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 7 of 10.
“I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps he would bear in mind that it was Nigel Dodds, as Social Development Minister, who first introduced the warm homes scheme, and it was during times when Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds and I were Finance Minister that more money was given to warm homes schemes, window insulation and so on. Rather than not dealing with fuel poverty, our record on dealing with fuel poverty is fairly good.”
“Would the Member also accept that the air-quality reports, from which she is probably quoting, that were produced by the DOE do not distinguish between the particulate matter that comes from, for example, diesel cars, lorries and the burning of fuel in households? Indeed, given the erratic nature of the measurements, it is more likely that it is related to transport rather than the burning of fuel?”
“Will the Member also accept that far more people die from the cold than die from air pollution? If he is just going to take the air quality issue, the choice may well be that, if we restrict the availability of household coal, many people will die because they will not be able to afford to heat their house.”
“Will he accept that I mentioned only this one form of fuel because that is what the report restricts itself to? If it is genuinely a report about air pollution and not, as I believe, a first step towards meeting the stated objective of the Minister to ban this one form of fuel, why was the report not more inclusive?”
“I will. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister tell us that he is not prepared to disadvantage his own constituents? In Strabane, his predecessor was asked to lift the ban on the use of household coal because 80% of households in fuel poverty could not afford to heat their houses. Minister, do not turn your back on your constituents. Do not turn your back on —”
“People who suffer from fuel poverty in Northern Ireland become victims of a policy in the Republic. For that reason, the Assembly should be addressing the issue. If we are serious about the issue of air quality, why does the report not include a whole range of other issues? Why has it zoned in on the one issue that is a fixation of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in the Irish Republic? Fuel users in Northern Ireland should not be penalised as a result of a policy that originates in the Republic and that people want to be extended across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I would welcome it if the Minister is going to tell us today that he is not prepared to —”
“A ton of household coal costs about £300. A ton of manufactured smokeless fuel costs between £350 and £450. The Member was not the best economics student, but an increase from £300 to £450 is £150; it is 50% of an increase on £300 a ton. Even if that were the case, the appliance, in many instances, would have to be changed because not all open fires will burn smokeless fuel. <BR /> <BR />Fuel poverty will hit a substantial number of people, mostly in rural areas. We are not talking about a few thousand people; we are talking about tens of thousands of households on the basis that there may be a problem in the Republic and a desire to ban household coal. Of course, if you ban household coal, they do not want it being available in Northern Ireland and being transferred across the border.”
“The impact on those families of having to switch from a cheap form of fuel to a dearer form of fuel, since many of them already exist in fuel poverty, will be devastating and not something that the Assembly can ignore. <BR /> <BR />Although it is argued that the cost difference will not be all that much, the fact is that even to move — if you can — from household coal to smokeless coal is likely to put up the bill that households will face by anything from 20% to 50%. If they have to switch, and if they can switch — many in rural areas, of course, do not have —”
“<BR /> <BR />First of all, in answers to me, the Minister has accepted that the majority of people who use household coal — indeed, the term "smoky coal" indicates where the thinking is going — live in rural areas and cannot get connected to the gas grid or whatever. Secondly, the majority of people who use that coal are from low-income families. Thirdly, air quality in rural areas is not a huge issue. If this was going to affect only a few thousand people, one could say, "Well, it is not really an important issue", but 50,000 to 55,000 houses use household coal as their primary source of heating. Another estimated 110,000 households use it as additional fuel where they cannot afford, for example, to run the oil central heating all day, so they use household coal.”
