Sammy Wilson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  The report makes quite clear the extent of IRA brutality and murder in Northern Ireland, including murders within their own republican community. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the First Minister of Northern Ireland can no longer remain ambiguous in relation to, first, her acknowledgment of and, secondly, her apology for what her fellow travellers did to people within their own community and within the wider community in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the real state collusion occurred when successive Governments in the Irish Republic hid terrorists; allowed them to store arms, train and cross the border; and then refused to extradite them? Instead of giving the Irish Government a role in the arrangements for the legacy of the past, will he commit to holding them to account for their sins of the past?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Low-income Households · Hansard source

  More

  Low-income families have been hit by being dragged into tax bands that they were not in before and by energy costs, and now the chief executive of Aldi has said that unless the Chancellor reviews her raid on farm inheritance tax, rising food prices will hit those families as well. If she will not listen to the farmers, will she at least show some concern for consumers, and look again at this tax?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have had a lucky break with the coincidence of the OBR’s confession and report on its leak of the Budget details, which has given the Minister an opportunity to use the shame of the OBR to deflect from the real criticism that should lie with the Chancellor, who, weeks before, was using selective information and distorting the forecasts to cover up the fact that she was taking money from those who work to pay those who do not work. Is that not the real shame of what we are discussing?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Some of that redistributive impact is the result of taxes being taken off people who are on modest incomes for welfare increases. This is a figure that the Chancellor has quoted in the House time and again: one in seven under-25s is now fully reliant on benefits and is not in work. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from people who are working on a daily basis and, in many cases, for not a great deal of money, but who will be dragged into the tax system. This is an unfair Budget, because it still relies on taking money from working people who are not mega-rich to pay for some of the Government’s grandiose schemes. Some people may argue that if it works, it is worth doing, but let us look at the record of the previous year. The OBR tells us that the outcome of the Chancellor trying the same tactic last year has been that investment is now predicted to fall as a percentage of GDP. Output growth is going to fall by a sixth, productivity is going to fall from 0.4% to -0.4%. Consumer expenditure is down by 0.5%. People are receiving less and profits for companies are going to fall from 12.5% to 10.75%, all of which will affect investment and economic growth, and undermine the very objective that the Chancellor says she is seeking to achieve. Of course, many people will argue that that is fine, but we have levels of expenditure that we have to finance, so how do we pay for it? Let us look at some of the decisions that the Government have made over the last year. Welfare payments are going to go up quite substantially to £58 billion over the period of this Parliament. On net zero, environmental taxes are going up by 60%, affecting the profitability of companies, and the renewables obligation next year is going to cost us £3 billion. So net zero, the impact of which we are all experiencing on jobs, is going to lead to further costs. I think many people would question whether those are the kinds of things we should be spending money on at a time when we have an abundance of fossil energy in this country. Tax avoidance has not been dealt with. I have heard tax avoidance being mentioned every time we have a Budget, including under the previous Government, but it is never dealt with. The Googles and Amazons of this world still sell goods here but do not pay taxes in this country. The budget for welfare in relation to immigration is now predicted to go up to £15 billion. Also, we have had debates in this House time and again about the bases in the Indian ocean that we had possession of. We gave them back to Mauritius and we are paying Mauritius for that. What is Mauritius going to do with the billions that we give them from taxpayers here? It is going to cut its own taxes. We are putting up our taxes in order to allow taxes to be reduced in another country when we did not even need to do it. So there are ways in which the money could have been achieved. I welcome the announcement about the loan charge. As a vice-chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, I trust that we will now see the Government treating the ordinary people who are affected by the loan charge in the way in which they treated big business. Businesses were given a concessionary payment of 15%, while some of the ordinary people who were affected were being charged nearly 100%. I hope that the McCann review leads to that being sorted out. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I welcome the Barnett consequentials and I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will spend the £370 million wisely—

