Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that is only half the answer, because under this agreement we would still be within the rules of the single market, still subject to the European Court of Justice making adjudications about whether we adhere to those rules, and still subject to the EU being able to deny the United Kingdom Government the ability to apply changes to the law made here in Westminster to Northern Ireland.

There are very good reasons why we oppose this deal, and the motion does not offer any hope of change. In fact, if anything, the Prime Minister is quite openly saying, “And, by the way, I now want Democratic Unionist party MPs to vote for the accelerated passage of the Bill”—a Bill that would facilitate the agreement, which would have such detrimental effects on Northern Ireland. We do not want the accelerated passage of the Bill. We do not want 24-hour scrutiny. We want to ensure that nothing happens in this House that enables the Prime Minister to deliver on a deal that he promised he would never, ever do.

Of course, if the Prime Minister gets his general election, what platform will he be standing on? What mandate will he seek? What strategy will he put forward? What will be in his manifesto—that he wants to come back here with a majority to deliver the death deal to the Union in Northern Ireland, as he made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)? The offer of the accelerated passage of a Bill that would facilitate the agreement and an election that the Prime Minister would use to justify breaking his promises to the people of Northern Ireland is an offer that we can refuse and will be quite happy to refuse.

Although we want to see Brexit delivered, we want to see it delivered for the whole United Kingdom. We want it delivered in the form that the Prime Minister twice—he changed his mind the third time—voted for in this House. We will not be prepared to facilitate him moving the goalposts and affecting Northern Ireland in this way. Although we do not fear a general election and we want to see Brexit delivered, if it is not going to be delivered for the whole United Kingdom, I do not think that anyone in this House could possibly condemn us for standing up for our constituents, who will be damaged economically and constitutionally.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if we were to have a general election, that would simply be a de facto referendum part 2, because there would be no other subject under debate during that general election than Brexit? Would it not be an absolute dereliction of duty were we to allow something as important as a general election to be hijacked and simply to be a weak, ersatz version of another referendum?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into saying that this should be decided by a second referendum. I do not believe that it should be decided by a second referedum, because, of course, the first referendum has not been delivered on. We want to see the first referendum delivered on, and delivered on for the whole United Kingdom.

The argument has been put forward here tonight that we need a general election because this has now become a zombie Parliament—the Government cannot get their business through. We are not wreckers. We do not want to see the United Kingdom ungovernable. Indeed, the reason we voted with the Government on the Queen’s Speech last week was that they had a programme to get through and we wanted to give it support. We do not want to see the United Kingdom made ungovernable. But the one thing we are not prepared to do is to see the United Kingdom divided and the Union destroyed, and that is why we cannot give our support in the vote tonight.

Northern Ireland Executive

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I think it is appropriate, although not necessarily relevant, to mention the sombre, serious and sober debate on the murder of Lyra McKee that we had earlier. The statements that we heard from the Northern Ireland Members present will resonate long in this House and far beyond it. It makes it all the more important, when we are dealing with business like this—in the absence of an Executive and an Assembly—that we do not allow a vacuum for the gangsters and the men and women of violence to succeed and to flourish. I profoundly hope that what we heard tonight will be a tipping point and that there is a possibility of a return to normalcy, which would be epitomised by this sort of legislation.

This is an extremely unusual piece of legislation in that it has already been made. It comes before us, as the Minister said, small and perfectly formed, but it was perfectly formed last month. It is what we call an affirmative statutory instrument. I am sure that some people lie awake at night dreaming of unusual affirmative statutory instruments, but I do not count myself among those people. This is a piece—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled from the Back Benches, but what I do at night is entirely my own business.

One of the first questions I asked was, “Why was it expedient for this statutory instrument to be made without the prior approval of Parliament?” The answer is quite simply that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was deep in negotiations with the various parties in the Northern Ireland, and it is a tragedy that we have to consider this piece of legislation now after those negotiations have taken place.