“and that we would have to take the necessary steps. <BR /> <BR />While he did not come out as vocally and as transparently as the Minister in the South, we have a report that concentrates on one kind of fuel and ignores the important impacts that the ban might have, which is really directed towards a problem that exists in the Republic and ignores other sources of air pollution, and one of the people engaged in the decision has already made his mind up and said that a ban will be extended. Therefore, I do not think that the charge that the motion is premature is correct. I do not believe that the charge that I am scaremongering is correct. I want to look at the impact that going down this road is likely to have on Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second point that has been made is that I am assuming that the Minister has made his mind up. Well, the one thing that I do know is that the Minister in the Republic has made his mind up, because, on the day that the air quality report was announced, he said that the Government plan to extend the ban on smoky coal to every town and village in the country. On the same day, Alex Attwood was a bit more circumspect with his words, but he said, and you can see where the drift is going here, Mr Speaker:”
“<BR /> <BR />When it comes to the impact of any changes, there is only a passing reference to the impact on fuel poverty. Indeed, if one looks at the terms of reference under the "Impact Assessment", one will see that it is geared towards a Republic of Ireland agenda. Fuel poverty is mentioned, but the emphasis is on alternative fuels and, especially, manufactured smokeless fuels. Of course, we already know that CPL Fuels Ireland is making a substantial bid to the Government of the Irish Republic to set up a plant, and we also know the tax revenue and jobs that that would produce. So even the terms of reference will try to gloss over the impact of fuel poverty — and, of course, none of that is going to benefit people in Northern Ireland. When I say that the report is flawed, the terms of reference indicate that the report is flawed.”
“They are not included in it. Of course, we know why that is; it is because peat is produced in the Republic by a state monopoly that produces about €51 million of income a year. It will never be included and, even though it is more polluting than coal, it is described in legislation as "smokeless". Wood is the same. Secondly, in all the reports and, indeed, even in the Minister's 2013 report on air quality in Northern Ireland, the emphasis for where air quality has deteriorated is not on the result of the burning of residential fuels but pollution from transport. However, transport is not included. If it was a genuine report about air pollution and concern about air pollution, one would have expected transport to have been included.”
“I want to, first, address two issues that have been raised by those who want to wriggle out of supporting the motion. The first is that, since the report has not been published, it cannot be described as "flawed". The second is that, since the Minister has indicated that he will receive the report and then make his decision, the motion is only scaremongering and is premature. <BR /> <BR />I want to deal with the issue of the report being flawed first. I accept that the report has not been published, but I know what its terms of reference are, and it is flawed in a number of ways. First, if it is genuinely a report about air pollution, one would have expected that it would have addressed all the issues of air pollution. Oddly enough, the two forms of residential fuel that are more polluting than household coal, wood and peat, are exempt.”
“The Minister is correct in saying that development schemes can be for anywhere in a council area, as outlined in clause 5. When it comes to the financial assistance available for forwarding aspects of that development scheme, whether it is for housing, improvement of the environment, improvement of community and social facilities or the refurbishing or restructuring of buildings, clause 1 restricts it to areas of social need. So, while the development plan can cover everywhere, the funding as it stands, as I understand it, can be applied only to the parts of the development scheme that would qualify under the term "social need". Albeit that the Minister is saying that that can be fairly widely interpreted, it still does not answer the question that Mr McCrea asked.”
“Will he accept that to define what is meant by social need too closely — as we have seen in the past, simply defined by the Noble indices — removes the flexibility to deal with small pockets of social need? So, actually, the less defined that it is, the better, rather than trying to have it closely defined, which ties councils' hands in many instances where they see a problem that might not be extensive but, nevertheless, is important.”
“I do not know the answer to this, but the easy thing would be to limit it to physical regeneration. Does the Member accept that other aspects of regeneration are equally important? In an estate in which a lot of young people are unemployed, for example, a training scheme could help to equip them for local employment, which would get them off the streets and deal with some of the problems that have perhaps wrecked that estate. That is as much part of regeneration as a physical development in the estate. I do not know the answer, and I do not know how you word it, but there has to be some element of non-physical provision if we are to address the totality of regeneration.”
“I appreciate and am very supportive of the point that he is making. However, there is only one aspect that perhaps he would like to deal with, and maybe it could be dealt with in Committee. All, or most, of the issues that have been listed in clause 1(2)(a) to 1(2)(e) are about physical regeneration. Does he also accept that there are some kind of community activities that do add to regeneration and that getting the wording as to which of those community activities would be genuinely beneficial to regeneration and which would be totally outside, as he has suggested in some of his examples, will be quite difficult? Of course, the option is not to have community activities at all included in this.”
