Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it was collapsed by the parties that were in power at that stage, because they had the ability to keep it running—but they did not. It collapsed again when the distribution of seats changed. It collapsed for a number of reasons, but the important thing is that those arrangements were put in place to safeguard minorities. The Alliance party and the SDLP, which are now calling for reform, were the keenest to have that consensus requirement in the Belfast agreement.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We have had a catalogue of reasons why there need to be changes to the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland. We have had collapses, difficulty in getting a three-year budget, the fallout and the use of veto powers by the parties. The thing that strikes me is all these things have happened under different Administrations in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years. When the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in power, the Administration collapsed about five times—

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  If that is the case, the requirement for consensus rather than majority rule is even stronger, yet the proposed changes would remove those safeguards. The difficulty of getting the three-year budget through has been mentioned. I served in the Assembly for a number of years; I was Finance Minister in the Assembly for a number of years. In the first year after I took over, we had an immediate 3% cut to our budget, and then we had a 2% cut year on year, under the coalition Government that existed at that time. We got a three-year budget through, despite the fact that the two biggest spending Ministers were outside with the unions protesting against any cuts. How did we do that? Instead of thinking we could just drive it through, as the current Sinn Féin Minister is trying to do, we had hours and hours of negotiations, compromises and so on to get it through. That might be difficult, but that is no reason to remove the requirement for consensus and the safeguards for minorities. We now have a cabal in the Assembly of nationalists, republicans, the Alliance party and a bunch of individuals, who form a majority and would be able to drive things through if it came to a majority vote.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I find it rather odd that the hon. Member has talked about how dysfunctional the Assembly is but wants more powers for it. Either it is dysfunctional or it is not. If it is functional and she wants more powers for it, why do we need the changes? Let us look at the words that are used. “Reform” is one, and I have noticed that another phrase—“keyhole surgery”—has come in. Of course, these are all euphemisms for removing the very safeguards that were required when nationalists were in the minority. That is why they were put in place. Now the arithmetic in the Assembly has changed, and we find that those parties that believed there should be safeguards for minorities no longer require those safeguards and want to revert to a form of majority rule.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a moment. They are now proposing that consensus be removed and—here’s the thing—that we go to majority rule, albeit with a weighted majority of 66%. That is not reform; that is retreating to something that they condemned in the first place, and that they said required the arrangements in the Belfast agreement to be put in place.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman asked why weighted majorities do not give the protection that the consensus requirement gives. There are two reasons. First, it depends at what level the weighted majority is set. Secondly, if the weighted majority were seen to be used in a way that prevented changes or things getting through, we would have exactly the same arguments about the weighted majority: that it should be reduced and reduced in order to free up any logjam. That is why consensus is much more important. It recognises that there are nationalists and Unionists, and that their interests have to be safeguarded.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Tonight’s debate is not just an opportunity for the Opposition to have a go at the Government. Many people who are getting cynical about politics will say, “Well, of course you would expect them to have a go about taxation and the Government’s behaviour on that issue.” However, this debate goes far beyond that, because the implications of what we are discussing tonight are very serious. First, there are the macroeconomic impacts of the decision not to make work pay, because of higher taxation. The Government have hung a lot of their predictions of economic success on obtaining economic growth, but one thing we will not do is tax our way to growth. This will be an anti-growth measure, which will have implications not just for this year but future years and future Budgets. Secondly, it will have personal consequences for many people facing the current cost of living crisis and finding it difficult to stretch their income to meet their needs. Lastly, the decision will have an impact on people’s confidence in the democratic system. The Government will get this Bill through tonight. They will get it through because they have a massive majority, and they have a massive majority because they made massive promises. They promised that people would not face income tax increases, and I have no doubt that that influenced how many working people voted. However, the Minister has accepted tonight that by the end of this period, £28 billion will have been raised. One reason I support new clauses 3, 13 and 14 is that they at least give people an opportunity to realise what the Government are doing to them, and they show that politicians in this House want there to be honesty with the people. If there was not honesty when the manifesto was written and presented, let us ensure that there is honesty when the implications of the decisions that this Government are making become clear to the citizens of this country. These are confidence measures. Let us just remind ourselves of what the Government promised—we have been around this a number of times tonight. They promised that they would not increase taxes on working people. They then went on to define “working people” as people who go to work every day, yet we know that by freezing the thresholds, people who go to work every day and are therefore subject to income tax being charged on the money they earn will pay more. Working people know that a promise to them has been broken.