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It may well be very unlikely, but I am expressing a wish that he does that. Some £17 million has been set aside for the cost of the protocol. The protocol and the Windsor framework are costing the Northern Ireland economy dearly, and the money that has been allocated today does not replace the cuts in the trader support system and the movement assistance scheme. Without that support, Northern Ireland suppliers are increasingly finding themselves cut off from their main market of supplies here in Great Britain, and that is something that the Government need to address. I do not think that the £17 million is going to address it. It is a token, and an acceptance that there is a problem, but the problem has to be properly dealt with. Only when we have the same lawmaking arrangements as the rest of the United Kingdom, to which we belong, is that going to be dealt with. The other issue—I noted the wording—is that while welfare changes will be funded by the Government in Westminster, because the annually managed expenditure is funded from here, when it comes to the concessions about reducing electricity bills, it simply says that the Government will work with the Executive. The Chancellor needs to give clarification. Will the Northern Ireland Executive be expected to fund the reductions in electricity bills while they are funded through Great British Energy in the rest of the United Kingdom? Lastly, we have no vested interest in seeing the Government fail, because we will not be an alternative Government, but I do not believe that this Budget will deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. I believe we will find the Chancellor back with the same problems next year.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  May I, on behalf of the whole nation, thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement over the last few weeks? I do not know what she hoped to gain by that—she may have hoped to make it more palatable—but I am afraid that the leaks have not made it any more attractive today than when they came out of the Treasury and, in fact, we are seeing a repeat of last year. In last year’s Budget, we were told that there was a black hole, that it was all down to the Tories and that we would have to have all the tax increases that we have had over the last year to fill it. Well, like some kind of fiscal JCB, the Chancellor seems to have dug another one and now she is back again, looking for more tax increases. Labour Members might say, “Yes, there is pain to be taken, but at least we are now getting the target right and going after the wealthy.” I have heard that so many times today, but let us look at the facts: the real tax increase here is the freezing of the thresholds. What does the OBR say? As a result of the freezing of the thresholds, we will not drag dead rich people into the tax brackets. Instead, we will drag into the tax bands three quarters of a million people who are currently not paying tax because their income is so low, along with people on modest incomes who will be dragged into the top tax bands. Let us not fool ourselves that this will be financed by rich people, because the only evidence we have been given about rich people is the council tax on big mansions, which will generate only £400 million of the extra tax that is required and will not do so until 2031. This Budget still hits those who are working.

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Many of the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity between the last Government and the current Government in respect of their support for Ukraine. President Zelensky is under great pressure from some within the American Administration to accept an unreasonable deal. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will give his commitment to the President of Ukraine to ensure that he does not have to give in to the unreasonable demands for land surrender, for a restriction of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in future, and for Russia not to pay for the crimes that it has committed in Ukraine? That is important for Ukraine, but it is also important to send Russia the message that we will not reward the aggressor.

