Sammy Wilson
East Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I only use it to show the divisions that there are in the SDLP. <BR /> <BR />What kind of individual have we got who is laying down and who made this report? First of all, there is an irony. The day I met Mr Bain was about three months after he had written letters and made threats and things like that.”
“If the Commissioner for Standards heard some of the things that Mr Allister has said in the Chamber when he is not on the side of Sinn Féin and is not in cahoots with them, if he heard some of the things that he has said about Sinn Féin, he would be apoplectic. He would have a heart attack.”
“If we accept that we allow the commissioner upstairs to dictate his view of what a debating Chamber should be, we do harm to all of us who like to see a bit of fire and passion in debate. Of course, he did not have to make the complaint because the Ena Sharples of the Assembly was happy to go running.”
“Quite frankly, I do not care what the outcome of the debate is, but the reason for the petition of concern was very clear. This whole episode is not about people being concerned about the standards in the Assembly, and it is not about whether people have abided by the code of conduct.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the bits in the interview that I really enjoyed was when, at one stage, he demanded from me an answer that I could not give him. I had not read the Hansard reports, and I had not done any work for it because I was not all that concerned.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I start off with an apology: sorry we got it wrong as far as Mr Bain was concerned. <BR /> <BR />I will start by saying that I welcome the debate. I have been waiting for the debate. Indeed, I have probably prolonged my time in the Assembly to take part in the debate, because there is an important issue at stake.”
The complete record
Every one of 488 lines we hold for Sammy Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
“I hope that the Assembly backs the amendment.”
“The motion is a motion for disaster. The amendment paves a way forward to save disastrous cuts to Northern Ireland.”
“By 2015, people who are getting family tax credits will not be able to make claims because the universal credit system will have moved in. By 2016, unemployed people will not have the ability to claim additional social security payments because the systems will have been turned off. By 2016, people on a low income who make housing benefit claims will find their ability to make those claims reduced unless, of course, we spend hundreds of millions of pounds on purchasing the computer system from the Department for Work and Pensions and paying for its upkeep. I do not think that you benefit the poor in Northern Ireland by putting money into the hands of computer companies, consultants and hardware manufacturers instead of tying into the system that we have in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, we also lose the ability to administer some of the benefits in the future. For example, if we get to a situation where the system of administration of benefits in the rest of the United Kingdom varies and moves away from what we have here, we will not have the ability to help the poor.”
“I do not mind a bit of barracking from the other side, Mr Deputy Speaker. If there is a bit of barracking, it usually means that the point has hit home for them. The Members opposite know that, if they want to protect the poor, the one thing that you cannot afford to do is to have reductions in the budgets for the promotion of jobs, the training of people who need skills to enable them to get into work or promoting and building the infrastructure required for a healthy economy. Sinn Féin's policy will affect all those budgets so that vulnerable people who need to get into employment will have less opportunity to do so. The idea that, somehow or other, it helps to bury your head in the sand and get into a situation where you have to pay out money, is mistaken.”
“<BR /> <BR />My third point is this: we must introduce the welfare reform changes and face the bill that we must face, or the very top priority that Sinn Féin now wants for the agenda of the Executive — namely the protection of vulnerable citizens — will suffer. I have to say, however, that the priority for Sinn Féin seems to change every week. In some weeks, its priority is the health service; in others, it is its cultural agenda. The Education Minister can even, somehow or other, find money to transport youngsters across Belfast, against the legislation, but in defence of an Irish-medium school. Sinn Féin has a different agenda every week; this week, it appears that its agenda is the protection of the poor. <BR /> <BR />What is the best way of protecting poor people? It is to give them an opportunity to get into employment.”
“The retention of the social fund, the escape from the changes in housing benefit, the help for people who would have lost money had housing benefit been removed from the rates, and help for people who have to get doctors' reports and go through assessments for their disability payments: all those are not administrative changes but real changes that cost the Executive money. The Executive have poured money into trying to mitigate the impacts of welfare reform. Of course, many of the other changes will ensure that people do not fall into debt, as they have in the rest of the United Kingdom, because payments will go directly to landlords, will be split, or made on a more regular basis etc. Those are important changes, and the Minister is to be congratulated for having obtained those particular points.”