“Does he accept that perhaps the important part where we need to get these issues hammered down is in clause 17, which deals with the guidance as to how the money ought to be used, the kinds of things that will constitute neighbourhood renewal and how that should be applied?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has listed a lot of groups and activities, and many would ask what the neighbourhood renewal impact is of the spending on those groups.”
“I do not disagree with the point that councils might be better prepared for this given the passage of time, in so far as they may have got their head around many of the other issues that they have to deal with that are being devolved to them. However, would the Member accept that, if as a result of this the regeneration budget is smaller by the time it is devolved, councils will have fewer resources to do the things that people expect them to do?”
“If a public-sector function is to be devolved to councils, why is there any need to keep part of its responsibility in the Department? If we are serious about slimming down the public sector and slimming it down in a way that does not hurt public services in Northern Ireland, we ought to look for these opportunities. <BR /> <BR />There may be very good reasons for retaining the functions. If there are, we have to consider them. However, I hope that either in the Minister's response now or when we come to examine the Bill as it goes through Committee these are the kind of issues that we will look at.”
“We will have a cadre of staff retained by the Department, and what are they going to do? They will consult the councils and say, "What kind of guidance do you think we should have when it comes to your regeneration schemes?". They will then compile that and issue it as a document for councils' guidance. If a council is going to have the input in the first place, why does it not just draw up the guidance itself? Is this, again, a case of superfluous staff being held in the Department for whatever reason, whether it is to keep a regeneration empire in the Department or simply to find jobs for people who are not going to move over to councils? This is at a time when we are talking of slimming down the public sector and are being told by the trades unions that to do that will be an absolute catastrophe for the population of Northern Ireland.”
“So, it is not that the Department is going to dream this up. It will go to councils and ask them, "What issues would you like to see as guidance under the powers that you are going to carry out?". Under clause 17(2):”
“and where it has significant regional importance. However, it will still be in a council area. Maybe the Minister will be able to give us some explanation of that. In what circumstances would a council not identify a significant area of land or place where there needs to be regeneration or a development plan? Why would a council not have undertaken that in the first place anyway? Why do we need to retain that capacity in the Department? <BR /> <BR />The second thing is that, under clause 17, the Department will retain staff for guidance. Maybe the Minister can tell us how many staff will be involved in the two functions. The clause states:”
“<BR /> <BR />The one other area that I have some concern about — the Minister may wish to address this later on — is that regenerative functions will be retained by the Department. If we are going to devolve these issues to councils, do we really need to retain in the Department some of the regeneration powers that are being retained in the Bill? Is this simply a case of the Department wanting still to have part of the regeneration empire within its remit? Is it all about ensuring that people who will not be moving to councils have a role to play? <BR /> <BR />Two important aspects are laid down. The first is in clause 13, "Development schemes made by the Department", where the Department can introduce a development scheme, albeit that the schemes will be carried out by the councils. These development schemes will be where it is”
“Just before councils run away with the idea that this gives them almost unlimited powers to do these things, there are still significant pieces of land held by banks and property developers that were purchased some time ago and, if they were vested today, would have to be vested at below the price that the individual paid for them and therefore would be vested and taken into public ownership at a loss to the individual. That will still be an impediment when it comes to many redevelopment schemes. It is not addressed in the Bill, but it is an issue that will limit the ability of councils to undertake some of the redevelopment and regeneration that they wish to undertake, or it will only be undertaken at severe financial pain to some individual landowners. I can imagine that that will cause some controversy in some council areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are significant powers, which is a good thing, for councils where, for example, they bring forward a development plan but that development plan could be thwarted because there is a right of way across the area or because a particular landowner or landowners are not willing to give up key pieces of land. With the extinguishment of rights of way and the powers of vesting, councils will have an ability to regenerate areas that, perhaps, it was not possible to regenerate before. <BR /> <BR />In the initial discussion that we had about this in Committee, however, there was an issue. I am not so sure that the Minister can address it in this Bill.”
