 30 days, your benefit will be stopped.” Most of the stops were made because information was supposedly not received within 30 days. That is why many cases were overturned on mandatory reconsideration, because by that stage the information had been provided.

That raises questions for us as legislators in the House. Where does the 30-day rule come from? It was introduced in the Tax Credits Act 2002. We have here a gross misapplication by HMRC of the terms of that Act, especially in terms of the high-risk renewal regime, the high-risk change of circumstances regime and the annual declaration. The Minister did not address the fact that thousands of people had their tax credits stopped this summer by HMRC directly. That had nothing to do with Concentrix. HMRC was terminating benefits because people had not returned their annual declaration on time. Compliance grounds were being used directly against people by HMRC. When those people were cut off in August—45,000 of them in the week beginning 8 August—they naturally assumed that that cut-off was being implemented by Concentrix. They were ringing Concentrix and we as MPs were ringing Concentrix, but it was actually HMRC that had implemented the cut-off, although some of those cases might have previously been referred to Concentrix. We had the daft anomaly of HMRC handing work to Concentrix, saying “Investigate these people as high-risk renewal claims,” while, at the same time, it decided to go against those same people on compliance grounds for annual declarations. It is no wonder that confusion, hardship and hurt was caused, and there are fundamental questions for HMRC as well.

I hope that the Minister will look at this again. She says that lessons will be learned. I hope that this will not be like Brexit means Brexit; “lessons will be learned” should mean that lessons will be learned. We hope that those lessons will be learned within HMRC itself, and that they will include looking at whether there has been particular misuse of provisions of the 2002 Act.

Regulation 32 of the Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002 states that the period of notice given for a person to submit information or evidence

“shall not be less than 30 days after the date of the notice.”

The period does not have to be 30 days—that is the minimum—but who decided that it should be 30 days? HMRC took that decision, and it passed that on to Concentrix, saying that that statute set out how the system works and how it had to proceed.

Did Ministers sign off on the 30-day period? Were they notified that those were the terms that HMRC was operating? Were they notified that those were the terms that Concentrix was operating? If we know that the 30-day cut-off was responsible—the Minister has said this herself—will it be reviewed? There is the question of whether we, as Parliament, need to review that, because some of these flaws are sourced in the legislation itself and its over-rigorous application by HMRC.

Many people have voiced their criticisms of Concentrix and its performance, and have spoken about their difficulties getting through to it. By means of this debate, we need to get through to HMRC, which is where the core responsibility lies. A culture change is needed there, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to keep an eye on that in the future.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, where Standing Orders set standards, the Assembly commissioner has something to work on, so if a complaint is made about whether someone has breached the pledge, there is at least a basis on which an investigation can take place?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I fully accept that, and the clause says that Standing Orders will lay down provision on how the undertaking is made. That is why it was nonsensical of the Minister to argue that we should not set things down in the Assembly’s Standing Orders, when that is precisely what the clause will do. The hon. Member for East Antrim seems to assume that the Assembly Commissioner for Standards would deal with the complaint, so perhaps he sees merit in our amendment that would ensure that someone could receive, consider and assess a complaint. Certainly, the more that those standards are explicit either in the Bill or in Standing Orders, the better; that is fine.

Of course the Assembly Commissioner for Standards does, among other things, address standards of public life. That is one reason why we have tabled amendment 15, to make it clear that the precepts and commitments in the undertaking would in effect be read alongside the Nolan principles, as part of the general standards of public life in Northern Ireland, so that MPs and councillors would be held to that standard. Let us remember that the commissioner deals with those issues separately and that we do not want to create inconsistencies where parties face allegations that their members said one thing at a council meeting and did something else as MLAs and MPs. We would then get into all sorts of confusion about who is amenable to what standards. Let us create consistency and clarity of standards.

In previous debates, Members have raised issues about what councillors from my party have done in different instances, and we have raised instances about what other people have said or done, or who they have consorted with in other situations. This is about trying to get us all beyond that and trying to ensure that everyone in all parties knows what standards are required of them and then adheres to those standards. That is why we have tabled that series of amendments to make good serious deficiencies.

The other rich argument that came from the Minister was that he said that there should be no question of our trying to deal with breaches either of the undertaking or the pledge. In one instance, he said that, after all, the Assembly has the power to censure Ministers; but of course any attempt to censure Ministers on any grounds in the Assembly so far has ended up being vetoed under the petition of concern. He therefore points us to an alternative that is something of a dead end.

If we are serious about trying to resolve these issues and about trying to ensure that no untoward incident triggers the sort of crisis that had the institutions teetering on the brink, as they were in the later part of last year, we need to do better than the Bill, and the Minister needs to do better than come up with humbug, shallow arguments about the degree of consensus about the “Fresh Start” agreement, when it is already clear, even from what has been said from these Benches, that everyone knows that that is very limited.