“Maybe what we are seeing there is that people on the ground, who recognise the disastrous impact of the policy followed by Sinn Féin — directed by its dictators in Dublin — are now turning against party policy and asking for a return to common sense. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear what this is about: it is about saving Sinn Féin's blushes in the Republic, and the poor people who need public services in Northern Ireland are going to pay. <BR /> <BR />The second point that I want to make is this: the amendment that we have put down shows that, already, significant changes have been made. They have been dismissed as administrative changes, but they are not.”
“As that escalates to £1 billion in five years, as we have to purchase a computer system and pay the difference between what the rates would be here and what the rates would be in the rest of the United Kingdom, we will have to face those economic consequences. The people who require public services will face them. This is not a motion defending the poor. This is a motion to hide Sinn Féin's embarrassment at having to do something in Northern Ireland that it is condemning the Government for doing in the Irish Republic.”
“The money will come out of our Budget by somebody sitting at a keyboard in the Treasury and changing the amount of money that is available to the Executive for spending in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />This nonsense that we are going to be the champions and resist is just palpable nonsense, and he knows that it is palpable nonsense. We will face the consequences of a policy of not adopting the welfare reform changes, which will cost us money in the Executive, and that will hit the poor. No departmental budget will escape the kind of reductions that will be required. <BR /> <BR />We already see the problems that £87 million is causing this year.”
“I have listened to the tired arguments of Sinn Féin repeated once again in the House. Let us go to the conclusion, first of all, of the speech that Mr Maskey made. It is quite clear that Sinn Féin has no policy other than to hurt the vulnerable and the people who need public services in Northern Ireland. The idea that, if we stand together and show common resistance to these Tory cuts, somehow or other the problem of the £87 million that is being cut out of public services this year, the £114 million that will be cut next year, rising to £1 billion in 2020, will go away. It will not; not with all the resistance in the world. What is he going to do? What is Sinn Féin going to do? Go down to DFP and lock the doors and say, "When you come for your money, we are going to stop you getting it"? That is not how it works.”
“We should not take on new commitments without budgeting for them, and we should not give money back to Westminster unnecessarily, as Sinn Féin and the SDLP require us to do through the non-implementation of welfare reform.”
“I was going to come to that in my last line, but you have stolen it. <BR /> <BR />I hope that those listening to the debate will not be Private Pikes, will not be stupid boys and will not fall for this point-scoring motion, which does not offer any solution. It does not show any way forward. It does not even recognise the niceties of the procedures that we have to go through legally in the Assembly to deliver a new Budget. If we are going to deal with the issues and difficulties in the longer term — the Finance Minister has started the consultation process on the Budget for next year — some financial reality is required in the Assembly.”
“Even if we started this new Budget tomorrow, having left aside the consultation and the legislation, how would Departments make the adjustments that he requires in the last six months of the financial year with their programmes all in place? Thirdly, we had plenty of complaints about what money should be spent on and what money had not been spent on. If we are going to have a serious debate on this, maybe he will tell us how he would move the money around. Let us say we could get past the legislative requirements and make the adjustments in Departments, how would the Ulster Unionist Party move the money around the system? I do not know whether he is Captain Mainwaring, Corporal Jones or Private Walker — just an absolute political spiv. Spivery is what we are getting.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are three questions I would like the proposer of the motion to answer when he is summing up. First, if we are going to have a new Budget, with all the consultation that is required and the legislative decisions that would have to be made, how on earth does he intend it to be delivered within the remaining six months of this year? Does he simply want to dispense with all the niceties of consultation and drafting of legislation? Secondly, even if we got a new Budget, what room would there be for change in the remaining months of this year? Is he honestly saying that Departments would have the ability to make adjustments?”
“The Member is not being disingenuous. The facts of the matter are that any legislative change that needed to be made to get the money from the Harbour Commissioners should have originated from the Minister for Regional Development, the co-signatory of the motion, but that did not happen. I could go through the whole list of how we got here. The fingerprints of the complainer are all over the reasons why we have got to the position we have got to. <BR /> <BR />Leaving aside what the motion is about, how would we ever implement what we are talking about? When I read it, I was not too sure whether Mr Nesbitt was being Captain Mainwaring and just blundering or was Corporal Jones in a flap. The one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that there are no remedies in this.”
