Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Not only have we not had a hand in putting them together, but we have not even done an impact assessment, and we have not done an impact assessment because that is out of scope, as this is part of the Windsor framework. Of course, there is also the cost on local councils in Northern Ireland of implementing the regulations. I do not know what that will be, and I suspect that none of the councils have even been consulted on what additional staff will be required or what costs it will impose on them. When we pass a piece of legislation, we should at least ask these questions. First, does it make one part of the United Kingdom different from another? It does, and the explanatory notes show that that is the case. Secondly, is it necessary? Given that the only necessity highlighted in the explanatory note is that we do not want to upset relations with the EU, I am not so sure that that is a justifiable reason for passing the legislation. Lastly, if we are passing legislation, surely we should know what impact it will have, and we do not know what impact this will have. For all those reasons I say to Members that before we carelessly vote in favour of this change, let us at least consider those points.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The standards applied to machinery made in Northern Ireland will be different from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member asks about the detail, but very often we do not know the cost until we actually have to apply the different standards. For example, in Northern Ireland we export a lot of agricultural machinery, and if the standards imposed by the EU require more work, more materials and more safety devices than those applied in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be a cost. We do not know until we actually see the standards applied and compare them with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because we export a lot of that machinery to GB, businesses could be at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of enforcement. There is also the cost on councils.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  This piece of legislation may seem innocuous, but it is yet another example of the wedges being driven between one part of the United Kingdom and another part of the United Kingdom—wedges not just in regulations, but in their practical effect. First, leaving aside the constitutional impact of the legislation, let us just look at the explanatory memorandum, which tells us: “This SI amends the 2008 Regulations, clarifying that their territorial extent is limited to GB”. Why? To allow “EU Regulation to function effectively in NI.” That is the purpose of this legislation. It removes Northern Ireland from what was UK-wide regulation, which will now be limited only to part of the United Kingdom, to facilitate the functioning of EU regulations in Northern Ireland. Those EU regulations will not have been debated in a Committee like this, nor will they have been discussed with Northern Ireland representatives. There will not even have been consultation with Northern Ireland when the regulations were being formed, as we cannot in any way feed into regulations that apply to the single market even though we remain a part of it. Leaving aside the practical effect of the instrument, that is the first important point that we all ought to note. Regardless of our views on Brexit or the EU, as UK parliamentarians, we ought to ask ourselves whether we should accept and vote for this kind of legislation Secondly, it disturbs me that the Government, as the explanatory memorandum makes quite clear, are going down this route and implementing the legislation because: “Failure to do so would create regulatory uncertainty in NI and risk undermining the UK’s relationship with the EU.” Once again, Northern Ireland appears to be being sacrificed on the altar of the great reset that the Government wish to have with the EU. They are saying, “Let’s not disturb them. Let’s not challenge them on any aspect of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework. Even though there should apparently be a mechanism for raising concerns, let’s not raise them, because we might upset those relationships.” Thirdly, the Minister has said that the regulations will not have any detrimental impact, yet the explanatory notes make it clear that no impact assessment has been done, because, as this comes under the Windsor framework and the protocol, doing so would be outside the scope of the Government. Even when we introduce regulations here, the arrangements we have with the EU mean that we cannot do an impact assessment. Such an assessment could have an impact in lots of different ways. For a start, we do not know the costs of the machinery safety regulations for businesses. All we are told is that, regardless of the costs, we now have a piece of legislation that indicates that we will enforce that legislation, and we will enforce it with very high penalties.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may have met representatives of the industry, but the question is: has he even listened to their concerns? They still say that the problems caused by his imposition of tariffs will abide with the industry. He said that he is relying on UK producers to be able to produce steel, but Tata has said that it will not be able to supply all the steel required, and one of the firms in Rotherham that he is relying on is in administration. How can he say with assurance that the supply of steel will be available? The question for Northern Ireland is this. If Northern Ireland producers have to bring steel from the UK, they need first to be sure that the UK quota has not been exceeded, so will the Minister assure us that they will not have to be concerned about whether there is any EU quota left? Otherwise, they may have to pay tax twice.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  People have a right to be angry that the Government have sought to impose hundreds of asylum seekers on their communities without consultation. The Minister has talked today about the deterrent factor. When we spend billions accommodating people, then support them financially and give them services that many local people are not able to get, and in 90% of cases grant them asylum, is that not a pull factor that brings people to the United Kingdom? Is the way to deal with it not simply to make it clear that if someone comes into the country illegally, it does not matter how good their case is—they will not be granted asylum?