Social Security

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question: I think it is a worse deal. We not only have this order to transpose the 2012 Act—all the parties in Northern Ireland said they had difficulties with that legislation—but the way in which this is being taken forward means that the Government in Whitehall now have the power, by order, to transpose the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently going through Parliament. That needs to be understood, because the legislative consent motion passed by the Assembly endorsed all the welfare clauses of the current Bill, as originally tabled. DUP MLAs voted to endorse all the clauses, even though they had voted for amendments to delete some of them or to insert additional clauses. Within a period of weeks, they voted with an entirely different attitude in relation to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, hiding behind direct rule. I therefore think that the deal is worse.

We must remember that the order will not only have the immediate effect of transposing most of the 2012 Act as implemented in Great Britain, but also provides a power, simply by virtue of regulations, to change a lot of the terms and conditions of the benefits, and can almost disappear some categories of benefits in the 2012 Act. In essence, we are being signed up to that without so much as a provision stating that when this direct-rule power is exercised, there must still be a legislative consent motion in the Assembly. We have been treated to the fiction that while we have direct rule, we have not lost any devolution because all the powers still exist on paper in the Assembly. That means it will supposedly be entirely in order for MLAs to table motions in the Assembly to amend such areas or to come up with their own private Members’ Bills, so we will have the nonsense of parallel, competing legislative strands. That is the sort of fiction and nonsense to which we are being treated.

Let us be very clear that the problem does not relate to the political or legislative processes; the real problem is the potential impact on people whose benefits and living standards will be affected as a result. Let us remember that when the Welfare Reform and Work Bill goes through—it has now been endorsed by a legislative consent motion—it will change the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants from April 2017. It is quite clear that although the decision-making power, which the Secretary of State has under the enabling legislation that went through over a week ago, will end in 2016, the effect of the decisions made under that power will not die with the power. The changes in relation to the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants will come in, meaning a reduction in the value of current payments of almost £30 a week—from £102.15 to £73.10. That is why all the health charities and disability campaign groups are so opposed to clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is now sealed into that by virtue of the legislative consent motion and the measure previously passed by Parliament.

There will be a similar reduction in the amount paid to those in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. We know from hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain that that is one of the notorious vexations. We have heard about just how the work-related activity group has been treated in practice, and about some of the bizarre interpretations, decisions and procedures that people have had to go through. We are now locked into a lot of that courtesy of both the legislative consent motion and this order. We do not have reason to be happy if we take seriously what our friends in all parties across the House are saying in raising their valid concerns. That also goes for some aspects of the sanctions. The time limit on the sanctions is different, courtesy of the efforts that we all made in relation to Stormont House.

I want to make it quite clear that we were signed up for Stormont House in December 2014, because the terms of the agreement stated that the proposals would be developed and brought to the Assembly. When the Bill was brought to the Assembly, however, nothing in it had changed. That is why we tabled a series of modest amendments, which would not have shattered the Stormont House agreement in any way, and which the British Government confirmed would not have stretched or undermined their understanding of what was operable under the agreement. But no, the DUP decided to veto the proposals and, on top of that, Sinn Féin decided to vote down the amendments even though the Tories had voted down similar amendments here in the original 2012 legislation. So those were the people who decided that we were not going to take Stormont House forward on an all-party basis, as had been agreed. I want to put this on record, because I do not think that enough people have understood what happened.

I will make one concession to the Government. A lot of the wriggle room that we had in the Stormont House agreement came about as a result not only of the top-up mitigations from the Executive’s own budget but of the understanding that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury were going to allow the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland a certain amount of leeway in the interpretation and operation of some of the measures. That is one reason why the big money that it was thought would be needed to make good some of Sinn Féin’s demands was not actually needed after all. The funds did not need to come out of the Executive’s budget because of that leeway being allowed.

However, some of us recognised that the arrangement was time-limited. We were worried that the effects of the welfare cap—which is not to be confused with the benefit cap—would, over time, squeeze and reduce that comfort. We said that we had to be honest about that. The SDLP was also very clear about saying at Stormont House that we had to be up front and public about the fact that, when the next wave of cuts came, we would not be in a position to say that they could be sustained out of the Executive’s budget and that we could not make a claim on the block grant to try to make good those claims. We said that we had to say that up front so that people understood it. Sinn Féin did not want to acknowledge that fact because it was still locked into the pretence that it could say it was protecting all existing claimants and all future claimants for ever more, amen. We never joined in that pretence, but no other party joined us in making that candid declaration that we could not constantly find more and more hard shoulder to run on.

That brings me to the points that were made earlier about the fines. We were asked whether we regretted the fines. We resented those fines, those penalties, those levies, those savings forgone. We have been told by the Secretary of State that they are not fines but savings forgone. I notice that the right hon. Lady did not contradict DUP Members when they were calling them fines; it is only me who gets contradicted. Whatever they are called, we resented them because they were an exercise in budget bullying. The DUP never objected to that budget bullying; indeed, one might think that they were actually in on the tactic, and in on the threat about not renewing the computer system.

