Home Affairs

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I accept that we need to do more to convince people that we need fracking; that is one of the reasons I am making a speech about it. It is a little bit about leadership—if we think something is the right answer, we go with it.

I do not want to say that there are no environmental issues associated with fracking, and of course it is important that we frack in the right areas; there will be some places where we should not frack and some places where we should. All that is true, but it is not a reason to turn our backs on this industry. The case that I am putting to my hon. Friend and to other Members is that the world is already fracking. This week, Germany gave the go-ahead for fracking; it had been reluctant to do that, but did so under pressure from its industry. We need to decide as a country how competitive we wish to be, but one of the vehicles of being competitive is cheap prices for energy and chemical feedstock, and fracking is one of the ways in which those cheap prices will be delivered.

There are three tenets of energy policy, the first of which is decarbonisation. Fracking—or gas, I should say—is an element of any decarbonisation strategy that we seriously wish to pursue. In this country, something like 50% of electricity comes from coal and oil. Replacing that coal and oil with gas is the single quickest and most effective way of reducing our carbon footprint. Indeed, of all the countries in the OECD, the one that reduced its carbon by the most in the last five years is the USA. It has done that because it has reduced its coal expenditure and usage, and instead used gas.

The UK—perhaps slightly counter-culturally—already has one of the lowest amounts of carbon per capita and per unit of GDP in the EU. A strategy based on replacing our coal with gas, and doing so more quickly, would lead to even more progress in that regard.

I have talked a little bit about cost, but it is self-evident that there is a correlation between GDP and energy usage. We cannot rebalance our economy on differentially high energy prices, particularly if we are rebalancing it towards manufacturing, and part of the solution is cheaper gas prices.

It has been said that our having unconventional shale gas in the UK does not necessarily reduce prices, and to an extent that is true. However, it is rather like saying we should not have exploited North sea gas or oil 30 years ago because there is a world market for North sea oil and we cannot guarantee that lower prices would—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a very good job in answering the question that his colleague, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), put about selling the whole idea of fracking. Does he agree not only that there are environmental benefits to fracking but that when one way to tackle fuel poverty, provide fuel security, make UK industry more competitive and even attract some industries that have gone overseas to come back again is to have our own supply of gas from the shale gas available to us?

[David Mowat]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on all those points, and he made them succinctly and well. Fracking is not something that we can turn our backs on, and I am very pleased that it is in the Queen’s Speech. The point I was making was on the relative cost of energy. I have heard it said in this place that just because we produce shale gas, that will not necessarily reduce our gas prices by 60% or 70%, to the level they are in America. Of course, there is some truth in that; there is a worldwide market in gas, in the same way that there is in oil.

That said, the gas market is a little bit less mobile than the oil market. The European gas hub, which would be affected by gas prices, is smaller than the global market for crude oil. One of the reasons that we in this country cannot benefit from US gas in the way the US benefits from its gas is that the cost of the US sending it to us would probably double its price; it would still be cheaper, but it would be double the price that we would pay vis-à-vis the US. The summary of all this is that we need to get on with it.

The final point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), is that of security of supply. Whether we like it or not, North sea production is coming down. There may be many things that we can do, either with an independent Scotland or with Scotland within the United Kingdom, to keep that supply going for as long as possible, but gas production in particular is considerably down; it is now something like half what it was at its peak.

Although we in this country have not up till now had to use Russian gas—most of our imported gas has come from Norway—I think I saw a report last month saying that Gazprom and Centrica have signed their first deal, so there is an element in all this of security of supply vis-à-vis the geopolitics of Europe as well.

I hope that the provisions in the Queen’s Speech to make it easier to exploit shale are proceeded with. What the legislation is really saying is that someone’s property rights do not necessarily extend to stopping people drilling a mile under their house or land. That seems to me as logical as saying that someone’s property rights do not extend to preventing aeroplanes from flying over their land. I believe that that was an issue in the USA at one time, and it had to be legislated away in much the same way as we are legislating here for fracking.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I cannot say how pleased I am to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). On both the topics that he centred on, the Government pay much attention to him. On pensions, he sketched out the areas where the Government really have to face the issues that he raised, because they are important not only to the House but to our constituents.