The explanatory memorandum refers to negotiations that have taken place with all the Northern Ireland political parties, and I am interested to know whether any negative comments or suggestions were made at that time. I want to put the House’s mind entirely at rest, calm fragile beating hearts and say that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will almost certainly not oppose the regulations.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

One way of avoiding this legislation would be for the Secretary of State to put it up to the parties in Northern Ireland. If they wish to go into the Assembly, as they all say they do, the Secretary of State could call the Assembly tomorrow and see who turns up. That would show which parties are the real obstacle to the Assembly forming again.

[Stephen Pound]

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years—I knew him when he was opposing his predecessor in an impressive campaign—but he tempts me down a primrose path that I must sadly resist. I cannot at this stage in my not-particularly-successful parliamentary career claim to speak for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The closest that I have ever come to the Secretary of State is being on the other side of the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that she is quite happy with that—the distance, I mean. I cannot make any comment, but I am familiar with the statement, which the right hon. Gentleman has made before. Labour does not intend to oppose the regulations tonight. In fact, on the contrary, we actually intend to confirm our support. However, we would like some indication of the road map to devolution being restored.

I want to refer to Paul Murphy, now Lord Torfaen, who supported the regulations in the other place. I remember him well, and he is held in great respect. I remember that the late Rev. Dr Ian Paisley would greet him every morning with the salutation, “And how is the apostle Paul this morning?” Paul Murphy loves Northern Ireland, but he said in his speech in the upper House that

“Northern Ireland is the least democratic part of our country and of the European Union. No nationalist Members of Parliament, or, for that matter, Members of this House, take their seats”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 April 2019; Vol. 797, c. 519.]

and “there is no Assembly”. Tonight, we realise the full impact of that situation, which cannot be allowed to pertain.

There has been some talk of the discussions being accelerated by the appointment of an independent arbiter—someone to oversee them. It is a superficially attractive proposition, but I understand that the Secretary of State is currently in discussions with two committees of Members of the Legislative Assembly, and we would like to see how that progresses.

Armed Forces: Historical Cases

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This is an important debate. I will not go over all the statistics given by previous speakers, but we in Northern Ireland owe a great debt of gratitude to those who held the ring for 40 years in the face of a sustained terrorist campaign. It is wrong that as a result of republican attempts to rewrite the history of the troubles those people are now being subjected to a witch-hunt and being made the scapegoats for what happened during those 40 years. I warn the House that if Members think that what we have seen to date has been unfair, one can be absolutely sure that Sinn Féin will ramp up the pressure after the Northern Ireland election to ensure that more soldiers and policemen are dragged into the dock. The classified documents of the police and the Ministry of Defence will be open for scrutiny by smart lawyers in the courts—all of which is an attempt to rewrite history. The election is not about a failed heating scheme, as suggested by the shadow Minister; it is all about Sinn Féin thinking it has an opportunity to rerun the last election, to come out stronger and to put pressure on a Government who will be dead keen to get it back into government. Their price will be the sacrifice of policemen and soldiers in the courts through an unfair system.

Members are right to be concerned about what we have heard today. The system is already unfair because the cases have been disproportionately skewed towards those in the security forces. As has been asked already, why are those in the legal and justice system in Northern Ireland shouting so loudly, and trying to silence the press, about what has happened if they do not believe that if the decisions were looked at closely they would be seen to be disproportionate? From the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and right up to the Chief Constable of the PSNI, we have heard denials that the cases have been disproportionate. Yet the figures are clear: 30% of the cases being investigated at present involve the security forces, but only 10% of the people killed in Northern Ireland during the troubles were killed by security force action. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) made the point well that all the terrorist cases involved murders. As for the deaths caused by the security forces, few could be claimed to have been unlawful or even to look unlawful.

