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 8 of 10.
“Despite the Minister's assurances that he has an open mind on the outcome of the air quality report, the fact that he describes household coal as smoky coal may be an indication of the direction in which he is going. <BR /> <BR />Is he aware of the concerns that, if he goes down the road of banning household coal, it will increase fuel poverty? It is the kind of fuel that is used by tens of thousands of fuel-poor people in Northern Ireland, and that would require considerable investment in their heating systems. <BR /> <BR />Will he explain to us why, if he is concerned about air quality, it is only household coal that is being given the emphasis here and not peat as well? Is that because he had his eye wiped by Ministers in the Republic who realise that the peat industry is important to their industry —”
“Of course, there is a good grid connection between us.”
“If it were not for the Minister of the Environment and the Green Party opposing a cheap form of local energy, people could benefit from that as well.”
“It is unfortunate that he should make that intervention at this time. The price of gas has never been lower. It is going down. People pay less for their petrol and diesel than they have paid for a couple of years. As a result of fracking, which I know is a bad word for him, we now find that OPEC can no longer use its monopoly in the way in which it did and that the Americans are looking for world markets in which to sell energy. Of course, we have reserves under the ground in Northern Ireland.”
“I am sure that the member of the Green Party is appalled by what I am saying, because he does not want consumers to know the true cost of green electricity, but I will let him intervene anyway.”
“Here is the contradiction: somehow or other these huge energy producers, who are subsidised already for the erection of the turbines and the electricity they generate, should be subsidised for the connection, but the ordinary homeowner will have to pay the full economic cost. That is the inequity of the thing. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at another parallel. If a developer wants to build on a greenfield site — we had this discussion recently in the Social Development Committee — we expect developer contributions for upgrades of roads, improvements to junctions and increasing traffic capacity. If that is the case when it comes to housebuilding, why do we not apply the same principle when it comes to the generation of electricity?”
“If we are going to reflect the true cost of producing renewable energy, then, if we have to strengthen the grid, the people who want to produce that renewable energy should pay the cost of it.”
“<BR /> <BR />From the discussion we have had so far, it seems that the report is almost an agenda for the renewable energy industry: "We should be allowed to build our turbines in the middle of nowhere, but somebody else should pay for the connection, so that we can then sell electricity to consumers in Northern Ireland". If that is the case, not only will we find that we are charging people for electricity that costs about three and a half times more than electricity generated from gas, but we are saying that, by the way, consumers will have to pay for the connections into this. That goes on to the bill, and it is not an inconsequential amount of money, as the Member who spoke previously tried to suggest. A huge investment will be required to strengthen the grid in that way.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not want to get into how we generate electricity. This discussion is about grid connections, and there are implications. If we go for more windmills across the countryside in remote areas where there are no power lines at present, we must strengthen the grid. Strengthening the grid requires money to be spent. The question that has been asked, time and again, is this: if we want to go for that target — it seems that the Assembly and the Executive are committed to it — and give planning permissions to renewable energy generation in remote areas, it will require the strengthening of the grid. Who pays for that?”
“I wish to emphasise the point that Paul Frew made: this is one of the most important issues that the Assembly needs to deal with, because of the importance of energy to industry, the frequent discussions that there are here about fuel poverty and the need to retain the companies we have at present. <BR /> <BR />I must say that the more I listen to the arguments made here today, the more I despair of the understanding that there is of the issues. We cannot say that we want secure and cheap energy supplies and yet have Member after Member jumping up to say that we must aim for the most expensive energy that we could have: renewable energy. Indeed, it is significant that the German economy, which is nowhere near 40%, is now turning its back on renewables and is building coal-fired power stations.”