I will talk on one topic, which is the Modern Slavery Bill. I apologise that I was not present to hear some of the opening comments and the kind comments that various Members made. I will begin by making the roll-call of those who should have credit for this measure. The hon. Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) quite rightly said that slavery would not be a topic in the House or in the country if not for the work of Anthony Steen. It was Anthony Steen, through his Human Trafficking Foundation, who first made me interested in this topic, and it was Patrick White in my office who said how important it was, which led to my commitment to it. The hon. Lady was absolutely right that without the work of Anthony Steen—first, towards the end of his period as a Member, and then in the work that he has done to extraordinary effect with the HTF—we would not have had a Modern Slavery Bill included in the Queen’s Speech.

As I say, it is slavery on which I wish to comment, and I wish to continue to draw attention to those who should rightly claim credit for the Bill. The idea for a modern slavery Bill was set out in a report published a little over a year ago by the Centre for Social Justice, so the Government have responded extraordinarily quickly by presenting the Bill. I do not think that we would have had that report had it not been for Philippa Stroud, who now works at the Department for Work and Pensions, and Fiona Cunningham, who worked at the Home Office. Had they not been working carefully to ensure that this moved up the Government’s agenda, I do not think that it would have been on the list of topics that the Home Secretary thought should command her attention and, more importantly, her departmental time. The Bill therefore has three immediate heroes: Philippa Stroud, Fiona Cunningham and the Home Secretary.

My purpose in speaking in this debate is to draw attention not only to a glaring omission in the Bill, but to a provision in it that I do not think we would now see had it not been for the work of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill and, in particular, the contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) made to it. The glaring omission, as he knows—he piloted a private Member’s Bill on this very topic—concerns supply chains. Although the Bill will deal much more effectively with countering the horror of modern-day slavery in this country, the plain and brutal fact is that most of the slaves on whose labour our standard of living is supported work in other countries, producing the goods and services that we buy.

For all the reasons that were given to the evidence review for the Bill, to the Joint Committee and for my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill, I hope that Members will table amendments that persuade the Government that supply chains must be included in this measure. We know what the Home Secretary’s opinion is, because before she began talking about a Bill in detail, she said that she wished it to cover supply chains, so clearly there are other forces at work that overruled her in that respect. I think that we need to come to her aid and ensure that she wins the argument, not some officials in No. 10 who are against it. I hope that all those employers, large and small, that publicly support extending the measure to supply chains will now front up and lobby No. 10 to ensure that the Bill is complete in that important respect. If the Government still have some doubts about that, I hope that Members here and in the other place will ensure that the Bill is complete when it goes for Royal Assent.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that businesses in the United Kingdom have a duty to check that their supply chains do not use labour that is tantamount to slave labour to produce cheap goods that can then be sold in this country?

[Mr Field]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I would take his argument a stage further. I think that the Prime Minister has a duty to protect British business men and women from undertaking activities that are deemed to be heinous crimes. I think that the Prime Minister needs to develop a level playing field, so that not just the good businesses ensure that their products are not tainted by slavery; those that are slower in coming up to the plate must also make their contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

Absolutely. In fact, I mentioned schools in relation to their intake. We have had the problem of people living just outside the catchment area of the school that they went to as a child, but finding, because of this massive pressure on places, that they cannot get their child into their old school. All that feeds into a perception of unfairness and of immigration being bad, which I do not think people at the top have necessarily understood.

[Sammy Wilson]

Not only have we not put in the infrastructure to facilitate the huge increase in the number of people, but even when concerns are legitimate, people who wish to discuss them are immediately silenced by being dismissed as racist. They are not racist and do not intend to be racist at all, but they have genuine concerns that need to be addressed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is half the problem?

[Andrew Percy]

