Sammy Wilson MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is making much of the fact that this Parliament imposed these arrangements on Northern Ireland, but he set out three objectives: to protect the EU market, to protect the Union and to protect the UK internal market. The European Union is happy with the arrangements, but the other two objectives have not been achieved. Whether this Parliament voted for it or not, the internal market is not operating. There are lots of examples of that, as the Secretary of State knows, because I am sure people complain to him every month, as they do to us. As has been pointed out, we are not part of the United Kingdom any longer when our laws cannot even be made in our own Parliament.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the whole House stands solidly with Ukraine on its one thousandth day countering Russian aggression and doing so for us all, but its ability to do so is weakened by North Korea sending armaments and manpower, the Iranians sending drones, and oil contracts still being signed. Will the Minister assure us that, in the light of the American decision to allow strikes inside Russia, we will also give permission for our missiles to be used to break up concentrations of arms and material inside Russia?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Flight Cancellations · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, which as has been outlined is important to many of our constituents. When we sit in the airport lounge and talk to people who have had flights delayed, we see their frustration. I suspect, however, that you wish you had cancelled this urgent question—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) delayed landing it and took so long that I saw you getting increasingly uneasy as you were listening to him. Increasingly we are finding flights delayed by one company in particular—British Airways—which has a monopoly on these flights. There is an economic lesson to be learned, which is that monopolies are abused. One has only to look at the price charged on some occasions, when someone could fly to Australia cheaper than they can fly to London with British Airways. Sometimes BA gives technical reasons or weather reasons for delaying a flight, but often it is because planes are not full and it amalgamates flights. Will the Minister commit to investigating with BA why the Belfast route is—

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I have not sat through 45 Budgets, or however many he mentioned—I am far, far too young for that—but I have sat through a number of Budgets where, after a change of Government, Chancellors and Prime Ministers have sought to blacken the people they inherited the economy from. When I played football, we used to call it “getting your retaliation in first”; I think that we have seen a bit of that. We had it under the last Government as well, of course. For about three years, I had to listen to George Osborne telling us that the previous Government had not fixed his roof while the sun was shining, and I suspect that for about the next three years we will have to sit and listen to the black hole that the present Government have inherited—and so it will go on as people try to justify the situation they find themselves in and indeed some of the failures of Government, year after year. When listening to debates like this, I suspect that there are points that go over the heads of most of the population. Billions are thrown around—“We’re going to spend billions on this, and we are going to take billions out of that”—but that does not immediately resonate with the population. What does resonate, as we have seen in the last three months, is seeing figures that enable them quickly to identify the impact on them of the policies being introduced. I suspect one reason that there has been such reaction against the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is that people can understand. They might not understand when the Government take £3 billion off a departmental Budget, but they understand when they take £300 off them in the middle of winter, when they are struggling with their fuel bills. I wonder whether the Chancellor has learned that lesson already. I was relieved when she announced that she was not going to increase fuel duty. I suspect that one of the reasons is that she knows that an increase would have been easily understood by people who went to a petrol station to fill their car up and saw another 7p on the price of petrol per litre. If she has learned that lesson, I am glad that costs will not go up for my constituents, many of whom live in rural areas and depend on their car. In Northern Ireland, an awful lot of our supplies come in by road. One thing I am fairly sure of, looking at the broader picture that the Government have tried to paint, is that the Budget, and the behaviour of the Government in the lead-up to it, will increase the existing cynicism towards politics and politicians. During the election, the Labour party said, “We have a fully funded programme. We know what the figures are. We’re not going to increase your taxes.” Then suddenly there is a black hole. After painting the black hole, what do the Government do? They immediately start spending stacks of money. They give wage increases, set up quangos to deliver net zero, and spend money on carbon capture and storage. Billions of pounds are suddenly announced against a background of: “We have no money, and we’re going to have to put up taxes.” Labour’s promise was that no taxes would be imposed on working people. The Government tried to wriggle out of that. Who are these working people? Who will be affected? I will not go through all the iterations that there have been of “working people”. The fact is, as a result of the Budget, people know that they will pay more tax and their wages will be affected. I notice Labour Members shaking their heads; they should look at the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. What prediction does it make? It predicts that disposable income will fall in real terms, real earnings will be reduced, and interest rates on Government bonds, which were already expected to go up, will go up further—all of which has an impact on people’s livelihoods. The Government promised