“I am bemused by the logic that, by giving companies cheaper access to the grid — in other words, subsidising them through increased bills for consumers — somehow or other you will deal with fuel poverty. There is only one of two ways of paying for a connection: either the consumer pays for it, or the people who want to pay for the electricity pay for it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he also accept that it is very important for the strategies that DETI is pursuing at present in attracting, for example, data companies, banking etc, which are huge energy users? They need cheap energy and to be sure that there will be an energy supply that they can rely on in the future.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he also accept that, if the connections are to be subsidised, that subsidy will inevitably fall on the bills that go to consumers' households?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know that the rhetoric of what he is saying sounds great, but will he explain to me how, on one hand, he can say that he wishes to see the promotion of renewables to the extent of 40% of our production being from that source, while at the same time, ensuring that consumers get cheap electricity? Renewable electricity costs about three and half times as much to produce as electricity from gas.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am glad that she has recognised that priority was given by the Executive and the Assembly to the health budget. She said that the important thing is whether the money is going in the right direction. That is a question that we need to ask. Does she have any suggestions to make about the incorrect way in which money has been allocated and where the Minister ought to look for the savings that would enable the issue to be dealt with?”
“Will the Member share my concerns that, for some time, there has been, across a number of trusts, a desire to remove and close down certain facilities and that the current financial situation is being used as a cover to do something that may well have been, as he is describing, a long-term plan anyway?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is making a very compelling case for Dalriada. However, does he accept that it is not simply a case of batting this back to the Minister, because any alternative is likely to affect those of us who represent constituencies in the Northern Trust area? It is therefore is important that, if there is to be an alternative to Dalriada, there be some input from local representatives. That is why the Minister is quite right to say, "Let's hear what you want instead of the closure of Dalriada".”
“I do not know the details of the case, but does the Member accept that, very often, the people who criticise Departments for invoice slicing, as he calls it, or cutting down the size of contracts are the very people in the Assembly who call, time and time again, for more work to be given to small local businesses? The way to do that, of course, is to break contracts down in the way that is suggested.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that some of the flak is justifiable? First of all, picking over the bones of some of the projects with hindsight can sometimes reveal things that were not apparent at the start. Secondly, the detail and the intricacies of some of the recommendations creates extra work for Departments. Thirdly, the sometimes unfair way in which the scrutiny is done introduces a chill factor, and that risks are not taken by Departments where sometimes they should be taken.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those are the only two caveats that I would attach to this. A large number of people will still have to go through the child maintenance arrangements, and they will now be paying in administrative charges a substantial part of the money that would normally have gone to the child. If that is the case, there should be a proper, effective service for the parents who, because they cannot reach agreement, find themselves in the scheme.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second is — I hope that the Minister will keep a very close eye on this — that, given the chaotic way in which the Child Support Agency or Child Maintenance Service sometimes administered dealings with parents, I hope that, now that a 24% charge is being imposed, we will see greater diligence so that we see fewer of the kind of mistakes that were made in the past or, indeed, what could sometimes be regarded as lack of forcefulness in pursuing situations where payments were not being kept up to date. The Minister pointed out that that will still not cover the full costs of the service. Nevertheless, now that charges of that level are being levied, there should be an improvement in the service for those who find that, where there is non-cooperation, the agency is not pursuing the matter as quickly as it should.”
“The first is that, where there cannot be cooperation between parents — according to what the Minister said, that is still the case with 40% of people who are receiving child maintenance — the fees, in effect, mean that a quarter of the payment that is received is lost in administration charges imposed by the Child Maintenance Service.”
“Yes, sorry. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the regulations. Anyone who has dealt with people who have had to go through the Child Support Agency or the Child Maintenance Service will know that it was far from satisfactory and was one of the arms of government that had a very poor record, first of all, in collecting money where it was difficult to collect and, secondly, in dealing with changes in circumstances and queries. Sometimes, it was the parent with care who was adversely affected, and it was sometimes the parent who was having to make the payment. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had two concerns about the scheme.”
“I echo what the Deputy Chairman of the Committee said. The Committee did indeed consider —”
“You are not very good at budgeting your time.”
“You would have had an extra minute if you had given way to me.”