The fact is that the Assembly was being bullied. I have said before that I do not believe that the Treasury will treat the new suite of devolved capacities for Scotland in relation to welfare reform in this way. I know that Scotland’s deal on welfare is not perfect. Its operation will be problematic, but I am pretty sure that the Treasury will not resort to the kind of tactics that it used against the Northern Ireland Assembly when it comes to dealing with clear differences of view between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government. I believe that it will take a different course.

If we are to be honest about this issue, we must be clear that there is a need to consider whether we need to realign the devolution of welfare in future so that the situation is sustainable. When the sunset clause in this legislation kicks in, and if there is some other mid-term welfare reform package in this Parliament, we do not want the Assembly to spasm into crisis for exactly the same reason.

We said at Stormont House and elsewhere that perhaps we should realign towards something more akin to the Scottish model of devolution. In Scotland, the burden is to take an interest in the benefits that people rely on if they have disabilities and long-term conditions. That points towards a way that we could go that would allow us to be more complete in the protections that we say we are offering people and perhaps provide a more sustainable course for the future.

That answers the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made about the architecture of the Good Friday agreement and devolution in the first place. There might be a need to look at realignment, as we have declared. Indeed, I declared that a number of years ago. However, we have not had any takers at any of the talks. If people want to do that, they will find that it could go ahead.

The way in which the implications of this order and the orders to follow are being sold is wrong. Remember that this is only the first of a number of orders that we will get, courtesy of direct rule. Indeed, it is more direct direct rule than we had before, because when a lot of the Northern Ireland social security legislation was passed under the old style of direct rule, it was taken through the House by Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Now, we have direct rule by the DWP, thanks to the way in which Sinn Féin and the DUP have decided it will happen.

It is wrong for parties that oppose these changes to benefits and sanctions to say in respect of making sure that these cuts and changes will happen by direct fiat and by the hand of a direct-rule Minister in the DWP, “Well, that was a good deal because we saved devolution.” Who was threatening devolution? The only parties that were threatening devolution and the institutions were Sinn Féin and the DUP. They contrived the brink and we all had to teeter on it. When they were saved from themselves in the end, they said that they had done a good job by getting concessions that were available anyway—they were not concessions at all.

That is the nonsense and dishonesty that lies at the centre of the politics of this. We are not one bit happy or content. We are not thankful to the Government for this at all. There were ways of dealing with these issues. They should have been taken in a mature way by devolution—

[Sammy Wilson]

Mature?

[Mark Durkan]

They should have been taken in a mature way by devolution, using the Assembly to anticipate when the legislation which has come through here—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Antrim is one of the people who said that we did not need to worry about the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill when it was here in 2011. He said that we were scaremongering and he voted down moves to deal with the issue in the Assembly. Now he is saying that we should be happy with what direct rule will do over the next 13 months. That will have an effect on benefits and people’s living standards for a long time to come, not least people with disabilities and long-term health conditions.

Those people are not just worried about the implications of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Act 2015 and dissatisfied about the arrangements for personal independence payment, which need to be improved on the basis of the experience in the pilot areas in England, but they are also very concerned about the implications of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which will change a lot of the terms and conditions attaching to universal credit. The very basis on which the original 2012 Act was sold here and the very basis on which the DUP tried to retail that Act in the Assembly was the prospectus for universal credit. Already, those terms and conditions are being changed adversely. As we pass this order, other legislation is coming through that will fundamentally change them. That is not a good deal for the people who are on these benefits.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.

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

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

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.

Stormont

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Those of us who were members of the pick-up band that was organised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park wanted to ensure that there could be a trigger other than a parliamentary trigger, or a trigger from the courts, and the idea of putting what could be termed a 5% premise petition in the hands of constituents struck us as reasonable. Having been received, the petition would then have to be tested by a more qualified assessment—the 20% petition—and if that was successful, it would be followed by a referendum which would have to secure a 50% vote before a by-election could take place.

Some Members have expressed the fear that voters will be whipped up into a state of prejudice, and that there will be misrepresentation of people and a disproportionate focus on certain issues. I ask them to consider both the stages and the time scale that are proposed in the amendments that some of us support. It is even possible that the time scale is too long. The amendments would allow more protection and more measured consideration. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) told us earlier that his constituents, who had a very clear view on a very specific issue, were eventually prepared to vote for an MP who held completely the opposite view, because they had reached a more rounded judgment on the nature of the MP’s job, and because they set great store by truth and people being honest about their opinions.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, notwithstanding the safeguards that he has described, in Northern Ireland a group with the organisational ability possessed by Sinn Fein could unseat an MP whom it believed to be vulnerable because that MP was already in a marginal seat. Such a well-organised group could surmount all the barriers that he has outlined, and request a recall on spurious grounds.

[Mark Durkan]

People can organise petitions, and perhaps they can achieve the 5% and perhaps they can then achieve the 20%, but after that there would be the referendum. Even in Northern Ireland, where people have their own views, I have always found them to be fairly tolerant of MPs with different views if they know that those MPs are being honest and diligent.

