Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  The Minister described this asset as “priceless”, yet he is giving it away—and not only is he giving it away; he is paying someone to take it! Is this the kind of decision people would expect from a rational Government? More importantly, if it is priceless in security terms, why are we compromising it?

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

  More

  We may not know which budget it is coming from, but we know whose pockets it is coming from: the pockets of taxpayers. To a certain extent it does not really matter, because all our constituents will pay for this deal. The Minister said that the Chagos islands were priceless, yet we are giving them away and giving away taxpayers’ money for them—and we do not even know how much we will be giving in the long run. I would have thought that some Government Members have concerns, if not about human rights then about the financial implications of the deal. Especially at this time, national security is an important issue for every Member of the House, yet amendments that seek to ensure that there is scrutiny over what happens to these islands, who has influence in them and whether the treaty that has been entered into guarantees that our security will not be jeopardised are being refused. The Government are not even attacking the amendments or explaining their opposition.

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

  More

  Of course there are many who take a totally different point of view and whose wishes are not reflected in this Bill. The amendments that have been tabled to seek to remedy that situation are being ignored and opposed by the Government. The second issue is the economy. On a regular basis, we hear how difficult the fiscal position is for this country—black holes we have to fill by taking money off pensioners, reducing benefits, cutting here and cutting there, and taxing people to the hilt. Yet when amendments are tabled that simply request transparency and the opportunity to look at the expenditure involved in this treaty, we hear no support from the Government. Either we are concerned about the fiscal position of this country or we are not. I would suggest that £35 billion—and rising—is a significant figure that we should be looking at.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the marine environment in the area, but does he accept that we do not even need a change of heart by Mauritius? We do not need it to decide that the treaty was not worthwhile—it does not have the ability to give the protection. Even if there was no change of heart, there is no ability to give such protection, which is why this is a bad deal for the environment.

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

  More

  Since we are going to have a debate, I will listen to the Minister.

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

  More

  I do. Since the hon. Member has given me the opportunity, I will make the point now—I was going to make it later on—that while no Government Members have been rushing to defend the Bill in the Committee, hundreds of them will be rushing through the Lobby at 10 o’clock or half-past 10 to vote for it. That is the worrying thing. Defence of it, there is none; support for it, despite the issues we have highlighted, there will be.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The DUP welcomes the release of the hostages and the prospect of long-term peace in that area of the middle east. I know this will probably stick in the throat of many Labour Members, but we must thank President Trump for the role he has played in delivering this deal. He recognised that weakness will never move terrorists and that only strength will do so—a lesson that, unfortunately, our Government need to learn. Hamas were encouraged by our Government’s recognition of the Palestinian state. That lesson needs to be applied at the next step. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that Hamas do not have the guns that enable them to have control, that they relinquish that control, and that they can never again use Gaza as a launching pad for their terrorist attacks?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This week a conservation charity has indicated that the creep of wind farms in Scotland—17 million trees have been cut down to provide for them—is destroying the highlands, while in England 5% of prime agricultural land is to be used for renewable energy projects at a time when we produce only 60% of our food. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that his policy is destroying tourist areas, will make us more dependent on foreign imports for food, and will put up electricity prices?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  When we cut through the waffle of this statement and the Secretary of State’s answers this afternoon, one fact remains: soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who have already had cases tried will be able to be dragged back into the courts and will be subject to interrogation there. The Secretary of State talked about all these wonderful protections, so let us look at them: they will not have to travel to Northern Ireland—they can appear remotely; they will be given help to appear remotely—I assume that means that somebody will show them how to work an iPad; and they will not have a knock at the door from anybody other than the military police, so the PSNI will not be coming over from Northern Ireland and knocking at their door at 6 o’clock in the morning. That is hardly any reassurance to the people who served in Northern Ireland. Then we are told that dealing with the families who were affected by the troubles is a joint responsibility with Irish Government. There is no obligation in this statement on the Irish Government, other than to throw 30 pieces of silver at the legacy mechanism to assuage their guilt for protecting terrorists over 30 years and for covering up for the collaboration of some within the Irish establishment who helped the IRA in their job.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have not had a great record in the courts recently. Kneecap’s case was thrown out because the paperwork was not correct, and now we have the spy case not proceeding because evidence was not provided. The fact of the matter is that China now controls many of our supply chains, holds a lot of our national debt, and is an important part of the economic framework in the United Kingdom because of its investment in strategic industries. The general public may not understand the intricacies of how a case is built up and who is involved in it, but can the Minister understand that despite his excuse-ridden statement today, many members of the public might be coming to the conclusion that national security is being sacrificed because the Government are not prepared to deal with our increasing economic dependency on China?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the forthrightness and clarity of the message she has sent from this House today. People in Northern Ireland appreciate the deep hurt experienced by those who went to worship and found that they were victims of terrorism. We have had people machine-gunned while praying, people shot dead as they came out of church, and people’s churches bombed over 30 years of IRA violence, and we understand that. Will she join me in expressing disgust at those in Northern Ireland who, in the very same week that this attack occurred, blocked roads and held protests celebrating Hamas terrorists who had carried out the atrocity two years previously? That kind of anti-Jewish hate drove the action we saw in Manchester. Does she agree that we cannot allow, under the cloud of free speech, people to use the language that drives sectarianism, which is causing hatred, division and the loss of safety in the United Kingdom?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it astounding not only that the laws on the border were made by the European Union, but that when it comes to those laws being applied, EU officials are actually directing officials from Northern Ireland as to which lorry should be searched, which goods should be looked for and which actions should be taken? We have foreign laws and foreign officials dictating the terms of trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government, in their own words in the framework document, have accepted that without smooth trading there will be economic and constitutional impacts? They not only owe it to the economy of Northern Ireland to sort out these issues; if they do not, they are accepting that they are happy enough to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland affected.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases. The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 10 Sept 2025 · Qatar: Israeli Strike · Hansard source