“— that enabled the services to be continued and that neither she nor her party suggested that one penny be deducted from any Department to add to the Health Department's budget?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Obviously, as the person who was responsible for the Budget at that time, I can remember being in discussions with the Minister from her party. Will she accept that the only Department that got a real-terms increase in the Budget in 2011 was the Department of Health and that every year in monitoring rounds, it got at least an additional £60 million —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that not only are those who criticise the budget not prepared to accept the good news stories, of which there are many, but, when they say that there are ways to save tens of millions of pounds without hurting front-line services, they do not mention even one pound's worth?”
“Does the Member accept that the controlled grammar schools are a distinctive part of the controlled sector and that their interests and their needs are sometimes different from other controlled schools and, therefore, it is important, if we are going to have a balanced body, that there is representation for that sector, especially given that the controlled grammar sector has infinitely more students attending its schools than, say, the Irish-medium or integrated sectors?”
“Are you going to guard auld Derry's walls?”
“On that criterion, Jennifer McCann is not fit to hold the position that she has at present, heading up the historical institutional abuse inquiry. She may have the confidence of the deputy First Minister, but she will not have the confidence of the Members of the House or of the people who will appear before the inquiry. For that reason, the motion is totally reasonable, and any action that comes from it is totally reasonable. Indeed, we would be failing in our duty as public representatives if we were not supporting the motion and demanding the action contained in it and in the amendment.”
“That is why we must have the inquiry that we demand. <BR /> <BR />Let me finish with the words of Jennifer McCann:”
“<BR /> <BR />She says, of course, that there was no cover-up. However, as Alex Attwood pointed out, she had ample opportunity at a conference at which they were talking about victims in a war situation — as Sinn Féin would have described the past 30 years — to give real life examples of what happened here in Northern Ireland, but she chose not to do so. If that is not covering up, what is it? That is why the motion is particularly pertinent. If we are to have a credible inquiry that victims can have confidence in, they must have confidence in the people who lead it. They cannot have any confidence in someone who put the organisation that she belonged to in front of those who were hurt by it.”
“Then she went on to condemn with a broad brush people right across this island and to say that a lot of people knew about historical abuse but simply did nothing about it. When she became the person whom someone confided in, what did she do about it? By the criteria that she has set down for effectively dealing with victims, she has failed. Someone came along and spoke to her, and she told us that she did not go to the police on the basis that "I was not asked to". If she was a trained counsellor, as she claims to have been, she would have known that, when something such as this was reported, she had a duty to. She failed in her duty as a public representative, as a counsellor and as the confidante of a vulnerable person. She then tries to hide behind the excuse "I was only doing my best". By her own criteria, she did not do that.”
“<BR /> <BR />From the very start of this day, Sinn Féin has planned to make sure that it turned this into a political event. From delaying the debate to late at night so that it missed the news, to lining up its women along the Front Benches to show that it is woman-friendly — they were not too friendly to the victim that we are talking about tonight — to the accusations that this is just a political point-scoring exercise. They have tried to turn it around because we know that they are embarrassed on this one. Jennifer McCann, despite all that she has said in debates in the House when talking about historical institutional abuse, said that nothing measures a society more than the way it looks after vulnerable people.”
“First, many of us would wish that we were not discussing this here this evening. When Paula Bradley was asked to lead off on the motion for us, she was reluctant to do so. I think that she has probably done it with great personal difficulty, but she did it because she honestly believed that it was an issue that she, as a woman, should speak out on. Having spoken to Maíria Cahill, she also knew that it was something that the victim wanted the Assembly to discuss here today. Rather than a political point scoring exercise, this has been a difficult issue for the proposer of the motion and for the victim whom we are discussing here this evening. The only people who have turned this into a political point-scoring exercise or thrown up the political defence have been Sinn Féin.”
“I am at a loss to understand Member's logic. If hauliers from the Irish Republic no longer find it profitable to deliver the goods that he is talking about in Northern Ireland, does it not give opportunities for Northern Ireland hauliers to take up the business, go across the border, lift the goods and bring them back into Northern Ireland? Surely, that would be a good thing?”