“It goes on to say that you are not allowed to block the road, the footpath or any entrance to a building or premises, but you are allowed to place things in a road. Now, I assume that that means environmental schemes, which will be greatly welcomed, whether it is tree planting or whatever, providing it is not on the white line in the middle of the road. I just thought it was rather quaintly put, and maybe the Minister would like to enlighten the Assembly as to how exactly we will place things in roads without stopping people walking or driving on them.”
“The second issue that I want to take up is that there will be significant powers for councils. In fact, some of them are rather quaintly put. Let us look at clause 3; maybe the Minister will spell out what exactly he means by this. Clause 3, which deals with the power to carry out works for the improvement of the environment, states:”
“That means that there will be less money transferred to councils for the regeneration function than there would have been had the Bill been passed and the power transferred at a time when the DSD budget for regeneration was higher than it will be as a result of the budgetary constraints that will be experienced next year and, presumably, going on into the year after that. The delay has had and will have a detrimental impact. The councils that find that they receive less money than they had expected have only got Sinn Féin and its tardiness when it comes to legislation to blame for this. I hope that, when there are debates in councils across the Province, the finger will be pointed appropriately at the council groups whose party has caused this situation to occur.”
“However, it has an importance. I cannot quote the sum of money that will be the case, because, with the new Budget proposals and the extra money that will be available to DSD, we do not know — at least, I do not know — what the final figure for regeneration will be in the budget line of the Department for Social Development. The one thing I do know is that, under the draft Budget proposals, about £8 million less is available for regeneration in the budget line for next year than there was for the year in which these powers were meant to be devolved.”
“I welcome the fact that we have finally got a Bill to the Floor, although I have to say that the Committee will want to look at a number of issues as we go through Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />It is unfortunate that the Bill has been delayed. That is not the fault of the current Minister, and it was not the fault of the previous Minister: it falls at the feet of Sinn Féin, who refused to clear the Bill so that it could come forward in a timely manner. As a result, new councils will be up and running for a year before they have the powers that will be available under the Bill. Some people may argue that that is not a bad idea, because the new councils will have lots of new functions to undertake and lots of new things to get their hands on and their minds around, so a delay of a year is not all that important.”
“Four years ago, when the current Budget was introduced, the same trade unions were predicting that 50,000 public-sector workers would be thrown out onto the dole. That did not happen. Will the First Minister confirm that any redundancies that will take place as a result of the Stormont House Agreement will be purely on a voluntary basis and not, as the trades unions have suggested, throwing workers out of work when they wish to stay in work?”
“Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Deputy Speaker. That is the extent of my French, by the way.”
“— the money that is available to schools and, therefore, deny money to the front line.”
“Does he accept that, rather than the Minister's contention, the motion makes it quite clear how the DUP would spend the money. It would give it to schools rather than leaving it with a Stalinist-type Department that wants to control —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, however he describes them — backroom services or money held at the centre — the fact is that, in Northern Ireland, we hold about 20% more at the centre than is held for the aggregated schools budget in other parts of the United Kingdom? That is why schools find themselves under pressure.”
“Does the Minister accept that, even with the aggregated schools budget, he holds so much money at the centre for a plethora of nearly 50 special initiatives — some of which are questionable, anyway — that, even if he worked on the aggregated schools budget and devolved more of that to schools, the kinds of issues that have been described in the Assembly today could have been overcome?”
“Maybe the Minister will spell out whether that delay was caused by Sinn Féin's refusal to allow the Bill passage through the Assembly? If that is the case, given that the budget that will be devolved to local councils will now be much smaller than what it would have been had powers been devolved this year, will he spell out how much Sinn Féin's delay tactics will cost local councils in regeneration expenditure over the next number of years?”