Absolutely. Because I had criticised the uncontrolled nature of immigration into my own town, when I was dragged to the meeting with various agencies, I was told that the things I had said were unacceptable. Needless to say, that meeting did not last very long or end very well when I robustly thanked the people for coming from their lovely villages in the richest parts of the East Riding of Yorkshire, where they do not have to live with large amounts of uncontrolled immigration. I thanked them for sharing their views, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that when people raise legitimate concerns, they are patronised and spoken down to by people who, all too often, do not live in these communities.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way, but I am delivering a substantive passage of my speech, which will be of great interest to Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, so if I give way too often there is a danger that I might end up revealing the details of what I wish to say in a less structured way. Having said that, I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) wishes to speak.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that I gave way, because I share his anguish. I want all people in the United Kingdom, regardless of which part they live in, to be as protected as possible by the agencies of the state from the risks they might be exposed to from serious and organised crime. Clearly, the NCA is being brought into being because we regard it as an important institution for protecting the public from serious and organised crime. Many of its functions will apply in Northern Ireland, but they will not apply there as extensively as they will in England, which is a source of regret.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is quite right that this is a very serious issue in Northern Ireland. We, too, wish to see the protections he has outlined. Given that Ministers hinted in Committee that if provisions in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill are not given legislative consent motions by the Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers might well legislate anyway, will he apply the same rule and approach on the NCA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but does he accept that although the Government are to be faulted on many things, a lot of the issues that people wanted addressed in negotiations with the Northern Ireland Minister were addressed? However, two parties are still suspicious of any policing arrangements that are UK-wide rather than based purely in Northern Ireland. They will never be convinced, and that is one reason why the Minister’s job is so difficult.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did two years in Northern Ireland, and I accept and understand the difficulties of that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also served in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will speak on his party’s views shortly. I always regret that Sinn Fein Members do not give their view to Members of Parliament in this House, but that is a separate issue.

I understand where the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is coming from, but the issue is still open to negotiation, because even if we accept new schedule 1 today, the NCA will not operate in Northern Ireland and there will be only an affirmative order to put that arrangement in place at some point in future. There will therefore still have been no resolution of the difference of opinion. The Minister has a duty to tell the House how he intends to bridge that gap strategically.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I am not playing party politics with this. I do not have a clue why not: this is the first time I knew of it. If this issue was dealt with in Committee and I missed it, I apologise, but I thought that the attitude was to listen and wait for this debate. I thought we would listen to the members themselves who are on the front line—some of them, just like police officers, risk their lives in the work they do—yet who have never caused a problem in industrial relations.

Management have not come forward with these proposals; they have been brought forward by the Government. This is a Government whim. Someone in Government decided it would be worth trying for a no-strike provision on this group of workers. It is the thin end of the wedge, because there are some Conservative Back Benchers who have been seeking to introduce a no-strike provision across whole sectors of industry. I think this is the start. This group of workers is the experiment, to see whether people will acquiesce, and I am amazed that those on the Labour Front Bench have rolled over. That sends a signal to this Government to come forward with proposals for the transport sector and many others, as some have been planning to do for many years. I am absolutely staggered. How can these measures be brought forward unopposed at this stage, when negotiations are continuing? There could have been a negotiated settlement on the new structures and we could have avoided this kind of imposition. I will not spend too long on this, because there is another debate in Westminster Hall on the privatisation of the probation service that I would like to get to. This just goes on and on, but at least my own side is putting up some opposition to those proposals.

Let us be clear what clauses 12 and 13 will do. They will take away from civil servants a fundamental right that they have at the moment: the right to take industrial action. This is the crossing of the Rubicon. The clauses will bring in a ban on industrial action that extends well beyond the police and prison officers, where it already exists, to civil servants, on whom such a ban has never been imposed before. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome political device that is being used by the Government to test the water around their future policies on trade union and employment rights in this country.

As I have said, I think this is the thin end of the wedge. If the clauses are accepted by the House—and certainly if they are accepted by my party—on this occasion, this will be used as an example in other areas. That is why I am urging people to vote against them, and I will seek to divide the House on the matter. If I have to walk through the Lobby on my own, I will do so, because this is a fundamental matter of principle.

The workers involved are dedicated civil servants, but they deserve the right to protection and to basic human and trade union rights if they feel that management or others are imposing something on them that is unacceptable. Most of them never go on strike or take industrial action, but they deserve to have the right to do so if necessary, because that is the only protection they have against oppressive management or employers.

I urge comrades on this side of the House—members of the parliamentary Labour party—to use whatever time we have left in the debate to think again. This is not a trivial matter. It is not a simple “tidying-up exercise” in employee-management relationships in the new body; it will undermine a fundamental human right. This Government have already been criticised for their refusal to give the right to industrial action back to prison officers. They were criticised by the International Labour Organisation for being in contravention of all the international conventions on employment rights, yet there are people here on the Labour Benches today who are rolling over without a whimper of opposition to extending that denial of human rights to this group of workers. That is unacceptable.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to call a Division on this matter when I have the opportunity to do so, and I urge Members to vote against the measures. This is a significant matter; it is absolutely critical. It is a matter of conscience, not a matter of administrative convenience for management and the Government. It is a basic human rights issue, and I urge Members to vote for our amendments.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is with regret that I see the references to Northern Ireland and the role of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland being removed from the Bill, and I want to put some questions to the Minister on this point. If any part of the United Kingdom needs the effective operation of a national crime agency, it is Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this House has already identified the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds every year are lost to the Exchequer and go into the hands of criminal gangs, on many occasions to finance terrorist activities, as a result of fuel laundering alone. There are many other areas in which organised crime plays a big role in Northern Ireland. We need the National Crime Agency.