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State not see the irony of 53,000 people—about 400 from each of the participating countries—flying to Brazil and landing on airfields cut out of the tropical forest to discuss, of all things, the reduction of CO 2 emissions in the atmosphere? Of course, they reached the conclusion that to keep our homes warm and our economies ticking over, we will still need oil and gas. The Secretary of State has talked about the UK’s vulnerability in depending on foreign sources of fuel. Why, then, does he resist and block the use of the plentiful gas and oil resources we have in our economy that could generate jobs, raise tax revenue, cut costs and reduce imports?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Confidence in the police is very important, and the Jewish community have every justification for not being confident in the police—whether it is some of the policing we have seen here in London or in the west midlands. Given that the reports in The Sunday Times seem to contradict totally what the police in the west midlands said, is it not accurate to say that their recommendations on which Israeli fans were to be banned from the Aston Villa match were nothing but a tissue of lies? If they had really wanted accurate information, would they, as experienced investigators, not just have lifted the phone or sent an email to the police in Amsterdam to find out the facts about the match that occurred there? It appears that the West Midlands police have given in to pressure from Muslim politicians and Muslim thugs. As a result, the Jewish community are once again left feeling that they are the disadvantaged people. Will the Minister assure us that the inquiry will look very clearly at what political pressure was put on the police in the west midlands to reach their decision?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Critical Minerals Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone listening to this statement should be fearful for the future of energy production in this country. On the one hand, we have a Government who are totally committed to net zero, the elements of which will require huge inputs of critical minerals. On the other hand, the Minister tells us that by 2035 we cannot expect to supply more than 10% by ourselves and will still be reliant on some other countries for 60%. We have no control, or no political control, over the global distribution of those metals. Does he not accept that this strategy, rather than being one of assurance for the future, could leave us increasingly vulnerable to people who have control over materials that we need for energy production, and that we should not be turning our back on the gas and oil we have?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary is right: peace is fragile in Gaza. The Israeli Government have agreed the 20-point peace plan and the UN resolution, and—despite what she has said—have allowed more than 20,000 truckloads of aid into Gaza since the ceasefire, while at the same time Hamas have refused to accept the resolution, continue to terrorise individuals in the Gaza territory, stockpile weapons and have refused to give up their own weapons. What can she do to ensure that Israel is encouraged in its path towards peace, and Hamas are discouraged in their resolve to continue the conflict?

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that he and the Government have no bias against the people of Scotland, but they certainly have not done very well out of this Government—1,000 jobs being lost a month in the North sea, and now today’s announcement. He attributes it all to a commercial decision. That commercial decision was made in a hostile economic environment. He has told us some of the factors there: carbon taxes imposed by this Government, lack of supply as a result of the reduction in North sea production, and the energy prices as a result of the increasing reliance on wind energy. The common thread through it all is the Government’s net zero policies. Why can they not be honest with us and just tell us that these net zero policies are robbing the United Kingdom of all its energy-intensive industries and that this will not be the last job loss announcement that we will hear in this House?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s promises to the House mean that the Bill would enable some of those people and their supporters to be included on the victims advisory group? Indeed, if the Secretary of State consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance party, she would say that they should be included, because they are just as much innocent victims as the people whom they killed.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy?

