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 6 of 10.
“It is as if that was something new that was invented by the SDLP. The truth of the matter is that when somebody goes for a work-focused interview, the things they look at are what kind of work you have done in the past, what skills you have, what caring responsibilities you have and what training you need. This is nothing new, yet it has been presented by the SDLP as, "This is our amendment, because we are more concerned about the people who might be affected by welfare reform." That is already there. <BR /> <BR />I could go through some of the other amendments. Amendment No 11 on mental health says that mental health reports should be considered. That already happens not only with reports but the assessment of capability that is based on those reports. A lot of the amendments really do not add anything to the Bill.”
“To say that that is an amendment to ease people's journey through the changes is incorrect. If anything, it probably makes it more difficult to have flexibility, and that flexibility has already been considered. <BR /> <BR />Another amendment, amendment No 9, dealt with the claimant commitment. That amendment states:”
“It is as if the SDLP are the only ones who want to protect people. Some of the amendments certainly do not show that. Take amendment No 8, for example, which deals with the frequency of payments. The frequency of payment has already been established. As a result of listening, and our concerns about people on low incomes being paid once a month — where the difficulty would have been that they would have spent it all by the end of the month because they were under such great pressure — it is now down to every two weeks. Indeed, it has been left open. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Dowd made a very important point when he said that if we put the frequency into the Bill we would have cut out the opportunity for further flexibility. For example, for some people in certain circumstances, a weekly payment might be necessary.”
“I will maybe deal with them later as they overlap with some of the amendments tabled by the SDLP. <BR /> <BR />When Mr Attwood was speaking, there was a sense that the SDLP wants to be the champion of the poor and that anybody who supports the Bill wants to trample the poor into the ground. That was the implication, despite the work that has gone into trying to make the changes more palatable. At one point, I thought he was going to break into what he would he describe as a sectarian tune. He spoke about hand on heart. He got so passionate that I thought he was going to talk about guarding old Derry's walls as well. He said that the purpose of the SDLP amendments is to protect the claimant on their journey through the new welfare changes. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at some of the amendments.”
“While he has used the term "may", I would love to hear from the Member — and I did not hear it during the debate — the circumstances he would stipulate in regulations under which you could not do it. How can you make a judgement about a person's motivation? Do not forget: it is one thing to say "may" when you can measure where the problem lies. It is another in a case like this, in which, I suspect, it is what the person's motivation happens to be. In the way in which it is dealt with at present, there is a chance for people to understand the implications of what they will do, what will happen to their benefits and what impact that will have. This will give them a chance. With the cooling-off period, they have that chance. <BR /> <BR />A number of other amendments were tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“Anyhow, the irresponsible person who does not want to make the commitment and allows the benefit to go to their partner would still receive housing benefit, would keep a roof over their head and everything else, and would be encouraged in their irresponsibility. The whole point of welfare reform was to try to make people be more responsible. Is he really saying that he wants to introduce easements that pander to those who are either workers of the system or want to abuse the system?”
“Indeed, were that to be widespread across Northern Ireland — if people cottoned on, why would they not do it? — the cost would be quite significant. <BR /> <BR />Had the Member thought a wee bit about his amendment, he might have seen its implications. He pulled at the heartstrings, of course, asking, "What about irresponsible partners who decide that they do not want to make a commitment, which, in turn, affects the benefit that is available and means that children suffer as a result?" However, there is a provision there: the cooling-off period. There are seven days for all of the implications to be explained. During that period, there may or may not be a change of mind, but at least there is an opportunity to steer people towards the right decision.”
“It has been done that way for one simple reason, which is that when someone makes a claim, there is also a necessity with income-based benefit to look at the total income of the family. <BR /> <BR />If we were to run with the amendment, we could find that one of the two people in a family, because of their savings or other income, could simply say that they do not want to make a commitment. Under the amendment, the other person could then make the claim. So, people who abide by the rules are excluded from benefit and disadvantaged by an amendment such as this, which allows those who want to use the system and the amendment that the Member has put forward to have the best of both worlds: one partner drops out; the other person gets the benefit. That is an additional cost.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, you have been a bit tolerant with me anyway. I had tried to keep, at least loosely, to the amendments before us. Let me come to those now. I will not speak on all of them, by the way, but I want to take up some of them. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 is a very good example of where there is a cost attached, and I suspect that a great deal of thought did not go into the amendment. The consequences, of course, of allowing one individual in a family to decide that they do not want to make a commitment, therefore allowing the other member of the family to make a commitment, can, I think — in fact I know — have significant cost and lead to irresponsible behaviour. That is because the claims have always been joint.”