The role that the criminals play is not confined to Northern Ireland. Their tentacles spread well beyond Northern Ireland and dealing with them involves operational decisions that cannot be taken solely by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that they are now laundering their money across Europe and north America demonstrates the international dimension involved, and the PSNI cannot be expected to deal with them alone.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a false interface is being created between terrorism and criminality, which is an extremely blurred area in Northern Ireland, in that the same people are often involved in both activities? Does he also agree that a false interface exists in the incorrect assumption that there is some kind of border beyond which the tentacles of those criminals cannot reach?

[Sammy Wilson]

Attempts have been made during the debate to make exactly that distinction, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there is no such distinction.

It is surprising that the Northern Ireland Executive could not agree on having a legislative consent motion, which would have enabled the Bill to go through complete with its provisions for Northern Ireland. There has been some criticism of the Minister, and questions have been asked about what he has done for Northern Ireland. Extensive discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is probably going to say that he wanted a more direct interface with his party and with Sinn Fein, but of course that is difficult, given that Sinn Fein refuses to take part in any of the activities of this House.

It is significant, however, that all the issues that the nationalist parties have raised in the past in relation to SOCA have been dealt with. Indeed, some of the arrangements went beyond that point when SOCA was being set up. As a former member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, I can remember the discussions that took place at the time and the safeguards that were put in place as a result of concerns being raised by nationalist representatives.

The deliberations on this Bill went even further, and that makes this outcome even more surprising, given the assurances that were given about a role for the ombudsman, about the need to ensure that the activities of the National Crime Agency did not cross with any PSNI investigations, about the restrictions on the ability of the Justice Minister to direct the police service to co-operate with the NCA in investigations, and about the role of the surveillance commissioner. A range of issues have been dealt with and specifically tailored to the situation in Northern Ireland in response to the concerns expressed mostly by Sinn Fein and those in the nationalist community, yet there is still no agreement in the Executive.

I made a point to the Minister earlier about the chances of reaching such an agreement when the mindset is that any police or security activity that is based in the United Kingdom and not solely in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. It is extremely difficult to reach consensus on this matter. Suggestions have been made today as to what could be done. Perhaps we need more time. Would that provide the opportunity to iron out these issues? That is a reasonable suggestion, and it would be much better than pushing this Bill through the House without taking the opportunity to ensure that it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. I say all this with some reluctance, because I want the House to respect the devolution settlement, but I put it to the Minister that we need an explanation on why a different approach is being taken.

I do not want to go into the details of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, but I want to use it to illustrate a principle. In the Committee for that Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), that there were provisions in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland, even though it was accepted that those were devolved issues. The Minister replied:

“I…agree with the hon. Gentleman that marriages and civil partnerships are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

He then commented, however, about what might happen if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not pass a legislative consent motion. I do not know whether it will—I will not comment on that—but the Minister said:

“The important thing here is that I, as a UK Minister, cannot leave people who undertake a same-sex marriage in this country in legal limbo in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 7 March 2013; c. 420.]

The implication is that the Government would legislate regardless of the Assembly’s views.

I do not make this point lightly, because I want the lines of demarcation between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government made clear, but if those lines can be crossed on that issue, why should they not be crossed in respect of the far more important matter of criminals siphoning off hundreds of millions of pounds from the Exchequer to fund criminal and terrorist organisations and to launder money across the world? Why does the Minister not regard that as equally important? Why have the Government not even contemplated doing that if they cannot reach an agreement in Northern Ireland? This affects not just a few individuals, but the very fabric of communities in Northern Ireland now controlled by these crime barons, especially in border areas.