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member accept that there is a certain irony when the same people who are concerned about climate change and temperatures rising have campaigned for air conditioning to be taken out of buildings because of its energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions? We cannot have it both ways, can we?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  Would the right hon. Member accept that international trade is much different than trade within the country that we belong to? If the impediments are stopping trade within our own country, of course that is much more serious than companies deciding that they are not going to sell to countries abroad.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the argument that the Secretary of State is making. I served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board during the change from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the PSNI, and was on the finance committee of the board. We had continual battles with the then Secretary of State, who was no more generous or flexible than a devolved Minister would have been. Devolution or no devolution, the fiscal and the financial situation is the same. I suppose the difference is that, when it comes to putting on pressure, the Secretary of State here is perhaps a bit more remote than the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member accept that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has also said that, if spending allocations to the Executive were based on need, the Executive would be entitled to receive between £1 billion and £3.5 billion extra, which is part of the reason for this problem?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by thanking the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for the work of her Committee and for the diligence she has applied to the job she has taken on. It is deeply appreciated by Members from Northern Ireland that we have a Chairperson who is totally interested in the work that she is doing. I would not always agree with everything that comes out of the Committee, but she has nevertheless shown a desire to try to get things sorted out in Northern Ireland. First, as has already been emphasised by a number of speakers, we are approaching this debate at a time when —a quarter of the way through the year—we do not actually have a budget in Northern Ireland, and not for the first time. I do not know, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has said, whether this is a co-ordinated political plan or an example of the incompetence of Sinn Féin Ministers. If it is a co-ordinated political plan, it is a very stupid one, because not having a budget and not having money allocated to Departments does not just affect the Unionist population in Northern Ireland—it affects everybody. It affects both Sinn Féin voters and Unionist voters. While it may add to Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is not a viable state, I nevertheless do not believe that they should be punishing they own constituents to prove that. We have to look at the context of Northern Ireland. Getting a budget agreed anywhere is always going to be difficult, because there will always be competing priorities and there are always people wanting more. I suspect that the Chancellor has had similar problems and difficulties even in this Parliament, where she is dealing with only one party—there may be a lot of factions within that party, mind you, but it is only one party. It is much more difficult in a four-party coalition where the parties have totally different outlooks and they have to decide how the money is going to be allocated. We have only to look at the current and previous Sinn Féin Ministers, because do not forget: every time a budget has not been agreed in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin have been in charge of the finances. I think that has happened on three occasions. The latest crisis has been caused because the Minister responsible did not consult with anybody before simply deciding on a budget—did not even consult with his fellow Ministers—and Ministers from his own party are now disagreeing with it. I have some experience of this process, because I served in that post in the Northern Ireland Assembly for four years. The Conservative party gained power here in Westminster in May the year after I took over, and in June the reserves that we had, which were about 3% of the budget, were taken back by Treasury, and we were then given a 2% reduction, so there was a 5% reduction in the budget for that year. The budget had already been agreed, and it therefore had to be rewritten. It was not easy, but it was possible because there was a willingness to work. We consulted and consulted, compromised and everything else, and we managed to get a three-year budget, even against that background. That is why I do not accept the argument that they cannot get an agreed budget just because there are financial difficulties. I do not accept the excuses. However, I would point out that Northern Ireland has for many years been underfunded, as has been confirmed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council review. I am pleased that our current party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), was the first person to raise the requirement to have budgets in Northern Ireland determined on need, and not just on the Barnett formula. There has been some success in that, as we now get the 124%. I accept that the Government took that argument on board, although they had not done so until my right hon. Friend persisted in pushing for that at all kinds of levels. However, even with that increase, there is still an historic backlog. I am not here to simply say, “Give us more money.” I understand that there are fiscal restraints right across the United Kingdom. However, where a fiscal deficit has been identified, I think it is incumbent on the Government to look at how that can be addressed. I am sure that some people back home will not be very happy with me for saying this, but I think it would be wrong simply to say, “The Fiscal Council has identified between £1 billion and £3.5 billion, depending on whether you compare it with Scotland or Wales, so there’s the money.” If additional money is to be given, it should of course be allocated on the basis that something is given back in return. Many people will say that interferes with the devolution settlement, because it means telling people how to spend the money. But I think it should be conditional: if people are looking for additional money, let us see how they are going to use it—to reform public services, to cut expenditure in the longer run, to make services more efficient. The money