“The petition of concern is a perfectly relevant means to use, and I will tell you one thing: it is far more relevant in a situation such as this than in the situations in which the SDLP used it in recent weeks: to protect the postman from sanctions for letters to get murderers off the consequences of their crime; to ensure that money is irresponsibly spent on an Irish-medium school in Dungiven; or to ensure that there cannot be a Union flag placed on the driving licence of people in this part of the United Kingdom. If you are looking for frivolous uses of the petition of concern, look in that direction, not this direction. At least we have some rationale behind it, and it does not stop —”
“They might be able to behave irresponsibly individually, but, if they were to behave irresponsibly collectively to score the points that they wish to score, there would be implications. A petition of concern is used in a situation like that to safeguard against the kind of irresponsibility that, unfortunately, we have heard even today. Some of the parties that signed up to an agreement at Stormont House now seem prepared to ignore what they signed up to by putting down some of the amendments that they have — amendments that they never raised with the other party leaders. I suppose that they thought that it was a good way of poking their opponents by putting them down now.”
“Somehow or other, Members have tried to portray the use of the petition of concern as undemocratic and seeking to railroad things through, and so on. First, we are having a debate on the Bill. The public will be able to hear the arguments that people are putting forward for their amendments. There is transparency there. A petition of concern does not stop there being a vote on the Bill, so the public will know who voted for it and who did not vote for it. <BR /> <BR />Use of a petition of concern is especially relevant in cases such as this, in which there are significant costs attached to some of the amendments that are being proposed, and where some of those amendments are being proposed because parties can behave irresponsibly when they are in the position that they are in.”
“I will come to putting that kind of issue in the Bill. Yes, there are financial consequences attached to some of the changes that have been made. Where we have already had them costed, we have not sought to make them secret, despite what Mr Allister said. In fact, we have been quite open about the costs. Some will require changes in regulations, and we know the areas that those lie in. I suspect that the regulations may even be drafted with a mind to the amount of money that is available. That will show the kind of flexibility that you can then attach to those regulations. The idea that, somehow or other, you simply put forward amendments willy-nilly without attaching costs to them is totally irresponsible. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the issue of the petitions of concern.”
“Where there are costs applied to their amendments, they say that somebody else should tell you what the costs are. However, they will not support other people's amendments unless they can be told what the costs are, saying that the obligation to give the cost is on the person moving the amendment.”
“Our record on the Bill is consistent. Where there are good aspects to it, we have supported them. Where there are aspects that we believe are disadvantageous, we have opposed them. Where we have had the ability to do something about it, we have done something about it. That is as good a record as anyone can have on the issue. <BR /> <BR />On applying standards, Mr Beggs, when he was talking about amendment No 1, which would mean significant costs to the Executive, he would not or could not give us the costings. Indeed, his argument was that it is up to the Minister and the Department to give us some of the costings. However, when challenged by Mr Agnew to support some of his amendments, he said that he could not do it unless the Member could give him costings. It is another example of parties wanting to have it both ways.”
“I have never had coffee or a diet Coke with the Prime Minister. Do I look like the kind of person who drinks diet Coke, for a start? All I am saying is that we actually support a lot of the welfare reform proposals anyway. We are supporting this Bill because we support a lot of the elements in welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />When it counted and when there were things that we disagreed with, first of all we went to Westminster and voted against those parts of the Bill. When that did not succeed, our Minister here in Northern Ireland sought to get changes made in the Bill, some of which are reflected and some of which reflect the concerns that have been expressed by parties all around here.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, we had Mr Beggs who, in the other direction, I suppose, tried to poke at the DUP, as if, somehow or other, the Ulster Unionist Party was totally divorced from all this stuff about welfare reform, despite the fact, as was pointed out to him ad nauseam by Members, that his own party stood in the last election under the banner of the party that has introduced it. Indeed, his own party leader stood as a candidate in that election.”