That would not be my preferred option. I would rather get agreement before the Bill passes, even if that means delaying it, in order to ensure UK coverage for the NCA. I sat in on the discussions, and I can say that the SDLP is nervous about being outflanked by Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is worried about being outflanked by the SDLP. For political reasons, there is an unwillingness to come to an agreement and have the UK Government legislate on policing matters in Northern Ireland. I also suspect that some sympathise with the crime barons and so do not want effective policing. The PSNI cannot replicate the NCA’s role. It does not have the resources—even if it had the financial resources, it would not have the personnel expertise—which leaves a huge gap when it comes to fighting organised crime in Northern Ireland.

For all those reasons, I am disappointed that the Government have meekly walked away, rather than saying what could be done to ensure that Northern Ireland is given the same coverage as other parts of the UK.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his argument so powerfully. Does he agree that this might be a matter of national security, which of course is not devolved—the Northern Ireland Secretary still has responsibility for it? Given that the Security Service operates in Northern Ireland, would he also agree, in respect of the NCA, that we should have some flexibility regarding the national position, as opposed to considering it purely in terms of the devolved situation?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is another way of looking at how to get coverage in Northern Ireland. The Minister cannot simply say, “Well, we haven’t got the agreement of the Executive.” I do not know whether we will ever get that agreement. Some reasonable and substantial changes have been made to the Bill as it affects the NCA’s operation in Northern Ireland, as a result of the efforts of Justice Ministers—who, incidentally, acted not in isolation, but as a result of representations from the very parties that have opposed the legislative consent motion.

I accept that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary may, at some future date—presumably after she has got a signal from the parties in Northern Ireland—introduce the necessary changes, but I do not know whether that will ever be possible. That is why the Government should keep open the option of considering whether the demarcation between the devolved authorities and the authority of this House could and should be blurred to take this matter forward. If a Minister can threaten to do such a thing on something like civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, there is an even stronger case for doing it here.

--- Later in debate ---

The SDLP worked hard to secure accountability. We were dealing with Unionist parties which told us that no change was needed, and we were being attacked by Sinn Fein, which told us that no change was happening. Of course we are going to be precious and pedantic about the need to ensure that the integrity of the change that we worked so hard to secure, with very little help from anyone else, is respected and protected, and that is what we are trying to do. We should all have been afforded more time earlier in the process, and a fuller, more open discussion when we had a draft Bill. That is not a criticism of David Ford as the devolved Minister of Justice. It is possible that we need to be less precious as a Parliament about which other parties can be in on discussions about the drafting and preparation of a Bill when a significant devolved interest is involved. If more had been done earlier in that regard, we would not have been left with the present unseemly situation.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman’s view on policing and the safeguards that are required obviously differs from mine, but all the discussion to which he has referred happened a long time ago, when SOCA was set up. The relationships between the Policing Board and SOCA and between the ombudsman and SOCA, and the safeguards that were to be provided, are still in place, and indeed have been added to. I cannot understand—I am sure it would be useful to the Minister to know this as well—where the gaps which, according to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), still exist can be found. The safeguards that his party agreed were necessary in the past were adequate and have been added to, but there seems still to be a reluctance to accept that the National Crime Agency will be able to operate in the context of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The reluctance is not a reluctance to see the National Crime Agency operate or make a due contribution to the fighting and the reducing of crime in Northern Ireland, and crime that reaches into or out of Northern Ireland and affects other territories. The hon. Gentleman mentioned SOCA. When SOCA was first proposed, his party and mine had reservations about it, but many of those reservations were concerned with whether it would mean the loss of the valuable work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau. We wondered whether level 1 crime would be dealt with by the PSNI and level 3 would be dealt with by SOCA, and whether criminals knew that if they kept their criminal activity within level 2, there would be no one to deal with it.

Many issues arose in relation to SOCA, not just the issue of whether UK policing would affect Northern Ireland. We were seriously worried, for instance, about SOCA’s role in relation to the role of MI5. The notion of what is classified as national security, and of what a Government treat as national security, seems to be something of a movable feast in terms of the level of crime operations that are deemed to be within MI5’s sphere of influence. We were trying to clarify all those matters, and the same applies here. We need to know about any additional policing element.