“He also said, "We got into this because we didn't get £40 million from the Harbour Commissioners". Who was responsible for bringing the legislation forward to get that £40 million? The co-signatory of the motion. He did not do a thing about it, but now he is complaining that "We got into this because we didn't proceed on Long Kesh".”
“This is one of the most bizarre motions that has ever come before the Assembly. I am not even sure that the proposer understands what his motion says. He spoke at length about the difficulties of the 2011-15 Budget. His motion says that it is untenable and calls for the Executive to bring forward a new Budget. Then, with a leap — no one could see the link — he talked about next year's Budget. The first thing we need to know from the proposer of the motion is whether we are talking about the Budget that terminates in April next year, or are we talking about the Budget for 2015-16? <BR /> <BR />The Member then talked about how we got into this situation. Without the least shamefacedness, he said, "We got into this because we didn't deliver on ESA". Who opposed ESA, along with us? The Ulster Unionist Party.”
“Perhaps the Minister will outline how exactly, he believes, drilling on a site where there has been, as he described, unauthorised extraction — the removal of rock — is likely to lead to problems when a firm drills down through the remainder of the rock. Will he accept from me that his decision was not based on any planning reason at all? At Raloo, Larne lough and Inver in east Antrim, similar drilling was allowed without planning permission being granted and was regarded as permitted development. Is this not an example of his prejudice, rather than a professional planning decision, and one that could, should and, hopefully, will be resolved in court?”
“Further to that point of order, I hope that, when you are reviewing the comments that I made — let me repeat that it was not "green terror tactics" but "the tartan terror tactics of the SNP" — you will also review the comments that were made afterwards, which illustrated the kinds of tactics that were involved during the campaign and which clearly embarrass another nationalist party that has such great ties with the SNP.”
“In any border poll that there might be in the future, should there be one, I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will make exactly the same decision as the people in Scotland.”
“I am surprised that Sinn Féin wishes to have a border poll, given that 25% of its own supporters do not support its idea of a united Ireland. A vast majority of people here are in favour of the union. Of course, Sinn Féin will wish to divert attention away from its incompetence in this place — its economic incompetence, which, despite its hatred of the Tories in Westminster, means that it is happy to hand £9 million of our money back every month, rather than make decisions that have to be made in this House. <BR /> <BR />To the people of Northern Ireland, I say that the people of Scotland saw the benefits of the union. We in Northern Ireland know the benefits of the union.”
“They saw the security benefits in an unstable world, the economic benefits in a world with increasing globalisation and, of course, the historical benefits that have been reaped over a long period. We, in Northern Ireland, owe to many people in Scotland a great debt of gratitude for the way in which soldiers joined the British Army and defended the people of Northern Ireland against IRA terrorism and sacrificed their lives here. For that reason, we ought to be grateful: first, for the sacrifices made; and secondly, for the fact that the Scottish people have not only recognised in the past the importance of the union through their sacrifices but have voted on the importance of the union. <BR /> <BR />There is a message for the people of Northern Ireland in this, for those who might be enticed by a border poll.”
“I also pass on my best wishes to the Speaker at this time. <BR /> <BR />I congratulate the people of Scotland for recognising the benefits of the union, despite the tartan terror tactics of the SNP during a very contentious referendum campaign: one that saw academics threatened; civil servants abusing their power; public meetings broken up; businessmen told that there would be consequences if they did not keep their mouths shut; and people afraid even to show their loyalties and where they stood for fear of having their property attacked. It was typical of the nasty face of nationalism. We have seen it in Northern Ireland, and the people of Scotland witnessed it during the referendum campaign. <BR /> <BR />Despite all of that, the people of Scotland saw the benefits of the union.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that this is not a debate that is likely to get much coverage in the media today, because they do not like to hear about the successes of the Executive against the targets that they have set? Not only have the Executive achieved those targets, they have exceeded them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is good to see that the targets that have been set by the Executive are actually being met and exceeded, but will he agree with me that one of the impediments — and there are many — to fully drawing down the amount of money that we could draw down is sometimes the bureaucracy that exists within Departments? It almost becomes very difficult for projects to meet the timelines that are set down for spending funding, and many of the balances or checks that Departments put in place in terms of new business cases etc affect the ability of people, first of all, to apply, and, secondly, to see the projects through. Indeed, some projects have been lost as a result of the bureaucracy within Departments.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the gaps that there appears to be is with groups that may well spend funds and put forward proposals for drawing down funds in Northern Ireland? Many of them are still not aware of the kinds of funds that they could access and the kinds of projects that might be eligible. Did you identify a gap in communication between those groups and the relevant authorities in Brussels?”