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Of course she does. That is one reason why I believe that the new clauses are important—they recognise the need for people to be made aware of the consequences, and the impact on them, of decisions that are being made in this House by a majority Government who got there by making promises that are not being kept. What is that impact? The Minister has already told us: £23 billion more tax will be paid. He justifies that by saying—I think he mentioned this twice—that the Government have sought to be fair, and to place the burden on those with the broadest shoulders. When 750,000 people who are currently earning £12,500 per year are dragged into the tax system, that does not strike me as fair. It strikes me as placing a burden on people who go out to work every day, do not earn a great deal of money or have a great reward for it, and now find themselves having to pay tax when they never thought they would have to. As I said in an earlier intervention, people might be willing to pay taxes if they thought it would lead to things that would improve their lives. We had that promise at the first Budget—that the Government were putting up taxes by £40 billion, or whatever it was at that stage, to improve public services. Have public services improved? No, they have not. Has the money been spent on public services? No, it has not. Yes, wage increases have been given, but as the OBR has said, there have been no productivity increases as a result of the extra money that has been spent. If taxpayers thought they were going to get some benefit from these changes, they might have been willing to accept them, but of course, they are not getting that benefit. What are we getting? We are getting wasteful expenditure. As has already been mentioned, £5 billion will be spent on taking money from those who go out to work and paying it to those who do not go out to work. That is not fair, and it does not make any economic sense, either. Then, of course, there is all the other wasteful expenditure that the Government have engaged in, such as the Chagos deal. We had the Chagos islands—we had our bases there and so on. We are now going to pay somewhere between £38 billion and £47 billion to the Government of Mauritius to give the islands back and then lease them back again. You can understand why people ask, “Is that what I want my taxes to be spent on?” Of course it is not. The Government estimate that their ID cards system will cost £1.8 billion, while the London School of Economics says that the cost could be £10.7 billion. The Government say that it is to stop illegal immigration, when we know full well that it would not matter if we had six ID cards—those who come into this country illegally will seek to work illegally, and there are other means of checking up on them anyway. There are also the new bureaucracies that the Government have set up. One of their first actions was to set up a huge bureaucracy, Great British Energy, at a cost of £9 billion. Again, what benefit will we get from that? The Government have said that it will deliver their net zero policies, but is it necessary to have a bureaucracy of that nature? I know that many Members do not agree with me on this issue, but we are spending billions of pounds on restructuring our economy to meet net zero targets when many other countries are saying, “We are not prepared to damage our economy in that way.” Given the proposals we are debating tonight, the new clauses I have spoken to are not all that demanding. All they say is, “Let’s have some transparency about what all this means to the people who are having to pay the money.” That is not too much to ask. I hope that people will consider that when they cast their vote tonight. The one thing I say in conclusion is that we seem to have a Government who, as their first choice, will spend taxpayers’ money, rather than looking at how the money they already take from taxpayers can be used more effectively.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is putting on a brave face because a manifesto commitment has been broken. People are going to pay more in income tax despite the promises that were made. Does he recognise that, for many people, this is not money to renew public services, but money squandered on giving compensation to foreign Governments for land that we owned—the Chagos islands—and are now paying for; money that will be spent on an ID system that is totally unnecessary and will not serve the purpose it is meant to; and money spent on net zero commitments that have destroyed our economy and added little in benefits to the public?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of whether we are talking about a small tax or a large tax, the Chancellor promised that there would be no tax on people who went out to work every day, and no increase in tax on pensioners? It is not really a question of degree; it is about whether the promise is being broken. Clearly, from what the Minister said tonight, the promise will be broken.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has said that this legislation will mean that those who serve in the armed forces are treated worse than terrorists. Former commanders have said that it will affect recruitment and retention and leave soldiers in fear of legal action. Does the Minister not recognise that by giving in to the IRA’s demand for the ability to rewrite the history of the troubles, it is leading to the situation where soldiers will be dragged through the courts in their old age? Should his message to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not be, “Your job is to stand up for those who served in Northern Ireland and not to kowtow to the IRA, Sinn Féin and the Irish Government”?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is right that no one should shed any tears at the end of Maduro’s rule. Does it surprise her that Sinn Féin, first of all, defended the fraudulent election as being electorally robust, and then attended the President’s inauguration event in order to show what it said was “solidarity” with him? That highlights once again how it is still wedded to criminality and terrorism. There is an opportunity, now that the Americans have done good for the Venezuelan people by removing the corrupt cancer that so damaged their country. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps our country can take to ensure that democracy is restored in Venezuela? From her discussions with the Americans, can she say how much they will co-operate with us in that venture?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you and the staff of the House a happy new year, Mr Speaker. Regardless of the reason for the change in policy—whether it is simply fear of the electoral consequences of breaking election and manifesto promises to farmers, or a belated recognition of the importance of the farming industry to feeding the nation in an increasingly unstable world—I welcome these changes. However, I would point out to the Minister that despite his assurances, 25% of farmers in Northern Ireland will still fall over the threshold he has announced, which will have an impact on family farms because of the cost of land and so on. Having seen the disaster of the policy, does he accept that the only answer is to abolish it altogether?

• 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?