The Bill with which we were originally presented provided for constabulary powers to be given to National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland, and we needed to know how they would be aligned with the constabulary powers of the PSNI. The Bill also provided for NCA special constables in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman would have been very surprised if, four and a half decades on from all the working and striving to get rid of the B-specials, nationalist parties did not question legislation providing for new special constables. Those are exactly the sort of provisions that people want to address in a sensible way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I say again to the Minister that this is a really difficult issue for Northern Ireland. It is a big hole in the Bill. He has just said that because we do not have agreement with the Northern Ireland Assembly, from Royal Assent Northern Ireland will not have asset recovery powers, because of judgments that have been made in relation to the UK as a whole. Because Northern Ireland’s jurisdiction has not agreed to the provisions in the Bill, we will face difficulties.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a great pity that the Minister would not give way on this point earlier.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that crime barons in Northern Ireland who are reaping hundreds of millions of pounds a year will now be able to invest those proceeds across the border in the Irish Republic with impunity and without any danger of those assets being seized? I know that that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will create a serious hole in the pursuit of such criminals and will cause great difficulty in recovering assets from them.

[Mr Hanson]

It does indeed; it creates a tremendous hole in asset recovery provisions. In effect it means—the Minister has accepted this—that a criminal in Taunton could buy a property in the Republic of Ireland and have those assets confiscated by the High Court, but a criminal in Belfast, for example, with a property in the Republic of Ireland, could not. There is also a perverse incentive for people to move to Northern Ireland to pursue their criminal activities. At the moment, unless an order is introduced urgently, the provision will not allow assets abroad to be confiscated from those in the north of Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

The point I am making is that the proposal is not being held to ransom by the UK Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; indeed, if I may say so, the tone of his intervention would rather imply to anybody who had not followed our deliberations carefully that he and I are on different sides of the argument. I agree with what he has said: I want people in Northern Ireland to have just as much protection under the NCA as people in my constituency of Taunton Deane, but I also recognise that the constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland is different from that in Somerset. Therefore, different considerations apply.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that on this issue there is a big difference? The inability to seize assets that criminals who operate from Northern Ireland might have outside Northern Ireland is a UK-wide problem, in so far as criminals currently involved in activities here in Great Britain could relocate to Northern Ireland and thereby escape losing their ill-gotten gains. From that point of view, this is not simply a Northern Ireland issue or an issue for the Government of Northern Ireland; rather, it becomes an issue for the Government of the United Kingdom. At least on this issue, he could override the views in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Browne]

rose—

Policing in the 21st Century

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. We need to restore that confidence and the link between the police and the public—the link that has sadly been damaged over the years by the increased bureaucracy and imposition from the centre under the last Labour Government. He is right that our proposals will increase the public’s confidence.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

There will be concerns about the possible disruption of activities against organised crime as a result of the changeover from SOCA to the national crime agency. What contact has the Home Secretary had with regional assemblies across the UK and can she give an assurance that the formation of the new agency will not mean a downgrading of the fight against crime in regions such as Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

We certainly wish to ensure that the fight against crime is in no way downgraded; indeed, the whole purpose of our proposals is to help to strengthen the fight against crime across the UK, as I have said in answer to a number of questions. The directly elected police commissioners will relate to England and Wales, and both the Minister for Police and I have had discussions with the Welsh Assembly.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) treated us to a medley of his greatest hits from previous debates, and the shadow Home Secretary performed his cover version of some of his arguments. However, let us remember that the main issues in previous debates were the threshold test, post-charge questioning and intercept evidence. It is important, in the context of the review and any decisions taken in six months if the order is passed today, that the House fully and properly understands those issues.

We were told earlier that a senior person who dealt with counter-terrorism was not aware of the threshold test. Although it was not mentioned in the Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday, I imagine that she is taking six months to conduct a review because she wants to roll the pitch on several issues so that, when the debate takes place, Opposition Front Benchers cannot accuse her of a knee-jerk reaction to the Lib Dem manifesto and she can show that any change has been on the basis of thorough review. I understand the tactic. However, I will vote against the order because I never believed on principle in 28-day detention. Like others, I found myself taken hostage and having to vote for 28 days because it was the only way to stop three months’ detention.

Let us also remember that counter-terrorism measures can be—some have proved to be—counter-productive. Not only internment, but a host of counter-terrorism measures were counter-productive in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party advocated and cheerled many of them, which ended up assisting the terrorists, partly by alienating the community from the police and making the job of community policing hard and even impossible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because the Home Secretary needs time to wind up the debate.

In the previous debate, we were told about the comments of chief constables. I do not know the collective noun for chief constables, but they were all lined up in support of 28 days. I assume that it will take six months to sort out their line and get them on a different course. However, I recall among the good contributions in previous debates about 28-day detention those of the now Attorney-General. He clearly signalled before the election his opposition to 28 days and said that the policy would be reviewed. It is therefore not true that only the Liberals made such a proposal.