Many years ago, I had to run the campaign in South Down against Enoch Powell, who represented a minority opinion in the constituency at the time. I remember that even nationalists in that constituency said, “Well, whatever else he is, he is certainly a hard-working and diligent MP.” They did not agree with his views, but they knew his views, and they knew that he did his job. Of course, he also raised his hat to them when he was in the constituency and greeted them, and they seemed to like that as well. Even in the context of Northern Ireland, and speaking as a Member whose seat has been heavily targeted by Sinn Fein, which is investing an awful lot of effort and resources, I do not believe that fear of the outcome described by the hon. Gentleman is sufficient reason to oppose a more meaningful recall provision.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I think that that Bill has been subject to a number of different viewpoints in the Assembly, particularly in respect of the workability of its detail. Indeed, many of the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the shortcomings of the Modern Slavery Bill have also indicated their reservations about some of the language in the Assembly Bill, which they want to see improved, modified or qualified. Now that there are moves to legislate in a number of these areas, we want to make sure that the legislation is as competent and effective as possible.

Some of the provisions of this Bill are clearly UK-wide—for example, both the slavery and trafficking prevention orders and the slavery and trafficking risk orders are UK-wide, yet many other functions apply to England and Wales, making it an England and Wales Bill. The orders are rightly UK-wide and they can even have international or extra-territorial effects.

There is a case for saying that we need more joined-up legislation in this area, and I know that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, for instance, has already engaged in a consultation exercise and seems ready to take forward legislation that has a similar remit to this Bill. I imagine, however, that if a Bill in this form went before the Northern Ireland Assembly, it might be subject to amendments and could be successfully amended in some of the respects raised by hon. Members here that the Government are resisting. We could reach the odd situation whereby subsequent legislation in Northern Ireland that appears to mirror this Bill could be more than just a karaoke Bill, along the lines that we are used to in the Assembly whereby a Bill is simply replicated. The Assembly Bill could go further and embrace some of the suggested amendments that the Government have resisted here.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one important element that needs to be UK-wide is the ability to seize assets of criminal gangs to recompense the victims of the crime? Does he agree that that should apply regardless of which part of the United Kingdom the gangs operate from and regardless of which part of the United Kingdom their assets are held in? Their assets must be subject to seizure and then redistributed among the victims.

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I do believe and recognise that. In case the hon. Gentleman is thinking that there is some kind of blur into issues surrounding the National Crime Agency, we have always been of the opinion that whatever arrangements are in place in respect of the pursuit and recovery of assets and ill-gotten gains should apply UK-wide. We want no weakening in that regard. The burden of our concern about difficulties involving the NCA did not arise from that, and does not centre on it, as I think both Home Office Ministers and the NCA itself are aware.

I accept that, in focusing on some of the Bill’s shortcomings, we may not be doing justice to some of the strengths that other Members have rightly welcomed, but I think that at this stage in its passage we need to urge the Government to think further and think better, given some of the answers that they have provided in respect of not just the offences issue, but the role of the anti-slavery commissioner. I am not persuaded by the Home Secretary’s presentation. I am not convinced that the commissioner, as described in the Bill, will be as robust and independent, in terms of drive and impact, as she has implied. Again, I think that we should look to arrangements that exist elsewhere, not least in Finland. We should be demanding an anti-slavery commissioner with similar scope, status and standing.

I appreciate that, as a Government Member observed earlier, we cannot create a body, or post, that is so independent that no Department or Secretary of State relates to it, in the context of, for instance, pursuing legislative proposals or being a channel for budget bids. Those of us who are calling for something more independent do not want a commissioner who would be so detached, and such a political and governmental orphan, that he would not have the necessary standing and leverage. We want that standing and leverage, in budgetary and legislative terms. However, we also want people to know that that status is entirely within the commissioner’s own independent right, is based on the authority of the role, and is not qualified by sensibilities or sensitivities on the part of a certain Minister in a certain Department. In particular, we do not want the suspicion to arise that those sensitivities are actually on behalf of a Minister in another Department or agency.

We should consider some of the grounds for qualification. In my experience, the issue of national security has been used to cover a very wide and loose variety of concerns. We do not want the work and the role of the commissioner—not just in terms of reports—to be limited or curtailed to that degree, and we hope that, as the Bill progresses, the upgrading of that work and role will go a great deal further.

Other Members have raised the issue of guardianship. I think that that is one of the issues that go to the heart of the question of whether the Bill does enough in regard to protection, although it is not the only such issue that is still outstanding. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the other members of the Joint Committee clearly identified the gap that continues to exist when they were considering the draft Bill. While it purported to do more in respect of prosecution and seemed to be trying do more in respect of prevention, it did not offer much in respect of protection and support. I think that the Bill in its present form is still short in that respect, and one of the most notable ways in which it is short relates to the glaring issue of child guardianships.