that they would not fiddle the figures and would be dead straight with people. Yet immediately—the Chancellor talked about it today—they have started to redefine borrowing. It does not matter what we call borrowing. It does not matter whether we put it in one barrel or another; at the end of the day, borrowed money has to be paid back, and interest has to be paid on it. It does not matter how we classify it; it is fiddling the figures to try to pretend that borrowing is not borrowing, and it has consequences for the economy and for individuals. There are some things in the Budget that I welcome. As the chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, I welcome the fact that there will be a review of the loan charge. It will be interesting to see what its terms are; they are not outlined in the Red Book. We will have to tease that out from the Government. The all-party group would be more than happy to talk about what the terms should be, and what issues need to be addressed. I also welcome the fact that the suspended city deals, one of which would have affected the periphery of my constituency, have been restored. Being a cynic, I wonder whether they were stopped so that they could be given back, and we could all be grateful that we had got something back as a result of our lobbying. I know that there was extensive lobbying by councils, by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), whose intervention I welcome, by the Secretary of State, and by the political parties in Northern Ireland. Those city deals were important because, as we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), one way of growing our economy and making it more robust is to spend on research and development and innovation. In both city deals, there was a strong element of research and development, and innovation hubs, and there had already been interest from the private sector because of the money that was going to be spent on them. I also welcome the additional money under the Barnett formula. Northern Ireland has been short-changed under the funding formula for many years, because it was not based on need as it was in other parts of the United Kingdom. I note that it will, in future, be based on need, and that welcome change will help the Executive in the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. So many of my constituents have been affected by infected blood. Now that the funding commitment is there, I hope that there will be no slowdown in the delivery of that funding to those who have been infected. I have concerns. About half of my constituency is rural and made up of small farms. The inheritance tax, and especially the ending of the agricultural property relief, will have huge implications. Not only do we have small farms, but the average age of farmers is 58, so many of them are coming to the point where the farm will be passed on. They are not cash-rich, so how will they pay the tax? They will simply have to sell the land, breaking up the farm and making is less viable. That will have a huge impact on the agricultural community in Northern Ireland. The Government have made a mistake on that. It will impact on small farms and food security. I hope that there will be greater examination of that. Most of our many businesses in Northern Ireland are small and medium-sized businesses. The Government have placed further burdens on them in the Budget, not least in the tax on jobs and the cost of jobs through national insurance contributions, the threshold being lowered, and the percentage that businesses will have to pay. I believe that that will add to the difficulties that businesses are already experiencing. I have already mentioned this last point. The borrowing that the Government will undertake will have—and is already having—an immediate effect on interest rates. The OBR points out that the yield on Government bonds is already increasing and will continue to increase. That will feed through to ordinary mortgage payers and to people who have to borrow money for their businesses. That will, in turn, have an impact on growth. In fact, the OBR indicates that, as the next four years go on, growth rates will fall—they will be lower at the end of this period than they are currently—yet this is meant to be a Budget for growth. I noticed Members cheering the Government as the Chancellor made her announcements today. I hope that they are still cheering in a year’s time; I hope that they are still cheering in two years’ time. I want to see people cheering—I do not want to see the country do badly just to make a political point—but it is important that we are honest about the warning signs and do not build the expectation that this Budget will deliver all the good things that the Government talk about. We will certainly examine and hold the Government to account over future years on whether the policies that they have announced today will deliver what was promised to people.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I have just said, it cannot be done. What I have said is that a Government should not make a promise if they believe that when the Bill in question is scrutinised, that promise will not be fulfilled—especially here, when it is known that the policy will cost jobs, and unions have already made that point. I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) in respect of the impacts on nature. I come from one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom—the Antrim coast is famous for tourism—and I am already seeing the impact of net zero policies on the landscape and the flora and fauna of the Antrim plateau. When I look out of my window in the morning, there is the wind farm that has been erected on top of the plateau, which involved stripping off 3 metres of peat and destroying a bird habitat; every year these windmills chew up birds and bats. I have already mentioned the admission that 17 million trees had been cut down in Scottish forests, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was unfortunate to mention the Sperrins, another beautiful part of Northern Ireland of which I have some knowledge and which has been totally despoiled by hundreds of windmills. Let us not pretend, then, that the policy of renewables is a green, clean policy, because it is not. Let us be honest: any energy production will require the extraction of fuels and materials from the earth, and that in itself will be destructive, so let us not describe it as nature-friendly or green. Let us just accept that what we need if we are to bring about economic growth and reduce the cost of living for our constituents is the cheapest, most available fuel that we can have. That will drive economic growth and decrease the cost of living, and that is the kind of energy policy that the Government ought to be following.