“It is important to the people who work in those businesses. She has responded quickly. That is the kind of fleet-footedness that we want to see in government here. I thank the Minister. Although this is about domestic incentives, she has used the opportunity to relieve a problem that was causing difficulties for a small number of businesses in Northern Ireland. That has illustrated, once again, the value of having this place, where issues are looked at in Committee, responded to by officials and then brought to the Assembly by the Minister.”
“The incentives distorted the market, because some businesses had already got a Carbon Trust loan and therefore could not apply for any incentives to put in equipment in order to use renewable heat. The Minister has responded to that and removed the anomaly. Perhaps she should let us know when businesses will be eligible to apply. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I will mention that many people ask what use the Assembly is and what is done. The minutiae of government, which can have a huge impact on businesses, individuals and employment, can often be easily overlooked when it comes to the kind of reporting that goes on. I would like to congratulate the Minister. The issue was brought to her attention. I know that it does not affect a lot of businesses, but it is important to those businesses that are affected.”
“As a result, they were not eligible to apply for the non-domestic incentives, because, as she pointed out, there was an issue with state aid. That, of course, distorted competition between those that were eligible for the incentives and those that were not. Although it was only a small number of businesses involved, they were very often competing with other businesses in the same sector and not able to access the same support for their heating, especially if their business was very heat-intensive. One business that contacted me is a nursery business that has a greatly intensive use of heat, especially early in the new year when it will be starting to bring on plants in glasshouses etc. A lot of heat is required for that.”
“There was a distortion on the market, whereby those who tried to do what the Minister sought to achieve — getting the targets for the use of renewable energy up — took loans from the Carbon Trust at an early stage.”
“First, I will make it clear that I do not share some Members' enthusiasm for the use of renewable energy. That is mainly because, as I have pointed out time and again, renewable energy by its very nature is quite expensive and therefore has caused problems for domestic householders who have been hit by fuel poverty and for businesses. I am glad to see that the Minister is looking at reviewing the targets in response to the difficulties that have been caused. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased to see what the Minister has done. Although this is about domestic incentives, I am pleased that the Minister has used the opportunity of the regulation to smooth out an anomaly. If we are to have renewable energy, we should at least not impose further distortions on the market.”
“The Member used a phrase beloved of all politicians when they are not really sure what their policy is: "Something needs to be done". Perhaps he would tell us what the "something" is that will reduce costs for large non-domestic energy consumers while not passing it on to domestic consumers.”
“However, he added another sentence: "as far as possible". Really, I would like the Minister to indicate, when he sums up, whether even the parts of the Serious Crime Bill that deal with the proceeds of crime will be impaired in some way by the fact that we are not part of the National Crime Agency. Indeed, is that what he meant when he talked about them applying to Northern Ireland "as far as possible"? If that is the case, whilst I welcome the legislative consent motion, it would appear that the Westminster legislation will be less effective in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.”
“It is not going to go everywhere, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is worth pointing out that the rationale behind this is that there are issues of a cross-jurisdictional nature and a legislative consent motion has been accepted in relation to the Serious Crime Bill but has not been accepted in relation to other legislation that was dealing with exactly the same kind of problem that we are facing here. <BR /> <BR />The Minister mentioned — this is really the only reason that I wanted to speak on this, although I was glad to get the opportunity to once again highlight the inconsistencies from those in the Assembly who appear to be supporting the criminal class in one way or another — that one of the issues that would be covered by the Bill would be the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the ability to bring in money from the proceeds of crime.”
“I welcome the agreement from Sinn Féin on this legislative consent motion on the Serious Crime Bill. I especially noted that one of the reasons that Mr McCartney gave for the Committee's support and, indeed, his acceptance of its report was "the cross-jurisdictional nature" of many of these offences. It just strikes me as a bit odd that when a legislative consent motion was sought for the National Crime Agency (NCA) on the very basis that the crimes were of a cross-jurisdictional nature, Sinn Féin and the SDLP did not find it worthy of —”
“— and, therefore, have excluded it from the report? What will he do to remedy that situation?”