“Is "his ilk" not the same as "these people"?”
“good thing that it did. Thank goodness that it did.”
“In her last point, the Chairman indicated that DfT would put in place its own arrangements to ensure compliance. Maybe she could spell out exactly what those arrangements would be. It would be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin would rather see Departments based in Westminster starting to enforce here in Northern Ireland, rather than having the issues dealt with locally. Maybe she could outline that for us.”
“You are not going to go on for another five or six minutes, are you?”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and since he asked a question, I am quite happy to answer it. I cannot understand why hauliers in Northern Ireland, who are bringing sand and gravel from Lough Neagh to building sites, have to pay the cost of travelling on the roads. I find it most bizarre that the Member should be arguing for people who are not his constituents in the Republic and against his constituents who operate haulage firms in his locality. He wants those constituents to have to pay a cost and for their competitors to be exempt from doing so. That is a strange kind of representation.”
“I listened to the Member's whole speech. He has not actually addressed the issue. How does he justify that lorry drivers in Northern Ireland have to make a contribution towards the upkeep of roads in Northern Ireland for the damage that lorries do to roads in Northern Ireland, yet he says that lorry drivers from outside Northern Ireland, who have the same impact on roads, should have the free use of roads? Where is the logic in that? Where is the justice or the fairness for transport organisations in Northern Ireland when they are faced with people coming from the Irish Republic who do not have to deal with the same costs?”
“Thank you for giving way. Will the Minister accept that the main thrust, however, is not what happens between now and when the new measures are in place but, even more importantly, what happens after the new measures are in place? There will still be choices for people to make. For example, people who are coming off benefit and going on to the new tax scheme, with the 25% subsidy that they can get, will have a lot of detailed calculations that they need help with. The emphasis at Westminster appears to be that that is where the real help and the real attention of government should be.”
“Does the Minister share my alarm that some sectors are reporting that up to 40% of firms are indicating that growth potential is being hampered because of skill shortages, especially in the engineering sector? Given that this is engineering week, what action has he taken, along with DETI and employers, to get employers to go into schools, colleges and universities to change the perception that many young people have of the opportunities that exist in the engineering industry?”
“The Minister indicated that the £100 million loan was determined partly by a credible 2015-16 plan being in place before the end of October. Could he give us some idea of what he believes would have to be included in such a credible plan? For example, is it credible to ring-fence 62% of the Budget by guaranteeing the budgets for health and education? Will it require acceptance by Sinn Féin and the SDLP that the cost of their stance on welfare reform will have to be taken off Departments? Will it require recognition that IT costs are coming down the road in 2015-16 because of the failure of welfare reform? Does he accept that the promises of long-term change in government structures will not be a credible plan —”
“When Caterpillar reduced its workforce in Larne, the Minister gave an undertaking, at that stage, to work with the company to look at its worldwide operations and to find out whether there were things that could be moved to Northern Ireland. Thankfully, employment levels are back at the pre-reduction levels. Has she had any discussions with JTI to see what operations it has worldwide and whether some could be moved to Northern Ireland using, first, the facilities and, secondly, the skills of the workforce here, to at least create some additional employment rather than having the whole place close?”
“I accept that it is difficult, especially in rural areas, but I trust that investment will be made. Is the Minister aware that there are eight industrial estates across Northern Ireland, two of them in east Antrim, which currently do not have access to fibre-optic broadband? Those are not even being considered in this BT review. Does the Minister think that that is a wise decision in light of her industrial policy?”
“The real politics of this place is that, unless we work and, when we come to agreements, deliver on them, then this place will not work. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it quite clear: we will honour whatever deals we have, but that is dependent upon Sinn Féin being prepared to honour the deal that it had — a deal that, in its breaking, has damaged ordinary people in Northern Ireland. The only damage done by our refusal to implement this today is to Mitchel McLaughlin and Sinn Féin's pride. Its breach of agreements is hurting people right across Northern Ireland, and therefore it is essential that we get that sorted out. I trust that we will do that in the talks process.”