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. There have been variations on the cost, from £3 trillion to £10 trillion by 2050. Those Monopoly money figures mean nothing to people. Setting out the cost on a year-to-year basis, where people understand and Members who vote in this House understand what they are putting in front of their constituents by way of bills, would at least be honest. It would also mean there could be a proper debate. I support amendment 6, which includes the price commitment. The second commitment was on jobs. We are told there will be 650,000 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) who said that we cannot legislate for jobs. That is quite right. But if a promise is made about the job implications of a policy, there should be no fear of sticking it in the Bill. Not that the Government are going to produce those jobs; the companies are going to produce them. We could then measure that. If the Government cannot legislate for jobs, they should not promise that they are going to create 650,000 jobs, especially at a time when we know that jobs are being lost as a result of commitments relating to North sea oil and energy-efficient industries. The emissions trading scheme means that there is little or no investment in Grangemouth, for instance, and the place is going to close.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendments 6 and 8. The Bill was promised in order to do a number of things. First, it was to reduce the cost of energy to consumers—during the election, the Government gave a specific promise that the reduction this year would be £300 per household. As others have said, and as the Government have accepted, that will not be delivered. That is not a great start. Secondly, it was going to deliver a certain number of jobs. Thirdly, it was going to deliver sustainable and clean energy, and energy security. The Government could argue that these things are in the Bill’s strategic objectives and priorities, but they are not. I do not believe that any of those things can be achieved, given the net zero strategy that we are pursuing. Let us take the first claim: that costs for consumers would come down. We know that they will not come down this year, and given what needs to be done to deliver the strategy, huge costs will be imposed on consumers. We will turn our backs on a lot of the hard plans we already have in place, even though they are not defunct. We are going to build new power sources. Whether they are built by the state or by power companies, capital expenditure will be involved, and there will be a return on that capital. Who will give the return on that capital to the companies? It will be the consumers. We are going to build many of these power sources away from where people live, because the open areas for wind or solar are not beside centres of population. We already know that putting in a totally new network will require a huge expenditure of billions—indeed, some have mentioned it here today. That will be costly and controversial. I have listened to Members today saying, “Oh, to ensure the lights are turned on and there is a supply of energy, my constituents will be quite happy to have huge pylons erected in their back gardens or down beside their houses.” Of course they won’t; it will be controversial. That is why the Government will have to change the planning system, too.

• 28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic about giving trillions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money in reparations for slavery that occurred hundreds of years ago. However, when it comes to modern-day slavery in China, despite what he states was said privately, all we get publicly is a mealy-mouthed press release—a read-out from the Foreign Office that does not even mention the issue specifically. Why is that? Is it because the Government realise that we are now dependent on China for many things, including the delivery of the net zero policy? China controls 70% of the rare earth metals that we will need to deliver renewable energy. We have left ourselves open to that kind of blackmail, and now we cannot speak up against human rights abuses.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Labelling Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  The result of the Northern Ireland protocol, signed by the previous Government, has been to create an economic border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the imposition of EU law, which has created a problem for the supply of goods to Northern Ireland. When in opposition, Labour supported the idea of food labelling as a way of avoiding an interruption in the supply of food goods from GB to Northern Ireland, so why have the Government reneged on that promise, and what will be the trigger for its imposition if needed?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Labelling Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  6. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing the Windsor framework labelling requirements set out in his Department’s Command Paper entitled “Safeguarding the Union”, published on 31 January 2024.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks · Hansard source

  More