“Indeed, when she was moving her amendment, she talked about it, despite the fact that that privatisation of the assessments, if you want to call it that, was introduced by an SDLP Minister. <BR /> <BR />When we listen to the criticisms that the SDLP level and direct mostly in that direction — and I am not here to defend Sinn Féin, by the way, just in case anyone thinks that I am — one has to bear in mind their own record on this, and then ask how sincere are they really about the things that they said about it.”
“For example, they upbraided Sinn Féin on their refusal to sign a petition of concern on the spare-room subsidy, ignoring the fact that the spare-room subsidy was introduced into Northern Ireland by the SDLP. Indeed, it was introduced for those tenants in the most expensive housing sector, namely the private sector. There were no concerns then, of course; no petitions of concern; no amendments being put down. Their Minister simply introduced it. Now, they try to score political points. It is this cheap political point-scoring that makes the public cynical about the approach that parties have to certain issues. <BR /> <BR />They talked about sanctions. Sanctions were introduced by an SDLP Minister. We had the pseudo-rage from Mrs Kelly about Atos and the independent bodies that make assessments.”
“Can I, first of all, just make a couple of general points about the importance of the Bill? This issue has disabled this Assembly for quite some time because of the financial constraints it put on it and the concerns that there then were around the budgetary implications. It is important that we now have the Bill on the Floor of the House, and, hopefully, we will get it through this evening, though I notice that it is still being used to score political points and make bogus points against other parties by those who, in the past, complained about the impasse in the Assembly. That is despite the fact that, when you examine their role in these issues, you will see that it hardly stands a great deal of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I noticed the pseudo-anger that we had from the SDLP on this issue.”
“As he always does, the Member is trying to build a case that there is something wrong with everything that goes through the House. Would he accept that, on most occasions, primary legislation goes through the House and regulations follow? That is the normal process of legislation here or, indeed, at Westminster.”
“Does the Member accept that, even in the GB legislation, there are exemptions from the cap; for example, for those who have severe disabilities etc. So, the idea that, somehow or other, people in Northern Ireland should be beyond the cap is not a defect in the Bill. It partly reflects what is happening in the legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole.”
“Will the Member also accept that the other side of that evidence is that 50% of people who had languished on long-term unemployment, with all the consequences that that has for their income, families and everything else, are now being placed in work? That is the positive side of the changes.”
“When she is looking at how the programme will roll out in the future, will the Minister be cognisant that there are eight industrial areas in Northern Ireland — enterprise estates etc — that do not have access to fibre-optic broadband and, indeed, many rural industries and firms that do not have access and that that prevents their expansion? Will she ensure that BT gives some priority to those kinds of areas and activities?”
“Is the Member not arguing against the point that he made earlier? He indicated that, if one partner was not prepared to give a commitment, the answer was to remove the benefit and punish that person rather than the rest of the family. Now he is telling us that the potential is for the non-committing partner to stay in the house and still benefit from the housing benefit that will be paid to keep a roof over the family's heads, so, according to the Member's logic, there is no punishment.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, as the law stands, which the Bill supports, where someone is incapable of making that commitment, provision is made for them? Does he recognise that the difficultly with his amendment is that it opens the door for those who choose to not make any commitment to seek a job? Under the shelter of his amendment, they may hide behind their family or their family's vulnerability so that they do not have to live up to the requirements that anyone would expect of someone who is claiming benefits?”
“— the DUP was ahead of the game. We put a Budget through. The Equality Commission will have less resources next year, and I believe that thousands of my constituents will cheer when they hear that news.”