[Stephen Pound]

For the benefit of the House, I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not in any way implying that the Assembly elections on 2 March are solely the result of the RHI issue. They are indicative of a wider feeling of distrust, which in many ways is being addressed by this debate today.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

The system is unfair in its approach. Let us look at how terrorists have been treated. They have been given letters that excuse them from ever having to be in court. When Gerry Adams was questioned about his covering up of his paedophile brother, he was given the opportunity to nominate which police station he wanted to go to and when he would like to be interviewed. His house was not raided. He was not hauled out of his bed. He was not dragged across the water to be questioned, unlike some soldiers based in Great Britain; it was done at his convenience. However, when it comes to the soldiers, I want to know who gave the instructions for early-morning raids on pensioners’ homes. Instead of police officers from Northern Ireland coming over to question people in their own town or local police station, these people had to be dragged to Northern Ireland and then restrictive bail conditions, which were never put on terrorists, were placed on them, so the system is unfair in its approach. Was that a result of direction by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Was it a decision made by the Chief Constable? Was it a decision by the police in the jurisdiction where the people lived? I have asked the Chief Constable for answers to those questions and have not been able to get them.

Finally, the system is unfair due to the inadequacy and imbalance of information. I do not accept the Secretary of State’s explanation that there will be plenty of information about the terrorists because we will have all the police files. Many of those files have disappeared, and many cases were never even investigated, but there will be detailed records of what the Army did. The only solution is to have a statute of limitations. Terrorists have had special conditions attached to them since the Good Friday agreement, and fairness should be attached to those who served in the security forces. People should not be dragged before the courts for things that happened 40 years ago, of which they have little recollection and for which even state records are difficult to turn up. I hope that this issue will not be forgotten and that we will sustain pressure on the Government to ensure fairness for those who served our country so well.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the fact that we are debating this important issue. Although the debate has been dominated by Northern Ireland Members, I believe that the issue should concern not just politicians from Northern Ireland, but every Member of the House. At the beginning of his speech—it was a very forensic speech, which should be welcomed—the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) almost apologised for being involved in the debate, but I believe that he as much as anyone else should be concerned about the issues arising from the Downey case.

The whole matter has been brought to the fore by the hurt caused not to people in Northern Ireland, but to people in this very city who were blown apart by an IRA bomb, and, of course, to many others. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) mentioned many constituents who had served in the Army, and also the IRA bombs that had hurt people in his constituency. This is an issue that affects Members throughout the House, because people in their constituencies, including people in this part of the United Kingdom, have been affected by the activities of those who received the amnesty letters—for that is what they are, however the Secretary of State wishes to describe them.

A second reason why all Members should be concerned is the fact that the House of Commons has been brought into disrepute. I believe that not just the last Government but the current Government have been sullied by the scheme whose outcome we saw in the recent court case. It calls into question whether the public can trust the words of those who want and ask for the responsibility of governing the country. Numerous assurances were given in the House: Members were told that the issue had to be addressed, and that when it was addressed, people would know about it. The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is no longer in the Chamber, was the only Member to suggest today that perhaps we should have known—that the information might have been there, but we had missed it. He said “We are busy people, we get e-mails and so forth”. He also quoted what had been said by the then Secretary of State, Dr Reid, in answer to a question. Dr Reid also said at that time that

“we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved”,

and added:

“When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 253.]

That did not happen.

One conclusion that was reached, of course, was to introduce the on-the-runs legislation. On at least two occasions after that was withdrawn, the then Secretary of State indicated, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), that he had no alternative proposal, despite the fact that the scheme was put in place not long afterwards.

I want to make something clear. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) said. He stated, “This was purely an administrative scheme.” I have also served in a Government Department in Northern Ireland, and the one thing I can assure the House of is that no official, off their own bat, would start an administrative scheme as sensitive as this one, with all its political ramifications, without clear political direction and political origin. It may have eventually taken on an administrative life, but it started off with a conscious decision by politicians. They were politicians who had promised that when they came to address the issue, the facts would be known to the House and—as Dr Reid said, because he realised how sensitive the issue was—to the victims. Promises were, therefore, broken.

