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 5 of 10.
“I thank the Member for giving way. He states this as a certainty that means that somebody will be without money for 26 weeks. First, that is not actually what the Bill says. If he reads paragraph 9, he will see that regulations can be made for cases in which there is no reduction, revision of reductions and termination of reductions. There will be circumstances in which there is a way back. That is the first thing. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the other thing is that if someone finds that they have put themselves in a situation where they have sanctions, they always have the option of looking for work. This certainty that, somehow or other, once sanctions are imposed, people are left destitute for 26 weeks or 18 months is not a correct description of what will or could happen in reality.”
“Would he accept that the sanctions should be imposed not only for those who refuse to abide by the rules but to ensure that the system is not abused so that those who do play by the rules do not feel that they are being penalised for playing by the rules while other people just throw them out the window?”
“I was not suggesting she was the cat's mother or anything else. Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday you upbraided me for supposedly — I maintain that I did not do it — referring to someone as "you". The alternative you have is "the Member", "he" or "she", and that was the terminology that I used under your guidance. If the Member thinks she is being referred to as the cat's mother, to a certain extent you bear some responsibility for that.”
“She has accepted that there is not a specified time limit. She wants to introduce a time limit, albeit in the terms "at least 15 days". Does she accept that, in some cases, people will be able to provide evidence almost immediately, but at other times, if reports or something had to be received, it might take longer? The fact that there is no specified time limit allows that flexibility. In fact, it allows much more flexibility than she is suggesting, because once you say "at least 15 days" you implant in people's minds that that is a time they should be working towards. In some cases, that might be more than enough time, but, in a small number of cases, it might not be enough time.”
“Would you not accept that, by the time they reach the maximum penalty stage, the individual has been through the system, knows what the penalties were imposed for and knows what they did wrong? If it is a problem that even they cannot overcome because of alcoholism, drug addiction or whatever, by that stage, other agencies will have picked up the fact that they have been penalised for not obeying the rules. If it is vulnerable people, they should have been picked up by the system anyway. By the time you get to the third set of sanctions, it is really probably those who are wilfully deciding, "I do not want to abide by the rules". If that is the case, of course a penalty should be involved.”
“Would the Member accept that if, by that stage, someone has reached the maximum penalty, it is not because they cannot work their way through the system? There would already have been two opportunities when the system could have been explained to them, and penalties for not operating the system would already have been invoked, so their ignorance could no longer be a reason at that stage. If you reach the stage of 18 months of a penalty, it is because you are wilfully breaking the rules. Most people would feel that it is reasonable to expect a severe penalty at that stage.”
“Most people are paid in arrears. Therefore, when people get paid at the end of the week, that is normally the money that they set aside for the next week. The argument that he is making is perfectly valid: if people are coming from employment into unemployment, they have received their last week's wages. Their last week's wages are usually what they use to finance the coming week.”
“For that reason, it is not a case of killing the amendment but simply using common sense. We have to give advice, but let us keep it that the money goes to organisations that give advice and not to setting up a new bureaucracy.”
“The Department already spends a considerable amount of money on institutions that give advice, but I still maintain that, once you make something statutory, a whole industry grows around ensuring that it is in place, monitoring it, measuring it, ensuring the right quality and everything else. I believe in the independent way that it is done at present, but, once you make it statutory and the money comes from the Department, the real danger is that it is no longer seen as independent but as an extension of the Department. At least the advice that we have at the moment is seen as independent from the Department, albeit the money comes from the Department. However, since it is not a statutory obligation, there is no statutory link between the organisations that give advice and the Department, and they are seen as being more independent.”
“Many people query whether it is right that someone on benefits should have the possibility of getting more money than someone who is in a job and earning not even the average wage in Northern Ireland. Again, no explanation was given as to why those issues should be removed from benefits when the cap is being calculated. It is important that we get this in perspective. When there is genuine need and genuine disability, the Government's own proposals allow people to have benefits beyond the cap level. That is right, but it has to be in very specific and controlled circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beggs talked about amendment No 48, and he used rather dramatic words: why did we need to kill it? It was not a case of killing it, but it was simply that we made our position clear on amendment No 48. Of course there needs to be advice.”
“Since the Member will, hopefully, have an opportunity later in the debate to give an explanation, and we will finish fairly soon, I do not want to give way on that one. <BR /> <BR />I do not have a great deal of sympathy for lifting the cap on benefits. If we are to encourage people into work, we must make work pay. In Westminster, the SDLP voted against tightening the cap. I did not understand its explanation then, and I do not understand it now. The removal, for example, of the carer's allowance and child benefit — they are really an additional source of income for people because they are caring for a child, a parent or whatever — from the benefit when the cap is being calculated removes a source of income.”