  There is no doubt about it: last week, the Spanish authorities sought to hold the British people of Gibraltar hostage by putting in border controls and disrupting their travel. One should not be surprised by that. I know that Government Members try to deny it, but there is a connection between what happened with the Chagos islands last week and the aggressiveness of the Spanish authorities and the EU this week. The EU has learned a lesson, not just from this Government, but from the last Government —when it comes to wanting to put its footprint on British territory, successive British Governments have shown, whether with Northern Ireland or now with Gibraltar, that they are willing to concede. Can the Minister give us an assurance that she will not be giving in to the bullying, bribery or attempts by the Spanish Government and the EU to once again put their imprint on British territory?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland City Deals · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened to the answers that the Secretary of State has given, and I cannot understand his logic. First, one of the reasons for not progressing with these deals is that they are not far enough advanced. Does he not recognise the amount of money that has already gone into developing them, and how this decision puts that money at risk? Who will put further resources into those schemes if there is no certainty at the end? The Secretary of State has talked about Northern Ireland being part of economic growth. In the Causeway Coast and Glens case, much of the investment will be for economic growth, whether that is the development of food and drugs at the University of Ulster, the innovation hub at North West Regional College, or the innovation hub in Cushendall. By not having those schemes in place, the Secretary of State is going to affect economic growth, so can he explain the logic of the decision he has made?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that the conflict in the middle east has been manipulated and sponsored by the Iranian regime. We should stand by Israel, which is bearing the burden, taking the risks and standing up to world opinion in taking on Iran and its proxy terrorist groups. What part can our Government play in putting pressure on the Iranian regime, and why is it that the revolutionary guards who are sponsoring much of this terrorism can still operate freely in London?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO 2 he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO 2 , at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy. In Northern Ireland, we are tearing up thousands of acres of pristine upland bogland to erect windmills, and Scotland has already cut down 17 million carbon-absorbing trees to make space for windmills. I know the Secretary of State is keen on modelling, but have his models told him how many carbon capture and storage facilities will be needed to offset the carbon impact of his green policies?

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Coming from Northern Ireland, I am not surprised that this Government have surrendered British interests against the wishes of the people who live there, because, after all, they supported the previous Government’s deal in relation to EU demands on Northern Ireland. The Government have given away a strategic interest. They have not published the deal. They will not reveal the cost. They will not guarantee that there will be no Chinese influence in this strategic area. They have handed this strategic interest to a country that has no historical claim. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the impact that this has on other people who are eyeing British territory—the EU in respect of Gibraltar and Argentina in respect of the Falklands? This is a dirty, dangerous and desperate deal. It is a shameful surrender of British interests. Is the Foreign Secretary relying on the fact that the Government have a huge, sledgehammer majority that can drive this through the House, despite its impact on long-term British interests?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Patrick Finucane Murder · Hansard source

  More

  This is a bad decision today. It will cause anger and further hurt for the many hundreds of families who have not had justice for the murder of their loved ones, including the mass murder of Protestant workmen at Kingsmill, the blowing up of Protestant workmen at Teebane and the horrendous murder of worshippers at Tullyvallen, among others. I think the Secretary of State has to explain to the House why, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and reviews of this case, he still believes it is necessary to acquiesce in the demands of the family by having another inquiry. How does he justify it to those hundreds of families that no such resources will be put in place to seek out the truth about the murders of their family members? Given the record of inquiries of this nature being a golden goose for barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland, how is he going to ensure that the costs are capped?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the chopping down of trees. Does he accept that in Scotland 13 million trees were chopped down to put up windmills?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not support this Bill tonight. The Secretary of State claims that it will put the British people in ownership of the renewable electricity supply market, but that market is estimated is £50 billion a year. He is proposing to invest £1.6 billion a year. Can he not see the difference that £1.6 billion will make to the overall investment? The infrastructure will still not be owned by the British people.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The first two months of this Labour Government have not been good news for electricity consumers. First, the promise to save £300 per year on bills was demoted in the King’s Speech to, “We will do it in due course.” Then, during the recess, there was the announcement that the £300 for pensioners to help with winter fuel costs would be removed because the Government placed the importance of rewarding their trade union paymasters above the needs of vulnerable pensioners. Just this week, the Government announced they would help the big energy companies and fill their pockets with extra money, guaranteeing those energy companies prices that are currently above the market rates for electricity. The companies will be guaranteed those prices for x number of years, but if the rates change to their benefit in the future, they can change the contracts and they will be guaranteed a market for their dear electricity. Who will pay for that generosity? The consumer. Today we are debating a Bill that sets up a quango. Despite the fact there is a £20 billion