If child guardianships are not included in the Bill and we allow it to be passed without them, we, as a House, we will be saying “We think it will be all right on the night. We think it will somehow be okay.” When it comes to the treatment of children, we have been confronted by many derelictions, false assurances and false assumptions. It is claimed that children are being protected and their interests are being properly safeguarded, but we know that, in this respect, they are not. Other Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have already referred to statistics showing how many children have gone missing for this reason, and have been brought back into the woodwork of exploitation, abuse and manipulated rights. If we are serious about the way in which the Bill regards children, we must ensure that guardianship is at the forefront and central to its provisions.

I ask Ministers to consider again the very logical arguments that have been advanced about the question of surer definitions relating to children. I do not think that there should be an either/or when it comes to whether we have a general defence or a particular offence. We know that, in plenty of other contexts, we can have both. If we are to entrust various other matters and means to the judgment, recommendation and guidance of the commissioner—and to law officers and others who are engaged with such matters—I do not see why we cannot trust people to cope with particular offences relating to someone’s status as a child, as well as with a general offence.

Let me make one final point about children and protection. We need to be absolutely clear that defence clauses such as clause 39 can extend to non-prosecution. We need to be certain that people can have the protection of not being prosecuted in the first place, rather than becoming part of the feeding line for potential case law through having to activate and use a defence. I believe that the House would want to offer those people a greater protection: a guarantee that the relevant legal officers could choose the option of non-prosecution, in full recognition of the conditions and circumstances with which they were dealing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I am pleased that the Bill enables sentences to be extended to life, which will give the courts an opportunity to deal properly with the criminals who are involved in the trade of slavery.

As a number of Members have pointed out, the Bill contains a notable omission. The best thing to do is to prevent slavery from happening in the first place. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) gave us a lot of information. How likely is it that companies that are using slave labour in the United Kingdom will be caught as a result of fewer inspections? I believe he said that there would be one inspection every 250 years, and that there was a chance of employers being convicted once in a million years. That is hardly going to focus the minds of those who use slave labour on the fact that the authorities are going to get them.

I know that one argument will be about the expense of inspections. As the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) pointed out, we know that certain areas and certain industries in the United Kingdom are more prone to using slave labour than others. If there are to be inspections, why can they not target likely employers? Some of them may have a record; there may be local knowledge. If such people are harassed, there may at least be a chance that they will desist from using the slave labour that they are currently exploiting.

It has rightly been said that the offences that have been specified are really just a gathering together of existing pieces of legislation. The fact is—and there may be a number of reasons for this—that the number of convictions has been very low. Even when people have been identified as engaging in the slave trade and using slaves, the percentage who are taken to court and are convicted is below a third. A small number of people are taken to court, and there is a small percentage of convictions. Moreover, given the complexity of the legislation, those cases often take a long time. A case in Northamptonshire involved 200 police officers; 13 arrests were made, and, three years down the line, there were two convictions.

As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out, it is not that the Government do not benefit from good legal advice. I am not a barrister, but I know that legal advice has been sought on how the offence could be made simpler, more understandable and easier to prosecute. However, none of it has been included in the Bill. If we are to have effective legislation, let us not just gather together elements of legislation that have not been seen to be working so far; let us look at offences and define them in the Bill. Of course the Government may argue that consolidating the legislation and all the support that will be made available will increase the conviction rate, but if the legal opinion is that the plethora of laws at present causes complications, this is the time to change that.

The protection of children has been well highlighted. From her vast experience, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made it clear that we need separate definitions and separate measures to deal with the exploitation of children. I cannot understand—the Minister did not make it clear—why a definition of children would cause complications and perhaps lead to even fewer convictions. If the reason is to do with establishing the age, there is an easy way to deal with that. If there is some concern about establishing the age, put the individuals in the general legislation. Where it is clear that we are dealing with children, let us have separate legislation and a separate definition of children.

The next issue I want to raise is in relation to other parts of the UK. The Joint Committee pointed out that, although private Members’ legislation does mirror the Bill, it does not totally mirror it. One easy option would be to ask the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, so that the legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. The alternative is to take separate legislation through the Assembly, but given the length of time it takes to get some legislation through the Assembly, the legislation might be passed not in this Session of Parliament or the next, but the one after that. That gap causes great concern in one particular area: the seizure of assets and their use to recompense victims.

If assets are kept in Northern Ireland or Scotland, will it be possible to pull those assets in when someone is convicted of using slave labour in England and Wales, or will it be much more difficult? In Northern Ireland, we have an added complication. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) tried to dismiss the point I made earlier but it was also highlighted by the Joint Committee. The National Crime Agency is not able to operate fully in Northern Ireland because that is being blocked by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by Sinn Fein. That in turn creates a difficulty in dealing with the trafficking gangs, who may see places such as Northern Ireland as a haven from which they can operate.

[Mark Durkan]

Again, I make the point that the debate has nothing to do with the National Crime Agency and the wider issues in Northern Ireland. The SDLP’s concerns in that regard do not relate to the issue of asset recovery and never have.