“That amendment would have that effect and, again, no explanation was given. It was just introduced by Mrs Kelly.”
“I will not give way on those points. I think that we will finish fairly soon. <BR /> <BR />Again, no explanation was given by Mrs Kelly for the SDLP's opposition to clause 61. Of course, Mr Agnew is in the same boat. The clause gives the Department the ability to find out whether anyone has a right to residency because they are actively seeking work. That is a requirement for a citizen who is living in this country: if you are not actively seeking work, you will not be entitled to benefits. The effect of opposing the clause would be to remove the Department's ability to do that for people from outside the United Kingdom. We know about the anger that exists. In many cases, people are wrong, but some believe that people from outside Northern Ireland are treated differently and more generously than people who live in Northern Ireland.”
“We want to encourage people into work and it is easier to do that before they get into the inertia of long-term unemployment. Yet, it seems that a number of the amendments on entitlements are designed to encourage that inertia and to be more generous.”
“She wants to introduce a costly measure that would add significantly to the bureaucracy and make benefits available to them after three days. <BR /> <BR />I also do not understand her thinking on amendment No 27. Why does she believe that young people should be treated differently than any other people? That is also true of some of Mr Agnew's amendments, which I am sure he will deal with later. I thought that the whole idea was to ensure that young people did not get into a culture of benefits at an early stage, which is where we get generational unemployment. It seems that there are a number of amendments that seek to see young people treated more generously in the benefits system than those who are older. I will not go through all Mr Agnew's amendments, but there is a common thread.”
“I am glad that I gave way to the Member because I had not quite remembered that point. It is not very often that he and I do a double act; it is usually head-to-head stuff. He has made a very important point, which once again torpedoes under the waterline the case that the SDLP is making. <BR /> <BR />I want to deal with a couple of other amendments. Mrs Kelly introduced a number of amendments. She told us what the amendments said, which we could all have read anyway, but gave no explanation as to why she believed that they were justified. There was no mention of why she believed that the extension of three days to seven days was essential. As Mr Beggs pointed out, that is no different than people who go into work for the first week and sometimes have to do a lying week.”
“I will give way, yes. I am sure that you want to have a wee go at him.”
“He has not repented of it. He has not explained it. He is not prepared to do anything about it. He has not tabled any amendments to alleviate it, and that is perhaps the more telling issue.”
“For the record: first, not only did I make the point here, I made the point during debates at Westminster. I signed early day motions to that effect at Westminster. Indeed, if the Member remembers rightly, I was Finance Minister when the £17 million was made available for the Executive for the mitigation of the bedroom tax, as he calls it. He is wrong on all of those counts, but we still have total silence from him on why he introduced this tax on the private rented sector tenants of Northern Ireland.”
“I will give way on the understanding that Mr Attwood will now either repent of his former sins against tenants in the private sector or give us an explanation of why he believes that the treatment of private sector tenants should be different from that of tenants in the public sector. I give way on that basis, though I suspect that I am wasting my time.”
“I do not know when that meeting was, but, if there was such a commitment — he can answer for himself, rather than have me answer for him — the one point that I will make is this: there is no need for a petition of concern against this for the simple reason that the impact of it has been removed. It has been removed by the commitment of resources and the promise of the Minister and the fact that the Executive collectively and, indeed, the five party leaders have agreed the issue. Let me come to the —”
“I thank the Minister for that information. I will give way.”
“I will give way, and then I will give way to the Member who asked previously.”
“Given all that, I hope that we will get from the SDLP Members some explanation of why they still feel a necessity to remove clause 69 when that commitment has been given and, indeed, when they are making no effort and giving no indication of what they would do to help the people who are the victims of measures introduced by their Minister.”
“Let me just finish the point. There is no provision, but you would not expect provision in the Bill that makes a statement about it. The commitment has been given, the money has been given and the reason why it is for five years has been given. The reason is that the whole idea is to try, over that period, to build up a stock of houses that gives people the opportunity to move from properties that are perhaps larger than they need. That cannot be done at present, hence the reason why we had to mitigate a change in welfare reform that was going to have that impact.”
“It is a bit difficult to say that no commitment has been given on it.”
“How could they be any clearer? This is not a commitment that was whispered in some corner or was part of some secret talks between the five party leaders; this is a commitment that has been made time and time again on the Floor of the Assembly. Those who are affected by the removal of the spare bedroom subsidy will have the money paid to their housing benefit. Furthermore, it is not that we will do it if we can find the funds; a commitment has been made to provide, I think — I cannot remember the figure now — £17 million in the first year. That money has been committed and committed publicly here in the Assembly time and time again. The Finance Minister has said it, the Social Development Minister has said it, the First Minister has said it and the deputy First Minister has said it.”