“He may well say to me, "Well, why did you not do something about it at the Budget?" My answer is, "We did." The Budget that went through, and which he, and, unfortunately, some others, voted against, contains a cut to the budget of the Equality Commission. It is a bigger cut than the £250,000 notional cut in this amendment. There is a real, effective cut that they will feel of £430,000 in the Budget. That was done by working and using negotiations to get a Budget agreed and to make sure that it was not stopped by petitions of concern or whatever. That is the way to give tangible effect to the anger of the public, but, as happens on so many occasions —”
“Even if this amendment were to go through — if the petition of concern and legal impediment were not there, this was the time for reducing the available money and the amendment was not simply making a reduction in the money available to be drawn down generally — there is no guarantee where the axe would fall. It does not, therefore, have the effect it is designed to have, for all of the reasons which I have given. Indeed, had Mr Allister wanted some advice on this, I am sure that either the Finance Minister or I would have given him a quick tutorial on how to handle these particular issues. <BR /> <BR />The time to do it, of course, was when we were putting through the Budget, which, unfortunately, Mr Allister voted against.”
“The amendment we have before us does not do that, for a number of reasons. First, this is not about the budget for individual Departments. Secondly, in law — I am sure that Mr Allister will make the point — the only amendments that can be made to this are by the Finance Minister. The Assembly cannot make amendments. Thirdly, as he knows, because of the route that he has taken, we now have a petition of concern against his amendment, so that it will not have any effect anyway. Some people may say, "That is just a message of despair. What can we do?" The question is not what can we do, but what have we done.”
“that many people across Northern Ireland have made. I want to give tangible effect to the denunciations that members of my party, thousands of my constituents and I have made about the Equality Commission.”
“I note that Mr Allister's press release states that what he wants to do through the amendment is:”
“I would know that I was overstepping the mark, although, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may argue that that does not stop me on occasions. However, it will stop me on this occasion, because I want to deal with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I support the sentiments behind the amendment. Indeed, long before Mr Allister talked about reducing the Equality Commission's budget, I had said that publicly in the Assembly and had written about it in the 'News Letter'. I believe that the Equality Commission is being used, as has been suggested by Members opposite, as a Trojan Horse to undermine many of the values that are dear to people whom Mr Allister and I represent. It is essential, therefore, that, when we see the Equality Commission squandering public money — Ashers bakery is a good example — we ought to try to find ways to reduce its ability to do so.”
“We would certainly be a higher-tax Assembly if that crowd over there had its way. The important thing is this: being part of the United Kingdom brings immense economic and fiscal benefits to this country, and we should never forget that. <BR /> <BR />My second point is that the draw on that sum would have been much higher. Tomorrow, hopefully, we will ensure that it is not much higher, because we will put through the welfare reform proposals. Some of that money would have been withdrawn to give back to Westminster unnecessarily. <BR /> <BR />I do not want to go into all the pet things that I would like more money or less money to be spent on. Some Members may do that out of ignorance. I would not do it out of ignorance but would do it deliberately.”
“He is not there at the minute, so I do not think that I have insulted him. <BR /> <BR />When they talk about their vision of a united Ireland and breaking free from the United Kingdom, let them remember that the money that we vote on today, which is available in the Consolidated Fund for Departments to draw on, is there partly because we are members of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom Government allocate more money to Northern Ireland than would be raised locally. There is the case, and the Supply resolution hammers home the case for the Union and why we should be part of the United Kingdom.”
“That said, I will make two observations. First, if we look at the amount of money to be voted on to enable Departments to run budgets for the next six months, the £7,075 million is well above what would be raised by taxation in Northern Ireland. I will continue to repeat that in these types of debate. The Members opposite ought to remember that, when they talk about their green dream — I am not talking about the wee man in the corner either — of a republic and getting —”
“This debate is not about — this is a very pertinent point, especially in relation to the amendment — discussing whether there is an adequate budget for one Department or another or whether more money should go into one Department's budget and less into another's. We have had that debate before.”
“In a former life, I would have upbraided Members for raising issues during this debate that should not properly be raised. Having listened to a good part of the debate, I have found that 95% of it falls into that category and that many people are treating this as if it were a Budget debate. Let us be quite clear what we are dealing with, and I will then try to stay within the limits of the debate. In fact, I sometimes wonder why the debate goes on for four hours, since it is a fairly simple matter of voting on the amount of money that the Minister will have to give to Departments to enable them to spend the money that was voted in the Budget a couple of weeks ago. That falls into two categories: the part in the Consolidated Fund and the part that is in the Consolidated Fund plus the receipts raised by Departments in Northern Ireland.”