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—

• 22 Oct 2025 · Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I was referring to “you” as members of the public rather than members of this Committee. Some of these provisions are unenforceable, but the important thing is this: is the current arrangement acceptable? Let us leave aside whether it is unenforceable. Is it acceptable that in this House we should say to dentists, “We have got you a special concession for 10 years. It is partial in so far as you still cannot get the amalgam made in Northern Ireland, and you have to be careful who you give them to when you do give people fillings.” Leave all that aside. Is it acceptable that we will now have two different forms of treatment, eventually, in the United Kingdom—one that is acceptable for the population in Great Britain that is cheaper and quicker, and one that will be more expensive and take longer to apply, in Northern Ireland—all because two different sets of laws apply in different parts of the United Kingdom?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that given the experience in Northern Ireland of goods that have to go through the process that he has just described, many suppliers simply decide that Northern Ireland is not worth supplying to? So, even though the concession might be there that we can still import it—but we have got to import it through these restrictions—it might well be that suppliers are reluctant to come to Northern Ireland, either making it more difficult or more expensive to get the product.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. First, I welcome the derogation, as do dentists right across Northern Ireland. My own dentist raised the issue with me, greatly concerned, pointing out the impact that it would have on his business and the cost of doing fillings. In my constituency, it is impossible to get a national health service dentist, because the margins simply do not make it worthwhile. The additional cost that this regulation would have imposed in such a short time would have driven even private dentists out of business. When newspapers first reported on the regulation, dentists were in a state of shock about the impact it would have on them. The big issue is that, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, the derogation does not deal with the problem. What has happened with dentistry today will happen with some other industry tomorrow. It depends on how focused a particular Minister happens to be, how effective a lobby is or how excited people get about the issue whether, first, it is even raised with the EU, and secondly, the EU decides to respond. The big worry for people in Northern Ireland is that, the more cases like this occur, the more tired the EU is going to get. They could say, “Well, we’re not listening to you. Although it will have an impact on the small sector you are talking about, it will not have much of an impact on the whole of the Northern Ireland economy, so it is therefore not worth dealing with.” It really depends on how successful Ministers from the United Kingdom are in presenting the case, and how receptive the EU is in dealing with the individual case. That is why this sticking-plaster solution is not the answer to the issues presented by the protocol and the Windsor framework. This is only a stay of execution, as it gives 10 years. I noticed that the Minister said that it gives dentists time to adapt. That is quite right, but to adapt to what? It gives them time to adapt to a higher-cost solution for giving people fillings—an adaptation that, probably for very good reasons in limiting cost to the national health service, we are not asking dentists to make in other parts of the United Kingdom. Only Northern Ireland dentists will be required to adapt to this higher-cost solution. The dental profession, and indeed our own Government, have decided that fillings that contain mercury are safe. They have been tried and tested, and the method has been given approval. The fact that there is 10 years to adapt does not really deal with the issue—that is, that it will become more costly as a health service provision in Northern Ireland. Lastly, I want to deal with what we actually have in this statutory instrument. I raised in my intervention the fact that the amalgams cannot be produced in Northern Ireland any longer. That is a real problem. People can dismiss this, but as Northern Ireland representatives we get representations from traders and businesses on a weekly basis, about suppliers that they have had for years who refuse to supply to Northern Ireland now because of the costs, the bureaucracy and the uncertainty of supplying to Northern Ireland. If it is a small part of their market, they simply take the view that if they spend a bit more on GB market advertising, they do not need to worry about Northern Ireland. I do not know how enforceable it is that dentists now have to find out where you live before filling your mouth with mercury fillings. Given the Government’s opposition to any kind of hard border on the island of Ireland, I do not know how you will enforce things. Are the guards going to stand by the road when you are coming across and ask to look in your mouth to see what your fillings are like?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  While most of the comments today have been critical, regions across the United Kingdom need a strong hub airport, and Heathrow provides that. I seek assurances from the Secretary of State that slots at any expanded airport will be ensured for flights from regional airports. But I also warn her: given the way climate change targets have been used to stop major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, such as major roads, is she confident that, by sticking by the Climate Change Act 2008, we are not giving a weapon to those who are opposed to this project and will use the courts to ensure that it is stopped?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the very clear message that she has given today. Is it not a fact that, despite some of the excuses coming from Members behind me, this is all about the religion of the supporters who will be attending this match, and indeed that the only people they are likely to be in danger from are the hate mobs we have seen marching across our streets for months, waving Palestinian flags and supporting terrorists? Would she agree that the police ought to be told: “You need to make the streets safe for everyone, Jewish people as well as anyone else”? That is their duty, and they should live up to that.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A deal of such implication, one would have thought, would have been hotly debated in this House, yet as has been pointed out, there has been no attempt to defend it by the Government. In fact, one could hardly call this a debate—it has all been one-sided. In a debate, people usually argue in favour of whatever the proposal happens to be and listen to and rebut the arguments from the other side. We have had no rebuttal from the other side—the Government—today, despite the fact that this is such an important deal. For some people outside the House, this deal might seem to be an unimportant issue—where are the Chagos islands, and why do they matter? However, even if the attitude taken by Government Members is to say, “Our constituents are not all that interested in the issues around the Chagos islands,” there are issues with this deal that have been raised this evening that should concern them all. Let us look at the issues, because they are addressed by the amendments. The first is human rights—the human rights of the people who were displaced in the 1960s and who are ignored in this deal. Their rights to self-determination and to decide where they live are being ignored, yet we are not getting any response from the Government—the party that talks about human rights all the time. They say that we cannot leave the European convention on human rights because human rights are so important, but they are ignoring the human rights of the people who are affected by this deal.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case. This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security. I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.