[Sammy Wilson]

The SDLP’s concerns may not relate to the recovery of assets from criminals but, because the National Crime Agency legislation cannot apply to Northern Ireland, the fact is that the issue is all tied up with the blockage that has occurred, owing to the attitude of Sinn Fein and the SDLP.

On the issue of corporate supply, the use of slave labour in the supply of materials from many developing countries is a multi-billion pound industry. It is worth while for slave traders to use slave labour, given the rewards. There have been impassioned pleas to the Government to include that matter in the legislation. There does not even seem to be any commercial argument against that, at least not from firms that want to demonstrate corporate responsibility. In fact, if anything they appear to be arguing that the market is flawed if we do not have legislation to protect firms who wish to do the right thing in respect of their supply chains, because otherwise they are undercut by the gangsters and the criminals.

I find it very odd that on one hand we will legislate for what goes into our food—for what is in a burger—but we do not seem to be concerned about how it is made, who it is made by or what conditions they work in. We do not seem to think it causes any difficulty for firms to have traceability for the ingredients, but somehow or other it creates commercial difficulties if we want traceability regarding the labour force used in making goods that are sold here in the United Kingdom.

Given that I did not hear any Members on the Government’s side resisting the calls from the other side of the House for transparency in corporate supply chains to be included, and given that major organisations in the United Kingdom have said they have no difficulty with this, but, indeed, they would welcome it, I trust that as this Bill goes through the House, that will also be included.

This is an important Bill. I commend the Government for bringing it forward, and I commend the Secretary of State for the energy she has put into it and the commitment she has made, but I hope the criticisms that have been made and the shortcomings that have been highlighted will be taken on board and addressed during the Committee stage.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I actually think an amendment may well have been tabled because, although I was not a Member of this House, I remember drafting an amendment —but I am not sure whether it was subsequently tabled.

I should stress that when we pointed out that this was not provided for in the agreement, the NIO response was to provide for it by way of a stipulation that the Assembly Standing Orders would provide for that procedure. That turned out not to be robust enough. The right hon. Gentleman might say, “Well, did we not address that in Assembly Standing Orders?” He will find that the record of the Assembly shows, in the very first Standing Orders report, that I did address the fact that it was not there. The then Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, acknowledged my attention to detail, in so far as he could without being drawn into the debate; that obviously went very much back to his own participation in the negotiations.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a more cynical interpretation of why those concerned neglected to deal with this at that stage is that the UUP and the SDLP were then the largest parties, and they were hoping that they might be able to use the veto? Perhaps the reason for the concern now about the petition of concern is that the SDLP is not in a position to use it—as was originally intended, which is the reason why the legislation did not reflect what he is now saying that he wants.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman might have some basis for saying that if there was any truth in it, which, of course, there is not, not least because we deliberately set the petition of concern threshold at 30 because at that time we thought there was no chance of a party reaching the 30s. That was one of the reasons why the 30 threshold was there; there were concerns about how freely this could be used and that it might block things up.

The need for the petition of concern to be significant was emphasised not just by the threshold but by the special committee procedure to show whether there was a prima facie case on either equality or human rights grounds. The petition of concern was not to be used just for the convenience of a party that wanted to stop something. The fact is, however, that petitions of concern have been used to veto Bills that addressed the question of dual mandates between local government and the Assembly, which is a completely undue use. A petition of concern was also used to veto any question of a binding or significant vote in relation to censure of a Minister; it was never meant to be used in that sort of way.

The fact of a petition of concern being used, or being threatened to be used, by different parties prevents issues from being tabled. The whole point of the petition of concern was not to stop things being tabled, but to ensure that when they were tabled they were duly frisked and tested in respect of sensitive considerations such as human rights and equality. New clause 2 simply tries to get the Assembly out of the rut it is currently in, where vetoes are used far too often in a way that not only negates outcomes but prevents debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to ensure consistency with what was intended and envisaged in the Good Friday agreement and in the provisions that became section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for equality duties and duties of public bodies in respect of good relations. On a number of occasions in recent years there has been a move to say that the good relations duty could sometimes trump the equality duty, so that a public body might not come through with a measure on equality grounds based on objective need because somebody else might feel it would upset good relations. We have seen that arise in relation to the Irish language, and there have been suggestions of its arising in relation to the provision and siting of social housing as well. The amendment seeks to clarify the balance and relationship between the good relations duty and the equality duty.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman’s view on policing and the safeguards that are required obviously differs from mine, but all the discussion to which he has referred happened a long time ago, when SOCA was set up. The relationships between the Policing Board and SOCA and between the ombudsman and SOCA, and the safeguards that were to be provided, are still in place, and indeed have been added to. I cannot understand—I am sure it would be useful to the Minister to know this as well—where the gaps which, according to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), still exist can be found. The safeguards that his party agreed were necessary in the past were adequate and have been added to, but there seems still to be a reluctance to accept that the National Crime Agency will be able to operate in the context of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The reluctance is not a reluctance to see the National Crime Agency operate or make a due contribution to the fighting and the reducing of crime in Northern Ireland, and crime that reaches into or out of Northern Ireland and affects other territories. The hon. Gentleman mentioned SOCA. When SOCA was first proposed, his party and mine had reservations about it, but many of those reservations were concerned with whether it would mean the loss of the valuable work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau. We wondered whether level 1 crime would be dealt with by the PSNI and level 3 would be dealt with by SOCA, and whether criminals knew that if they kept their criminal activity within level 2, there would be no one to deal with it.