“As well as accepting advice from Her Majesty's Treasury on his capital spend for integrated education, will the Minister give assurances that, with any capital spend that impacts on other schools in a locality, consideration will be given to the views of other education providers and that we will not have a situation where, for example, an integrated school is allowed to expand at the expense of schools that exist in the area and may well be operating under capacity anyway?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He made a very compelling case for higher education in Northern Ireland, but does he accept that there is still room for efficiencies in universities and for selling the excellent services that he outlined, especially research opportunities and the income that could be generated from those? Perhaps we should also question whether the university route is suitable for over 50% of the population, when some of the required skills could be delivered by other education institutions.”
“Can the Minister justify not one penny being reduced from the expenditure of Irish language bodies while, at the same time, schools in Northern Ireland are crying out for funding to keep teachers and special needs facilities in place and hospitals are looking for money to deliver operations and accident and emergency services?”
“I note that, despite the cuts in the budgets for schools, health, education and roads in Northern Ireland, the agreed budgets for 2014 and 2015 do not see one penny reduced from the budget for the language bodies. It is going to be spent on very important things such as lifestyle —”
“Looking through the list of capital projects, I see lock gates on the Shannon, bridge repairs on the Grand canal, enhancements of the Grand canal towpath, the Shannon Blueway and the multi-activity trail at Carrick-on-Shannon. Nearly every one of these projects is in the Irish Republic. Does the Minister see her role as fighting for projects in Northern Ireland or simply sitting there, handing over our money for projects in the Irish Republic?”
“There has been general support around the House for the aims of the Bill. I ask this because one of the Member's Ministers is responsible, and I would ask the same to my own colleague who is the Minister of Health. The educational results for children in care are very poor compared with those of children who are not in care. What does she envisage being put in place in this Bill that will improve the results of children in care, who, on one hand are under Health, and, on the other hand, are finding that school performance is poor? How does she see this Bill leading to cooperation that would improve the results for children who are in that situation?”
“Having seen just how wasteful that silo mentality can sometimes be, I agree with the Member, but does he agree that that has massive implications for the way in which we do budgetary policy? The silo mentality is, of course, partly due to the fact that budgets are allocated to Departments, and there is very little room and scope for moving money from one Department to another or having money allocated in a way that allows it to cross Departments, other than holding it at the centre or, sometimes, giving it to another Department, which then distributes it for particular issues, which in itself, as we have seen, can breed complications.”
“I thank the Chairman for giving way. Did the Committee have any comment to make on what the high-level issues that were raised in the Bill mean? I will take one that I can think of from my own experience: enjoying education. Was any probing done as to what that actually means, how it would be delivered and, indeed, whether an institution would fall foul of not achieving that goal if it was challenged by a youngster because they did not particularly like the school that they were at or the experience that they were having at that school?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that he has made, he has now presented the other side of the coin: the groups that are involved in looking after or are concerned about children. Is the very fact that, at his launch, he identified 40 different groups not an indication to him that just as it is difficult in the statutory sector to find a way of pulling together everything that is needed to service a child's needs, even within the voluntary, community or lobbying sectors, there is a disparate range of people because, really, these things are not easily brought together under one umbrella or roof?”
“Just on that point, while I can see the sense of what he is saying, would he also accept that not all professionals — he used the examples of teachers and social workers — will have the range of skills that can encapsulate the ability to meet all a child's needs? Therefore, you are bound to still get a plethora of people who have to service the child's needs. If he is presenting the Bill as something that would enable us to bring together all that professional expertise in one person, is that not being a bit unrealistic?”
“All of us want to see more joined-up government, especially in dealing with children, so can the Member explain how his proposals so far would avoid further bureaucracy as Departments look for ways of working together — on groups, through liaising and so on — and instead result in money going to the front end and to the care of children?”
“According to the definitions that have been used so far, all coal, apparently, is smoky unless it is manufactured smokeless fuel. That seems to be the only kind of coal that is deemed as being non-smoky, but, of course, it is much more expensive than all other kinds of coal.”