is given on that condition, and those conditions are measured, and the money is released on that basis. That would be one way out of the current difficulties facing the Executive. The money would be conditionally given, and it would be given for things that have been promised for some time, I think, but have never been done, either because it was too hard to do them or there was not the money to do them. Reform does require some expenditure up front, even if it is only getting rid of some of the surplus staff or reviewing some of the estate. Looking forward in the estimates, that is one way that the Government should be considering dealing with this particular issue. Secondly, the Northern Ireland budget is divided between what goes to the Executive—the bulk of it—and the Northern Ireland Office. We have to look at need. Let me just give some examples. On money allocated for agriculture, four times more is spent per head spent in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, but that is not always reflected in the allocations. That is not because we are giving more generously; it is simply that Northern Ireland has a bigger agricultural industry, and that is reflected in the money that is given. Very often what is happening is that we are simply treated as if we were the rest of the United Kingdom, so we get much less per head, even though the industry is much more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) indicated in his intervention that poverty levels will impact the amount of money spent on health. Hence, the needs-based expenditure is more important than simply the block grant. There are three things I want to raise about the Northern Ireland Office expenditure. First, there is a 25% uplift in the DEL spending—the departmental expenditure limit. According to the papers we have been given, that is attributed mostly to the additional money required for the Finucane inquiry. I have to say to the Secretary of State that there are people who feel really sore about the way that moneys can be allocated to the investigation of one particular death because Sinn Féin has made it such a big issue, while hundreds of families across Northern Ireland have never had a proper investigation into the death of their loved ones. Yesterday evening I attended a memorial service for Ulster Defence Regiment victims in Northern Ireland: 192 UDR soldiers were killed during the troubles, and 62 were killed after they had retired or left the UDR, and many of their widows and families have never had any proper investigation into the death of their loved ones. Yet for the Finucane family we have had three Stevens inquiries—I remember those from when I was on the Policing Board. Then there was a review of those inquiries to see if they were adequate—the Cory review—and now we have another bout of the inquiry, with a nearly 25% increase in the budget of the Northern Ireland Office to facilitate that. That is not regarded as fair. When inquiries are driven by the political push of one particular party and the Government’s desire to keep them happy, to me that is first of all a waste of funds and, secondly, unfair. Secondly, part of the budget has been increased to deal with the ICRIR reports and investigations. As has already been pointed out, while there has been an increase for the ICRIR, there has been no equivalent increase for the police service. The police service reckons that it is costing about £24 million per year to facilitate providing the information, yet no allowance has been made for that. That puts pressure on a budget that is already predicted to be in a deficit of £58 million this year. That means fewer police officers on the ground and so on. Thirdly, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, one of the roles of the Northern Ireland Office is to promote the internal market. I do not blame the current Government totally from the mess that we are in; they inherited botched negotiations by the previous Government, but little or nothing has been done to remedy that. When the Assembly was going back, negotiations went on and we got a document called “Safeguarding the Union”, which was totally endorsed by the current Government, even though they were then in opposition. Part of that was about finding ways to promote the internal market. One thing that was recognised was that if there was disruption to trade, we would need to improve the trade routes, and so a ports fund of £10 million was agreed. Yet in a recent letter from the Secretary of State, it was accepted that although extra money was found for the Finucane inquiry and for the ICRIR, no funding has been allocated to the ports fund, which was designed to improve sea routes across the Irish sea and make them more efficient, so that goods could flow in and out of Northern Ireland in a less costly way. Will the Secretary of State tell us what exactly is the status now of that £10 million commitment? I met with the port authorities in Larne, who were hoping that they would benefit from that funding. It would have meant that they could widen and lengthen the ramps, take in bigger ships and bring down the cost of transport. It would also have opened new routes to GB. The port authorities put in £10 million, expecting—under the promise that was made—that match funding would be made available from the Government. Other actions have been taken by the Government that have made the routes more difficult, including the imposition of the carbon tax on shipping. That will be implemented from 1 July, and it is estimated to increase the cost of bringing goods across the Irish sea from GB to Northern Ireland, or vice versa, by around 7%. That, again, makes the route and the bringing of goods in from GB less competitive, on top of all the other reasons why companies do not want to sell to Northern Ireland now anyway—namely, the additional paperwork. In conclusion, I just say to the Secretary of State that, yes, we do have a budget crisis in Northern Ireland, but I believe that there could be some inventiveness from the Government. My colleague Gordon Lyons, who is the Communities Minister, has suggested to the Treasury that he will lean hard to get efficiencies and savings from fraud in the benefits budget. But he has asked in return that some of those benefits be shared with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin, which does not seem to wish to attack fraud, has been holding that up, but will the Secretary of State push with the Treasury the case for those savings from fraud that might be identified in Northern Ireland to be shared with the Executive to help reduce its financial pressures? Will he commit to working with Ministers to ensure that any additional funding is used in a productive way so that Northern Ireland can become much more sustainable fiscally than it is at present? None of us wants to be here. Certainly as a Unionist, I do not want to be here with a begging bowl year after year, but I believe that there is a responsibility on both sides: the Government must recognise that there is a deficit that needs to be dealt with, and that deficit must dealt with in a way that makes positive changes for the future.