“You never usually have to ask me to do that, mind you. I also apologise for my absence during topical questions to the Social Development Minister. I apologise to the House for that. I hope that my apology is sufficiently fulsome and has sufficient volume as well.”
“Since it appears that apologies are the order of the day, I also apologise for my absence during —”
“Will the Member accept that this kind of sectarian behaviour from the Member is not unusual and that she is well known for it?”
“That is what this is all about. As far as we are concerned, the report does not justify the conclusion that has been reached.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have, quite rightly, put down a petition of concern, because this is not a proper inquiry; it is a witch-hunt. We are not prepared to allow a Minister who is guilty of nothing and is innocent to be publicly pilloried by a bunch of poisoned, prejudiced and point-scoring political predators.”
“Yet, what did we find? It came out in the inquiry that, first of all, the Minister had left in the records a letter from Turkington's. There was a minute in which it was recorded who the meeting was with: Turkington's. There was an answer given in the Assembly — a public answer — and what did it say? The meeting was with Turkington's. Yet we are expected to believe that, somehow or other, the Minister had misled the Committee and misled the House. We had a letter, a minute and an answer, all of them public documents and all of them quite rightly recording who the meeting was with. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the inquiry itself, we even had a situation where the Chairman was so desperate to get a name that he pleaded with one of the people giving evidence, "Just give us a name". He was prepared to badger him.”
“Let us look at what the inquiry found. First, it found that the meetings that the Minister had had resulted in savings to the public purse of £15 million. When I moved in the Committee that we should at least acknowledge that in the report, the answer was, "No we can't, because we don't know for certain that the savings have been made because the contract is not over". Is that a picture of somebody with an open mind? I doubt it very much. <BR /> <BR />When it came to the evidence, the officials indicated that it really would not have mattered who the meeting was with, because they would still have recommended that it go ahead. Is that contained in the conclusions of the report? No, it is not. <BR /> <BR />If you were going to mislead the House and mislead the Committee, you would at least expect there to be no trail left.”
“Mr Maskey said it was the biggest scandal to affect the Assembly, and Mr Copeland said that the Minister had misled the House. Is that really a picture of people who were going to approach the inquiry with an open mind, look to where the evidence led them and come to an objective conclusion? I suspect that most objective observers would come to the conclusion that I have come to, which I will give evidence for in a moment or two: people entered the inquiry with their mind made up. They had to justify the outrageous allegations that they had made on 8 July 2013.”
“Mr Dickson said that the House would be done a service if the Minister stood aside.”
“First of all, I will make something very clear: despite what the Chairman said, this was not a public inquiry. It was a public witch-hunt. It was not a gathering of evidence; it was an opportunity to express already declared public and political prejudices. It did not seek to highlight an injustice or throw light on some shady dealing; it was a political show trial that would have made Pol Pot proud of the way in which it was conducted and the way in which the conclusions were reached. <BR /> <BR />Let us just look at the people involved. Were they approaching it with an open mind? They certainly were not. On 8 July, the main players in this had already expressed their views. Mr Allister was so convinced that the Minister had misled the House that he wanted him to resign immediately.”
“The Minister has admitted during these questions that this is controversial, cross-cutting and cross-departmental, that he has not sought the advice of the Executive's law officer and that he has overridden the advice of his officials in the Department. Will he not agree that this plan is now a shambles because of the way that he has mishandled it and that it will not promote development but will finish up in the court, resulting in a plan that will be delayed for years? Does he agree that it will be detrimental to the economic development of the greater Belfast region because he chose to pursue SDLP planning policy rather than what was good for the whole of Northern Ireland?”