As Opposition Front Benchers discover that they need to change their position on immigration, I appeal to them to wake up to civil liberties.

Identity Documents Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I shall leave it to the Labour party to decide how it wants to describe itself, but what on earth were Labour Members were thinking about? What were they trying to do with ID cards? What was a left- of-centre, notionally socialist, party doing introducing ID cards? ID cards were the low water mark of Labour’s anti-civil libertarian agenda and the high water mark of Labour’s attempt to usher in a new surveillance society. Thank goodness the cards have been stopped and Labour has not got away with it.

Listening to the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), one would have thought that they were introducing nice, cuddly, friendly, inexpensive little things that would not bother a soul. The truth is that ID cards would have changed for ever the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. ID cards, and the much more dangerous national register, would, for ever and a day, have put the onus on the citizen to have his information shared. They would have changed the relationship around entirely, so I am pleased they have gone.

Where on earth did these things come from? I wish to be charitable—you know me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am charitable when I can be—so I should say that perhaps they were an incoherent, bizarre, knee-jerk response to the events of the past decade. One can imagine the conversation around the Cabinet table, with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough saying, “Listen boss, I have a new idea that will show that we are actually doing something—ID cards. They will upset the civil liberties brigade, but that plays well with the focus groups. They will certainly wrong-foot the Tories.” One can just picture the enthusiastic nodding of Messrs Reid and Clarke as they thought that they had come up with a cunning plot to get one over on the Tories and seem as though they were doing something. That is what it was all about—I am being charitable to them. They wanted to be seen to do something in the face of the dreadful events at the beginning of the previous decade.

Of course, time passed and the cards did upset the civil liberties brigade, but time also proved that, for tackling terrorism, the cards were as much use as Emu without Rod Hull. They would have done nothing to tackle terrorism. We have seen the events in Spain and Turkey. Fair enough, I accept that, as hon. Members have said, there were convictions based on the use of ID cards, but the cards did nothing to stop those events. The story had to change: the cards could no longer exclusively be about tackling terrorism, but had to be about more than that. Seemingly, they were about tackling identity fraud and illegal immigration and would even help people to play the lottery. They would be not so much ID cards but supercards—the cure of all society’s ills. The problem was that nobody believed a word of it. Despite the ridiculous rewriting of history about what identity cards were and what they were intended to be, everyone knew what they were. It was the difference between the state and the individual.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which we are all enjoying, but does he accept that the ultimate irony in all this is that although ID cards were to remedy all of society’s ills, as he has outlined, they were to be voluntary at first? There was to be an attack on social security fraud, terrorism and criminality, but people had to volunteer for it.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That contradiction was even acknowledged by Labour Front Benchers as being the thing that would do ID cards in. What was the point of them if the scheme was to be voluntary? Could anyone see Mr Terrorist popping off to his post office voluntarily to apply for an ID card? That was never likely to happen. It was a ridiculous idea and the Labour party knew that, as has been acknowledged by its Front Benchers.

Labour persisted with the scheme, but that approach and all the talk about the new things that ID cards would do only further confused the already sceptical public about what the cards were all about. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right that ID cards were quite popular in their early days. At first, about 80% of the public thought that they would be a good thing, but that number slowly went down over the years as the public became familiar with what the cards were to do and as they heard the arguments and saw the costs escalate year after year. What ID cards became for new Labour was not so much some great suggestion that it was bringing to the British people as a political virility signal—something that a dying and decaying Government had to push forward to be seen to do something.

When I was preparing this speech, I had no idea what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say. I did not know whether ID cards were to be dumped or to be the first inclusion in the next Labour party manifesto. Indeed, I still am not sure exactly what the Labour party’s position is on them. We know that it is not voting against the measure tonight. What I have heard from Labour Members so far is that they think that ID cards are still a good idea, but the way that they have described them is like no other description of them that I have ever heard.

I had thought that ID cards would be subject to the same sort of revisionism that has been seen with some of the Labour leadership candidates. I thought that they might go the same way as the Iraq war or Alf Garnett’s immigration policies, but, no, it seems that they are still to be a feature of Labour’s new vision and version to reconnect with the British public. They will be there to try to reconnect with the British public.