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Most speakers tonight have talked about the duty of care that we owe to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the people of the United Kingdom. Those of us who come from Northern Ireland or represent Northern Ireland know that that is not just some vague form of words. Over the period of the troubles we saw at first hand—this is not abstract—the sacrifices that those who serve in the armed forces made. More than 300,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and 722 of them gave their lives in Northern Ireland. In the 1970s, I was involved in the reserve police force, going in and out of Army barracks and going out with Army patrols, so I know the conditions we expected people to live in: empty schools and old factories, some of which were surrounded by houses and so easily open to sniper fire, mortar bombing, and narrow streets where people were easily ambushed. We owe a duty to those who made those sacrifices to stop terror in our own streets of the United Kingdom, let alone those who go overseas.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know who advised that, or whether it was the Northern Ireland Office, because of course it is prone to trying to avoid any conflict with Sinn Féin when it comes to policies. If it was, I hope that this will be seriously thought about and that the Minister will look at ways of including local authorities in North Ireland in the legislation, so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the armed forces covenant, which is meant to be a national commitment, applies nationally right across the United Kingdom. I want to support some of the other new clauses, though I want to dissociate myself from new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). They represent more of his obsession with finding ways of trying to batter Israel than really being concerned about the welfare of soldiers. The fact that he is not here to answer challenges to those new clauses says a lot as well, because he knows exactly what the motivation is. New clause 3 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to collect data on the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It is very sad when I walk down the streets of London—towards Victoria station, for example—and see people sitting in shop doorways. I remember speaking to one of them. He was an ex-soldier, and he blamed his situation on himself, but the fact of the matter was that it seemed that the Army had no idea what condition he was in. I met an ex-soldier in my constituency advice centre on Friday who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and who cannot find any support or help. He left the Army in 2004, and the impact had come on some years later. He did not have his medical records and had been referred to one body and then another, but was finding no help. We have a duty to monitor what happens to those who leave the armed forces. They sometimes leave with injuries, either mental or physical, and we must ensure that we look after them when they have suffered as a result of their service. It is so easy for people to get in a boat, come across the channel and get into the United Kingdom and then be treated to accommodation and support and quickly be given asylum to stay in this country and leave to remain in this country, but there are those who have served in the armed forces and want to bring their families here and who face a financial penalty for doing so. Waiving those fees is one of the reasons why we support new clause 4. We should not be treating the families of those who served our country in a far lesser way than we treat those who break into our country illegally, and are then treated and have money lavished upon them. On the amendment referring to a veterans’ commissioner dealing with mental health, given the number of soldiers who have suffered from mental health problems, it is important that they should have an advocate for the problems they face. The last proposal I want to support is new clause 19 on national standards, funding and monitoring of the armed forces covenant duty. It is one thing to have a duty and to put it down as a covenant duty and a promise to soldiers, but if we are not monitoring how it works and funding it, it will of course not have the impact that it is meant to have. The Government were right to bring forward this legislation, and many of its provisions are welcome, but there are amendments before the House tonight that I believe would improve it. We owe it to those who have served us, and I hope that the Government will take on board the reasonable amendments that I have spoken about.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a very important point. Judicial review is not an answer for the many people who are damaged or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and so on, because they do not have the capacity to do it, which is why authorities should be held accountable for the actions they take.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I hope, Mrs Harris, that anything I say here today will not cause you to cough or choke, but I want to be very clear that the motion we are discussing is not about lobbying and it is not about the influence of Israel on politics. This is yet another angle of the antisemitism that we are experiencing in this country, especially driven by the left. As other speakers have already pointed out today, it is a very dangerous idea that somehow or other Jews control politics in our country. We have seen examples throughout history, from when Jews were accused of co-ordinating a program of poisoning wells that caused the black death, to the Holocaust, when Hitler accused Jewish influence of causing Germany’s defeat in the first world war, and therefore claimed that it had to be dealt with. We have seen the impact of antisemitism in this country. We only have to look at what happened in Golders Green, in Manchester and in other attempted bombings of synagogues to see the threat that Jews feel in this country, and to know that the poison of antisemitism has an impact on people’s lives. I agree with other speakers that if there is a secret Jewish lobby seeking to influence Government in the United Kingdom, it is not being very successful, because Israel has been the most scrutinised country and their Government the most scrutinised Government here in Parliament. In the House and in Westminster Hall, almost every week we have questions, urgent questions, written questions, statements, debates and so on about Israel. Some of our own domestic affairs, such as unemployment, inflation and the health service, receive less scrutiny, so to say that somehow or other the Jewish lobby has influenced the direction of our politics just does not withstand examination. Israel is the one of the few democracies in the middle east. We should debate the positive contribution it makes to our country, in terms of help with security, research and development in health, and in other ways. We benefit from that collaboration and that research, and that is what we should emphasise today.