“I will give way, yes, because I know that he has been trying to get in for some time now, and I would love to hear his words of wisdom. Maybe we will now receive from Mr Durkan the explanation that we did not receive from Mrs Kelly.”
“Indeed, when she was given the opportunity to explain it, she did not. If she wants me to give way now, I will, but I suspect that I will get no more of an explanation from her this time than last time. <BR /> <BR />Let us not have this nonsense peddled. The Member who spoke previously was right: we are preached at by the sanctimonious braggarts on the other side who say, "We would not have done that. You are the bad people". We have provided a way out. "It is only for five years", she says. It may well extend for more than five years; that will be a choice for a future Executive.”
“Well, the Green Tories did that on them some time ago in the private sector when they introduced that, and not a whimper about it now.”
“Of course, here is the point: there was no mitigation. Nor, I suspect, does Mrs Kelly want to remind the people who live in the private sector. Sure, there are no proposals from her to mitigate the effect of the introduction of the spare room subsidy by her colleague who is sitting beside her. He was quite happy to introduce it in this Assembly for a sector where the rents are higher and people are equally under pressure, yet the subsidy that they lose there is much bigger than the subsidy that will be lost in the public sector. But no call for mitigation there. In fact, let us quickly move on and forget about the SDLP's involvement in that sordid little exercise, where they claim the Tories have done this on the poor people of Northern Ireland.”
“There is a commitment from the Minister and the Executive. Furthermore, the Executive have already earmarked all the funds required to make sure that anyone in the public sector who falls foul of the loss of the spare room subsidy will be recompensed for that. They will not be forced to move.”
“Most of the amendments we have been dealing with have been put forward by the SDLP. As I think the last Member pointed out, there is a degree of grandstanding by the SDLP here, especially in relation to some of the issues that they have been responsible for themselves. Now, suddenly, they have had a conversion on them because of the opposition there has been or, maybe more, because there is simply the unprincipled stance that they have taken, namely they see a chance to have a poke at Sinn Féin on some of these issues, and are taking it now, despite the fact that it is totally irrational given their previous stance. <BR /> <BR />I want to start off with clause 69, because we did not get an explanation from the SDLP on this. Their desire to have it removed from the Bill has already been dealt with. It could not be clearer.”
“Now that we think that Mrs Kelly has her story as to why they signed up to an agreement that does not offer the protections that the Bill and the arrangements do now, maybe he would be generous enough to let her give the explanation to the House. We are all waiting to hear it.”
“If you had listened, Mr Deputy Speaker, I said, "Will he give way?".”
“He has accepted that considerable investment goes into advice-giving across the board, and a lot of it is very professional. Will he accept that, once you put anything on a statutory footing, it is not correct to say that there will be no costs involved because, once it is on a statutory footing, you have to make sure that it is done, you have to monitor how it is done and you have to ensure that, since there is a legal requirement that people get advice, they are getting advice? We all know that, once you put things on that kind of footing, a whole raft of bureaucracy builds around it, and, indeed, instead of money being spent on giving advice, money is spent on making sure that the statutory duty is met.”
“Would the Member also accept the principle that, once someone is in work, they should make a contribution to the rent on a property where they live, whether it be with their parents, a friend or whatever? If that principle is accepted, it has to be accepted across the range of everybody who is earning money. Therefore, this four-week period seems to be a rather odd proposal, because you would treat people who are in permanent employment or have been working for a longer time differently. Would he also accept that, if the argument is that you have got to make work pay, you would extend that forever? If that is the argument — that, by taking housing benefit off people, you are not making work pay — you would continue it indefinitely.”
“First, all of us recognise the difficulties of the spare room subsidy being removed, but will he accept that it was not just a cynical exercise by the Conservative Government but that, indeed, an SDLP Minister has already imposed it on tens of thousands of tenants in the private sector, which is the most costly sector here in Northern Ireland? There has not been a word about that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that the many people — in fact, the thousands of people in the private sector — who do not get housing benefit for the additional room in their properties will be puzzled that the SDLP is the party that they have to thank for that reduction in their housing benefit but is now the champion of the public sector. Maybe the Member will explain to them why there has been this volte-face by the SDLP on this issue.”
“That kind of cheap point-scoring does not do anybody any good. It confirms, in my eyes anyway, why we can have a debate and a vote, but sometimes you have to have a petition of concern because you will still have people who are totally irresponsible on the issue.”