One reason why this debate is important is that it is about confidence in this House and in the word of politicians. The Labour party was then in government, and I have listened closely to what the shadow Secretary of State has said. When he was interviewed about the matter, he talked about it having caused hurt but said—I am quoting him almost exactly—that he did not believe the Labour party had anything to apologise for. I believe it does have something to apologise for. It must apologise first to those families who now know they will never get justice because of the double jeopardy rule. It owes an apology as well to those members of the public who have been misled by promises made by successive Secretaries of State in this House, and it also owes an apology to Members of this House.

The current Government cannot escape their responsibility either. When the new Administration took over, seamlessly, there was no indication that they had inherited an administrative scheme which had trundled on. Indeed, the Secretary of State still insists that the letters are virtually meaningless. If they are virtually meaningless, why are they so important to the peace process? If they are virtually meaningless, why did Sinn Fein send scores of names to the Northern Ireland Office to get meaningless bits of paper, and why do those who received those meaningless bits of paper now feel quite happy not to be on the run any more, but to enter the United Kingdom? It just does not add up.

The Secretary of State argues that the letters are meaningless because of what may happen if new evidence comes to light. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has pointed out, we are not clear whether that is evidence on existing cases or evidence only on new cases, but this applies only if new evidence comes to light. Given the information that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has provided to the House today, we know that already there are not just connections or contacts between the Northern Ireland Office and those who would be investigating, but, as Norman Baxter said, there is extremely grave interference in the process.

We have to ask: what instructions are being given to the police? What instructions are being given to the Historical Enquiries Team? It could be, “That person has received a letter, so do not be following any new lines of inquiry, do not be opening any new cases and do not be looking any further at any allegations made about them.” I do not know whether the inquiry’s remit will cover finding out whether any of those who have received such letters have subsequently had any investigation into their cases by the HET. It would be interesting to know that, but I suspect that the answer is no. The Secretary of State may say, “If new evidence comes to light, these letters will not mean anything”, but of course if it can be ensured that no new evidence comes to light, the letters do amount to an amnesty.

If we want an indication that that might be the case, let us examine the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea)—that of Liam Averill. Why could Liam Averill not benefit from the scheme? It was because the evidence was already there—he had been serving a prison sentence. He had escaped from prison and a letter was no use to him, so he had to have the royal prerogative of mercy. If any indication were needed that the letters amount to an amnesty—to a certainty that someone will not go to jail—we need only look at the case of Liam Averill, the way in which the assurances have been given by the Secretary of State and the evidence given by the police of the interference by the Northern Ireland Office in these cases.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow. He and I both served for many years on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and I remember the evidence of Norman Baxter well. May I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may have slightly heard something in the evidence that the rest of us did not hear, for the words he quoted this afternoon were rather stronger, more specific and, dare I say it, more accusatory than the words I heard? May I simply ask that he look at the transcript of that evidence again?

[Sammy Wilson]

The transcript states three words, “extremely unhealthy interest”, which I do not think anyone, unless they really wanted to, could interpret differently. Such an interest in these cases would indicate that there was interference by the NIO. An “extremely unhealthy interest” cannot mean anything else. If the interest was “unhealthy”, it surely means that the NIO was seeking to direct the inquiry in a way that a policeman felt was not right. If it was “extremely unhealthy,” it was overbearing—that is how I reach my conclusion and I do not think I am reading anything into it. I am coming to a conclusion that is borne out by the facts, one which people must come to if they are to believe that the letters mean anything.

The one thing I do know is that Sinn Fein would not have been happy with the letters if they did not mean something. I can recall around the time of the on-the-runs sitting in studios with Sinn Fein spokesmen who, without the least bit of irony, bleated on and lamented about all these poor people who were separated from their families and could not come home to see their grannies, mummies, sons and daughters because they were on the run. There was no sense of irony arising from the fact that they were on the run because they had permanently separated many people from their families by killing them. If anyone suggests that they would have been happy with a letter that did not remedy that situation, I would say that their argument is extremely weak.