Many issues arose in relation to SOCA, not just the issue of whether UK policing would affect Northern Ireland. We were seriously worried, for instance, about SOCA’s role in relation to the role of MI5. The notion of what is classified as national security, and of what a Government treat as national security, seems to be something of a movable feast in terms of the level of crime operations that are deemed to be within MI5’s sphere of influence. We were trying to clarify all those matters, and the same applies here. We need to know about any additional policing element.

The Bill with which we were originally presented provided for constabulary powers to be given to National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland, and we needed to know how they would be aligned with the constabulary powers of the PSNI. The Bill also provided for NCA special constables in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman would have been very surprised if, four and a half decades on from all the working and striving to get rid of the B-specials, nationalist parties did not question legislation providing for new special constables. Those are exactly the sort of provisions that people want to address in a sensible way.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I first apologise for not being present for most of the debate? Unfortunately, I had a meeting to discuss the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which is a very important issue.

I gather that the debate has been fairly lively. The only two speeches I heard were from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I did not know we had to parade the benefits of our constituencies in the debate. The shadow Secretary of State said that Strangford is the most beautiful constituency he has been to, but he said that before he had even been to my constituency, adding that he wanted to visit.

I think I can trump everything my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said about his constituency. He has the Scrabo tower, which was built a mere 150 years ago; I have Carrickfergus castle, the oldest Norman fort, I believe, in the whole United Kingdom. He talks about St Patrick wandering around his constituency; King Billy landed in mine. He talks about the Ards shopping centre; I have a cathedral of consumerism at the Abbey centre. For goodness sake! For his mere Comber spud, I can offer Glenarm salmon, which is famous the world over. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know you want me to move on.

The debate is important, but I was a bit saddened by what I heard from the hon. Member for South Down. I like her, but her speech was not worthy of her. This debate was not meant to be about boasting about the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland; it was about promoting Northern Ireland, whose people have different backgrounds, national aspirations, outlooks and huge historical differences. Nevertheless, I believe that 2012 offers an opportunity to all people in Northern Ireland to gain from the economic benefits that will arise from the unique events and anniversaries this year. Those events and anniversaries will also help us to understand some of our own traditions, background and history.

I was saddened, therefore, by the contribution from the hon. Member for South Down because this should have been a positive debate, and I hope that it will be seen as such. We are proud to live in Northern Ireland and proud that it has come through the dark days that have probably dominated most of our lives—certainly most of our political lives—and is moving on. The motion states that we are moving forward not because of what Unionists alone have done but because of what we have all done and the compromises we have all had to make. I believe that those decisions will ensure that the next 30 years are not blighted like the past 30 years. I was a bit saddened, then, by her negative approach.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman said that he had not heard the whole debate. On the positive changes made, the motion and 2012, does he acknowledge the particularly strong and positive role being played by Tourism Ireland—a body whose creation his party persistently opposed for many years and whose budget it tried to have aborted? Will he accept that he got that wrong and was negative, but that now it is doing good things?

[Sammy Wilson]

I would prefer to consider what all of us now have to do to promote Northern Ireland not only next year but in all the years ahead. And one area we have to offer and which has been identified as a growth industry is the tourism industry: it is labour intensive; we have a good natural resource that we can exploit to the benefit of tourism; and there is huge interest in past events in Northern Ireland. So we have the industry, the history and the architectural heritage, and we should exploit that.

[Mark Durkan]

All of it.

[Ms Ritchie]

All of it.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

That just illustrates the inflationary impact of the situation, not just on individual families but throughout the economy, and the Government ought to bear it in mind as they ask themselves, “What shall we do to regenerate the economy?”

Various reasons why it is difficult to do something have been given. The first, which we have heard from Government Members, is that if we try to reduce VAT Europe will intervene. That is another reason for renegotiating our position on Europe—but leaving that aside, I note that 75% of the tax is not VAT but fuel duty, so even if there is a problem with Europe, the Government have another way of dealing with the problem.

The second reason that has been given has involved asking, “What about deficit reduction?”, but there does not seem to have been any difficulty with deficit reduction when it has come to bailing out the euro, with £12.5 billion having already been pumped into it and the Government talking about more money going to the International Monetary Fund. Indeed, as Government Members have said, the measure could almost be self-financing anyway: if, for example, it led to a rise in demand, there would be more duty; if it cut costs, more corporation tax would be paid.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that previously, whenever the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru moved their various motions, Labour voted them down and the Tories abstained, and then the Tories voted them down and Labour abstained? Does he believe that there must be something particularly volatile in fuel prices on the road to Damascus to bring about such changes in outlook?