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right that those who engaged in the violence last night should face the full weight of the law, because legally, morally and politically they were wrong. However, if the law is going to apply to those who protested, it should also apply to those who have broken into our country illegally, broken our immigration laws and become the source of many of the problems we face. Instead of that, they are taken by the hand—they have state resources spent on them and accommodation made available to them, and they are then given the right to stay here, even though they have come in illegally. If this issue is to be addressed, the Government must change their attitude. Those who come into our country illegally should be told, “You will never get asylum.” The Irish Government should be spoken to as well, so that the Irish Republic does not become the conduit for illegal immigration, as the route used by the person who has been accused of this crime.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Regardless of what has provoked this change of heart, we can all welcome the Government now recognising the harms caused to children and families by social media. The evidence is very clear. I believe that most children will support the legislation. On Friday, I chaired a debate— a lively debate—at Roddensvale special school. All the points about disruption, distraction, bullying, peer pressure and so on were brought up. One thing I would ask of the Minister is that we need action now. He should not be put off by further promises from the big tech companies about self-regulation. If we are to have action, it should be enforceable and there should not be unintended consequences for free speech.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Hezbollah has made south Lebanon into an armed camp and a massive arms dump in which it stores rockets and drones that have been used to attack Israeli towns and cities, kill civilians, cause billions of pounds worth of damage, and displace a large part of the population. Does the Minister agree that it is not disproportionate for any Government to take action to defend their own citizens? That can be done only by going into the area the enemy is firing its weapons from and causing that destruction. Would he not agree that Israel does not want to occupy Lebanon and take over territory, but that the answer is to eliminate and disarm Hezbollah, and then there will be real peace in that area?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Defence Growth Deal: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  Northern Ireland has skills, technology and infrastructure to contribute to the defence industry across the United Kingdom, but the Sinn Féin Economy Minister does not want defence jobs. Will the Minister assure us that the attitude of Sinn Féin will not be a deterrent to those vital jobs coming to Northern Ireland?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In an earlier answer, the Minister for Energy mentioned the money being spent on carbon capture, but has he considered the impact of his net zero policies on carbon release? Last week, I visited a site in the Sperrins where 250,000 metric tonnes of peat are to be stripped from the hillside in order to put in the infrastructure for a wind farm. That is similar to what is happening on peatlands all over England. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that and will he—

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable. Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.

• 20 May 2026 · Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  No matter how the Minister tries to confuse the issue by talking about the situation up until now and the new arrangements, which are meant to tighten up sanctions today, the fact remains that we are now granting permits for Russian oil to come into the United Kingdom. He may justify that, as he has done on a number of occasions during this discussion, by saying that this is only for the short term. But does he not recognise that, as long as we stop exploiting our own resources and taxing our own oil refineries, we will be dependent on Russian oil, and we will be financing Putin’s war?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Dunmurry Police Station Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Let me say on behalf of my party that we condemn the bombing at the weekend and we thank the police for their actions, which ensured that there were not the casualties that we would otherwise be lamenting here today. It is significant that the bomb was set off at the same time as Sinn Féin was holding its party conference, at which bombers of the past were being praised. That glorification of terrorism only stimulates terrorism again today. The logic is clear: if we can praise the bombers of the past, why can we not bomb in the present? While the First Minister has condemned the bombing, does the Secretary of State agree that the schizophrenic attitude that Sinn Féin has developed towards past terrorism and present terrorism is only perpetuating terrorism in our society, and continues to pump the poison of violence into our society? Will he call on the First Minister and her party to stop being ambivalent towards policing and stop being ambivalent towards past terrorism, and make it clear that terrorism has no place in society?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member accept that when the process exonerates the soldiers and the veterans at the end, the whole point of the process and taking them to the court in the first place is to give the daily headlines in the paper to allow Sinn Féin and the IRA to rewrite the history of the troubles?