This is an important issue because, by implicating the police, it has undermined the rule of law. I know that the hon. Member for Aldershot tried to put the blame totally on the police in Northern Ireland by saying that they screwed up, and that had they not screwed up this would not have happened, but I believe that it would have happened anyhow. As has been shown in the court judgment, the letter was as important as the information that was contained in it.

The police have been implicated, because they have had to produce the information. I do not know how much direction the police were given, but I would have expected them, knowing the implications of this, to have felt obliged to tell the Policing Board. Yet, anyone hearing the police when they gave evidence to the Policing Board—this was not some constable, sergeant or inspector who might not have been passed all the issues, but an assistant chief constable—could not have concluded anything other than that the police were pursuing these cases. With regard to the on-the-runs, he said.

“There is then an investigation which follows into the individual and the crimes that they may have been involved in, and then this is subsequently reported to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) where test for prosecution is met. We have been working through this process over the last number of years and it continues still to be available. So in effect, as we become aware of a name in a particular incident, we carry out a cold case review and an investigation and report that to the PPS to see then if the test for prosecution is met or any other work that may be done. The powers of arrest will exist for the original offences and there can also be Bench Warrants applied to through the courts if needs be, or if it is in relation to offences in respect of breaking out of a prison, the Prison Act also applies in respect of returning people to prison.”

That was the substance of the evidence that the police gave. There was no indication that there were some individuals for whom letters were being signed so that they could walk free—so that they could come into the jurisdiction and be sure that there would be no prosecution against them.

The rule of law and the integrity of the police—shame on those in the senior ranks who allowed themselves to be associated with this—is at stake. Many individuals in Northern Ireland are saying, “Look, I break the law, I am rightly pursued. Every avenue is used against me.” Yet here we have people who, in some cases, are guilty of mass murder walking free. For all those reasons, I believe that this has been an important debate and that the inquiry is an important inquiry. I hope that we will get to the truth of the matter about who has got these letters, whether or not investigations are still going on, whether the Northern Ireland Office is interfering in any way and stopping investigations or new leads being followed and what the implications are for the judicial process.

Let me make one last point, and then I will finish. If the Government are as appalled by this situation as they suggest—the Secretary of State has said that the letters mean nothing and it will be made clear—why did they not, once they became aware of the scheme, make the situation quite clear to the Justice Minister at least? When policing and justice were being handed over in Northern Ireland, it was kept quiet from him. Why, when there are opportunities to appeal this decision, have they not appealed? I believe that the current Government are as much a part of the political cover-up and are giving as much political cover to Sinn Fein-IRA as the previous Government did. That is why the incident is a shameful one and it merits this debate today.

Remuneration of EU Staff

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. If the Prime Minister wants his hand strengthened in his arguments with Europe on budgetary issues, and Europe’s interference with our courts and the rules affecting this country, one way of doing so is to have the backing of the people, in a referendum, for a different relationship with Europe. When one sees this kind of insular attitude being adopted, one understands why there will be increasing support for a referendum allowing for a change in the relationship.

[Stephen Pound]

As one who voted enthusiastically yes in the early ’70s, swept away, intoxicated by Margaret Thatcher’s endorsement of it, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that many people seeking a referendum simply wish to underline once and for all that this is no longer a question that we should return to every year, and that many of those seeking a referendum are pro-Europeans—a group among whom I proudly number myself.

[Sammy Wilson]

Ironically, the pro-Europeans are the people who have most vigorously opposed such a referendum. If the hon. Gentleman believed what he was saying, he would join me in saying, “Let’s have a referendum. Let’s hear what the people say,” although I suspect that he and many like him are afraid of what the people’s verdict might be. The one thing that I can be sure of is that this issue will reinforce the case that many of us in the House are making—that we ought to consider how our relationship with Europe can be altered so that we do not end up financing this kind of nonsense.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I feel some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats, having served in a coalition in Northern Ireland and knowing the compromises that people must make. I can understand that they were in a difficult position, but when people put their signature to a pledge, stick a photograph of themselves on it to make sure that people know who signed it and make that pledge a main part of their party manifesto, going for the kind of policy that we are discussing today is not a compromise—it is an abject surrender.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

No surrender!