[Sammy Wilson]

I believe in Damascus road experiences, and if they help the consumer that is a good thing, so I look forward to that. I hope that the Government will have a Damascus road experience on this issue. Consumers would be pleased if they did.

In opposition, the Conservatives made promises. Now that they are in government they hold in their hands the levers to help consumers, and from this debate will come the expectation that promises made in the past will be delivered by those who hold the levers and have the ability to use them in the present.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

We can see how the bail-out of the Irish Republic conflicts with what is happening in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) mentioned air passenger duty. I am disappointed about this because the Chancellor could have done something about it. In particular, the one flight between Northern Ireland and North America is very important in attracting not only tourists but inward investment. A sum of £2.1 million would have ensured that that flight continues, yet the Chancellor did not find that he could allow for regional variation. There are precedents for that because regional variations are allowed for Scotland. The irony is that the Irish Government, using the £7.5 billion that was obtained from the United Kingdom, are now going to abolish air passenger duty, which places them at an even more positive advantage regarding the service that flies from Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Irish Government had made the decision about air passenger duty before any loan facility was agreed with the UK Government—and I stress that it is a loan facility?

[Sammy Wilson]

I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman should want to apologise for the Irish Republic, which is in direct competition with the economy of the area that he represents, but we will leave it to his constituents to question him about that.

The Chancellor has made much of the fuel duty escalator. Northern Ireland does not have the highest fuel prices in the United Kingdom, but it certainly has the second highest, and we also have the problem of the border with the Irish Republic. I would have hoped that the Chancellor would come through on the promise that he made when he was in opposition. We have a promise that future price increases will be deferred, but the impact on current prices will be very slight. That leaves Northern Ireland, with its high dependence on road transport for its manufactured goods and its dispersed rural nature, at a disadvantage.

I acknowledge that the Government have responded to some developments recently. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the aggregates levy and the allowance that has been made. I welcome the fact that the loan facility for the Presbyterian Mutual Society has been built into the Budget. In his concluding remarks, the Chancellor said that he would put the fuel in the tank of the British economy so that it could drive forward. I may be about to show my age, but I hope that it is a tiger in the tank so that we finish up with a tiger economy. I fear that we are going to run out of fuel very quickly, and we will all be poorer for it.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way.

[Mark Durkan]

She will regret this.

[Sammy Wilson]

She probably will, because I am a bit confused about the argument for the amendment. It started off as an argument that, as people would be using the system to vote at the next election, they should have some say about it. As has been pointed out, that ought to mean reducing the age to 14, because 14-year-olds will be using the system. Then the argument changed and we heard that we had to choose an arbitrary age, and it was 16. What is the central point that the hon. Lady is making? Is it that people should have a say about the system that will be used when they first have a vote at a general election? If that is the case, why is the age not 14? Why not choose any number at all and put it in the amendment?

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) treated us to a medley of his greatest hits from previous debates, and the shadow Home Secretary performed his cover version of some of his arguments. However, let us remember that the main issues in previous debates were the threshold test, post-charge questioning and intercept evidence. It is important, in the context of the review and any decisions taken in six months if the order is passed today, that the House fully and properly understands those issues.

We were told earlier that a senior person who dealt with counter-terrorism was not aware of the threshold test. Although it was not mentioned in the Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday, I imagine that she is taking six months to conduct a review because she wants to roll the pitch on several issues so that, when the debate takes place, Opposition Front Benchers cannot accuse her of a knee-jerk reaction to the Lib Dem manifesto and she can show that any change has been on the basis of thorough review. I understand the tactic. However, I will vote against the order because I never believed on principle in 28-day detention. Like others, I found myself taken hostage and having to vote for 28 days because it was the only way to stop three months’ detention.

Let us also remember that counter-terrorism measures can be—some have proved to be—counter-productive. Not only internment, but a host of counter-terrorism measures were counter-productive in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party advocated and cheerled many of them, which ended up assisting the terrorists, partly by alienating the community from the police and making the job of community policing hard and even impossible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because the Home Secretary needs time to wind up the debate.

In the previous debate, we were told about the comments of chief constables. I do not know the collective noun for chief constables, but they were all lined up in support of 28 days. I assume that it will take six months to sort out their line and get them on a different course. However, I recall among the good contributions in previous debates about 28-day detention those of the now Attorney-General. He clearly signalled before the election his opposition to 28 days and said that the policy would be reviewed. It is therefore not true that only the Liberals made such a proposal.

As Opposition Front Benchers discover that they need to change their position on immigration, I appeal to them to wake up to civil liberties.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in the autumn, around the same time as the consultation document on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy is published, the Executive and the Assembly will find out the outcome of the review of departmental expenditure limits in the current comprehensive spending round? That will have an effect on what Northern Ireland gets through the Barnett formula. The Budget also projects serious reductions in annually managed expenditure in the form of social security benefits, and those two squeezes on Northern Ireland combined could have a high economic impact that would make what is in the consultation document pretty irrelevant.

[Sammy Wilson]

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