“The Member mentioned that those people might go to Tesco to get their messages, and when they go in, they buy alcohol. That is probably easy to deal with: you simply make the voucher not redeemable for alcohol. I accept that there are other ways in which that system can be abused, but I think that it is irresponsible to say that, in circumstances like that, people should be paid in cash. <BR /> <BR />I am not going to deal with a lot of the Member's other amendments. I have tried to go through some of the amendments, and if you look at them, Mr Speaker, you will see that their purpose is quite clear. Their purpose is not to improve the situation, because some refer to what is already the practice or in the Bill. The purpose is to be able to say, "We put an amendment down; we are good. You lot did not put an amendment down; you are bad".”
“Again, this is where the Member strains on these points. The default position is that people get their benefits paid in cash, by cheque or into their bank accounts. However, neither the default position nor the normal position is that people get paid in vouchers. If that was the case, benefits would generally be paid in vouchers. Throughout the rest of the welfare system, payments are made in cash or into bank accounts, but the very fact that this is regarded as an additional way of making payments is indicative of the fact that vouchers are for exceptional circumstances. We know the kind of exceptional circumstances in which they would apply. <BR /> <BR />I accept that the voucher system will not be immune to abuse. You may find that people will be prepared to buy vouchers at a discount from somebody who has an alcohol problem.”
“I may have a legacy from her, so you wouldn't lend me 20 grand on the strength of it?" He would not do it, yet I suppose because it is populist, he expects that we should behave that way with state money. <BR /> <BR />A lot of the Member's other amendments are the same, including the one on vouchers. It is made quite clear that vouchers are used in a case where someone is dysfunctional and is not spending their money where they should. His argument was that, if you give people vouchers, they cannot pay for their children to go on a school trip. If they were paying for their children to go on a school trip, they would not need vouchers in the first place. The vouchers are provided if there is maybe an alcohol or a gambling problem or whatever; they are not even meant for providing for the person's family.”
“In fact, I will ask him for a loan, because if this is the way that he operates publicly, I would love to know what he does privately. Do not forget that we are talking about people who do not have a great deal of money and who have more of a chance of having their appeal turned down than approved, but I think that it is amendment No 44 that says that, where an appeal is pending, we should continue to pay those people as though they had won the appeal. Presumably, at the end of the period, if they have lost the appeal, we have to get the money back off them. I am sure that the business of recouping that money will be extremely easy. Maybe the Member for North Down is flush, so I can imagine somebody coming up to him and saying, "I think my auntie is going to die in about a year's time.”
“It says things like, "No bacon on a Monday", or, "No advertising for holidays in the sun" and, "Be able to join a terrorist organisation without it being illegal". So it goes on. I suppose some of his amendments reflect that sense of being out of touch with the real world and reality.”
“I know that we will have even more of this when we come to the second round of amendments. We know, because we have recently seen its manifesto, that the Green Party lives in cloud cuckoo land.”
“Some of it will be spent on the very thing that Members have raised here today: what happens when people go for their assessments as to whether they can work or not. Six million pounds will go towards helping people to get medical reports that they will be able to use at those assessments. Some of it will be used to replace the social fund, and sums have already been attached to that. As the First Minister pointed out, some of it has not been allocated yet because, until we know the exact form of the regulations, we will not know what the additional costs might be. It is not unusual, despite what the Member said, for regulations to follow a Bill rather than be published before a Bill goes through. We examine those quite frequently in the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Lastly, then, I come to some of Mr Agnew's comments.”
“Some of it will be spent on avoiding, until we get our housing balance and our housing stock right, the impact of the spare-room subsidy or bedroom tax.”
“We have had "secret deals" and "secret agreements", and "we do not know what has been done." We now have the "conspiracy" of the Stormont House Agreement. I do now know what people were conspiring to do in the Stormont House Agreement other than to find a way forward with a Bill whose absence had crippled this Assembly, to find additional money, to alleviate some of the impacts of it, and to look for the longer term at how that money might be spent. <BR /> <BR />Some might argue — I suspect that they will — that there is not enough money in it. However, the important thing is that we have tried to deal with it. Not all of it is secret, because the Minister, over time, has already revealed where some of it is going anyway.”
“Indeed, I asked myself, as I was listening to the SDLP's case, what those amendments add. If the purpose and the objective are to make it easier for people, what amendments have I heard from the SDLP that actually improve the lot of people who will be affected by welfare reform? The answer is that they do not add anything, because a lot of what the SDLP is proposing is already there. The changes are already made, and therefore the working that has been done by the parties and Ministers etc has been dealt with. <BR /> <BR />I was not too sure whether Mr Allister supported the Bill or opposed it; he just always likes to take a swipe at the dysfunctionality of this place. It actually might be more functional if we could get a constructive attitude from him on some of these things, but, of course, the problem is that we do not.”