[Sammy Wilson]

Quite right.

Of course, there are other things that the Liberal Democrats could have compromised on. Was a referendum on a voting system that happens to benefit their party—although perhaps no voting system will benefit them in future—a higher priority than their manifesto pledge on fees? Given the choice between increasing fees by 200%, despite making a firm commitment not to do so, and creating a voting system that happens to benefit their party, I suspect that most people would say that the priority ought to have been to stand firm on fees.

People may say, “What’s this got to do with people from Northern Ireland, because after all, under devolution, it is up to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide their higher education policy?” but that is factually incorrect, because ahead of this vote the Government decided that resources that would have been taken out of higher education were taken out of devolved budgets. Northern Ireland will therefore lose more than £200 million as a result of a decision made on the basis of a vote that has not yet been taken. That restricts the ability of devolved Administrations to set their own policies.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Stephen Pound

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, we all must recognise that this is a very difficult Budget at a difficult time. Throughout the United Kingdom, people are talking about this Budget. They were fearful of what was going to come out, of its consequences and of the fallout from it. However, as the Chancellor said, with the announcement of the emergency Budget, at least we can now start to inject some certainty into the economic way forward, and from that point of view it must be welcome. Secondly, despite the background to the current situation, there is still immense economic uncertainty, even among those who have been professional economists, about the best way forward. I shall address that point when I discuss what we are looking for in the Budget.

Thirdly, I come from Northern Ireland, where the major party in the coalition was recently rejected by the electorate, so we do not have too much to fear from them; where the Labour party does not even stand; and where the Liberal Democrats do not have a presence, either, although they have a sister party in the Alliance party. Therefore, the political point scoring in the debate so far does not have to form part of my response. I sit on the Opposition Benches, but the Leader of the official Opposition’s hysterical reaction does not grace this debate with the seriousness that it deserves. There was not even any recognition of the role that the previous Government played. Although there were many other responsible factors, the previous Government played a role in the situation in which we now find ourselves. Indeed, there was not even any recognition that, as today’s figures point out, something similar would have had to be done if there had been a different outcome in the election. The Leader of the Opposition’s reaction was disappointing, and it is right that I make that point. However, I do not make it because I have to score party political points; I make it just as a general observation on a very serious situation.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is rising above the fray in this debate, but, as a former economics lecturer, is he as concerned as I am about paragraph 2.108 of the Red Book, which refers to

“rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy”?

I suspect that I know what that means. What does the hon. Gentleman fear it means?

[Sammy Wilson]

I shall come on to the issue of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. My understanding is that it is in keeping with the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government, namely that we cannot for ever remain as dependent upon the public sector as we are at present. There must be a rebalancing, so that we have a structured economy that allows for greater private sector involvement and, therefore, leaves us less open to the dangers of what has had to be done today. I do believe that what has been announced today will be very detrimental to the Northern Ireland economy in the short term.

However, let me turn to what we were looking for in the Budget. We want a Budget that is effective at getting us out of the current economic situation. The Chancellor’s view is that, given the size of the debt, the interest that is accumulating on it and the fact that we have to finance it for a large number of years, we must show the financial markets that we are serious about getting the deficit down. That will ensure that our good credit rating continues, and that we do not have to borrow at punitive interest rates and, therefore, take even more money from that which we have for current spending. I have been able to have only a cursory look through the Budget statement, but it seems that the Chancellor’s assessment is that if we do not do this quickly, we will find that our credit ratings go down and we lose the confidence of the financial markets, with all the consequences of that.

The other side of the coin is that if that assessment is wrong—if our credit rating is good for a number of years because we show that we are starting to make efforts and we do not have to take draconian measures of the kind that have been announced today—then withdrawing public spending from the economy will lead to a downward multiplier effect. That will impact on the level of growth, thereby getting us into what has been called the double-dip recession, whereby tax revenues go down, welfare spending goes up, support for industry has to increase, and we get ourselves into an even bigger muddle.