black hole in the budget, the Government can find enough money to finance a new quango. All of this will be paid for by the electricity consumer. In his impassioned speech, the Secretary of State told us that it would be impossible to envisage anybody voting against the Bill and that, in fact, the country is clamouring for it. I have to say I have not had any constituents hammering on my door telling me, “Be there on Thursday, Sammy, and vote for this Bill.” In fact, I suspect if many members of the public were asked about GB Energy, they would probably think it is a new drink rather than some important Government Bill. The Government have promised that they will create 17,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland, even though, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) pointed out, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Bill does not even cover Northern Ireland. If one considers the Windsor framework and the fact that Northern Ireland is still under single market rules, many of the provisions in the Bill and the subsidies the Government are claiming could not be applied in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm what role the Bill will have in Northern Ireland? The Government’s main point is that the creation of Great British Energy will bring down prices for electricity consumers. The fact is that this Bill is all about having to spend money on new infrastructure to generate power well away from the centres of population, as well as putting in infrastructure to take that power to the consumer. That will require billions of pounds of investment. The Government say it will be done by the private sector, as if that solves it all. Of course, if the private sector puts in that investment, it will require a return. Where will that return come from? It will come from the consumer. We already know, as it has been pointed out, that, according to Ofgem, two thirds of people’s electricity costs in the first quarter of this year were as a result of non-fuel costs. They included the cost of the infrastructure, the environmental policies, and the administration and the operating costs of the grid. Extending the grid, which we will have to do, will incur further costs and put up the price of electricity. That is why the Minister could not guarantee that the £300 saving will be delivered. He knows that the massive costs of changing our system will be borne by the electricity consumer. Whether we regard net zero as good or bad, let us not hide from the fact that it will cost people right across society. It will lead to industry facing higher costs, and consumers facing higher costs and greater fuel poverty.

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  I have some sympathy with the Minister’s comments about the last Government’s record. Of course, under previous Conservative Governments, tens of thousands of jobs were lost in aluminium, oil refining and steel as a result of the obsession with decarbonisation and net zero. Unfortunately, I do not think we will see a different approach from this Government. The Minister promises an industrial strategy, but can she assure us that there will be provision for steel to have a supply of coking coal produced in this country and that damaging and expensive decarbonisation requirements will not further detriment the steel industry?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As part of the Government’s net zero strategy, car manufacturers are expected to produce 22% of their cars as electric vehicles and face a £15,000 penalty for every car by which they fall short of that. The target is expected to be missed by 100,000 cars this year because of consumer resistance. The effect on the car industry is that producers are restricting supplies of petrol cars to retailers, and some are threatening to pull out of the UK market altogether. In the light of consumer resistance, will the Secretary of State look again at the target set, since consumers are clearly not going to be forced to purchase cars they do not want, and producers will be forced to try to get rid of cars they cannot sell?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  The only people who will be overjoyed by this decision are the Hamas terrorists who murdered six hostages in cold blood at the weekend. They have been handed the hope that this Government will not stand firm in their defence of Israel’s right to defend itself. Let us look at the threadbare arguments that the Foreign Secretary has used. He says that these arms might be used to breach international humanitarian law, yet he admits that the Government cannot arbitrate on whether Israel has done so to date. He says that civilian deaths have been caused, yet hardly a couple of paragraphs later in his statement he states that the civilian deaths are the result of Hamas embedding itself in the civilian population, with no regard for the people affected. The last reason he gives for his decision is that Israel is responsible for those deaths, but he then admits that it is not possible to determine who is responsible for the deaths—or, indeed, how many deaths there have been; in most cases, we rely on Hamas propaganda for that number. I say to the Foreign Secretary that this is a bad decision, which we will live to regret. I believe that it is, unfortunately, the result of the pressure that Labour MPs have felt in their constituencies from pro-Gaza protests.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House so quickly to give the assurances that he has given, but reading the statement, I see quite frequently such phrases as “at the earliest opportunity” and “if the parliamentary timetable allows.” Those who are suspicious will wonder if this will be dragged out. May I ask two questions on the details? The Paymaster General has indicated that those on regular payments can keep them if they so desire, but will that be on top of the compensation package, or will the compensation be adjusted to take that into consideration? Secondly, if people go down the health impact supplementary route for additional compensation, will it delay the payment that they are entitled to, or will the comprehensive package be available to them, with the additional compensation added on after more information is given?