  More

  Let us look at the facts behind Israel’s strike. We have a bunch of terrorists who have been sitting in the safety of Qatar for years, organising and financing acts of terror, including the mass murder of civilians in Israel this week, and boasting about their involvement in it. Is it not an advance that those people are eliminated and it is made clear to them that they will face the consequences of the terror that they organise? Is showing them that they will be pursued and punished, and that they will not win, not more likely to drive them to the peace table than to continue their acts of terror?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pity that the Government have had to be dragged screaming into granting this inquiry into Pakistani rape and grooming gangs, but the inquiry is welcome. However, given the fact that nobody has been appointed yet, the terms of reference have not be determined and we do not even know how long the inquiry is going to take, I am sure the Minister will understand why victims will be looking for what can be done immediately to address their concerns. For those cases where police officers, social workers and council officials have been identified as covering up, can we be assured that their cases will be dealt with ahead of any inquiry? For those who have been put in jail, can we ensure that they serve out their sentences, unlike the Oxford Six, who were released early despite the recommendations?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to state that the business environment has not been good for the UK steel industry. The main cause for that adverse environment, of course, has been high energy prices—twice as high as those of European competitors and three times higher than those of US competitors. Given that the energy sector reminds us daily that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to continue his manic obsession with net zero, which has caused the high energy prices and this environment, how does the Minister hope to attract the private investment that she says is necessary to make the industry bounce back stronger and to grow tomorrow?

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered barriers to trade in the UK internal market. I am pleased to have been granted this debate. I do not have much luck securing debates in Westminster Hall, but I thought that perhaps nobody else would apply for a debate at the end of the last day before recess. I think I guessed right, so we have a debate on this very important issue. This debate is about the disruption to the UK internal market. My remarks are not based on the political stance that my party has taken against the Brexit arrangements agreed by the last Government and continued by the present Government; they are based on a report by the Federation of Small Businesses, an independent body interested only in the concerns of its members, that does not look exclusively at Northern Ireland. Indeed, the report is based mostly on responses from businesses in England, Scotland and Wales—only 14% of responses came from businesses in Northern Ireland. The impact on the internal market is a UK-wide concern. The report found that the Windsor framework is not protecting the market. There are considerable barriers, whether customs paperwork, European Union rules and laws applying in Northern Ireland, physical checks, delays in the delivery of goods, the labelling of goods not for EU use, or business-to-business parcels now being subject to customs procedures. As a result, many businesses have abandoned Northern Ireland. Indeed, the report highlights that 34% of small businesses that previously traded with Northern Ireland have now stopped, saying that the regulation has made it far too expensive to trade with Northern Ireland. Some of the regulations are ludicrous. One business wrote that some of the requirements are little short of farcical. They have to state that their goods have not been imported from Iraq, even though they were made in Great Britain. Others have been told to fill in forms to make it clear that canes imported for use in road construction are not being used to torture anybody. Businesses find themselves facing that kind of nonsense, and as a result they are abandoning Northern Ireland.

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. I will talk about some of that bureaucracy later in my speech. Fifty-eight per cent of businesses have faced significant or moderate difficulties, including rising transport costs, significant disruption to supplies, stock shortfalls, shortages, loss of sales and increased bureaucracy and costs, as well as the drain on their finances because of the payment of taxes and duties that take a long time to be repaid. Of the companies surveyed, 61% said that they had experienced negative consequences as a result of the Windsor framework. Significantly, despite what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would try to tell the House, only 2% said there were any positive benefits. More worryingly, 56% either said that they are “not confident” or only “slightly confident” about what will happen with their trading relations with Northern Ireland, and 29% said that they are likely to have to stop supplying to Northern Ireland in the future. That is on top of those companies that have already stopped. In fact, one company said that it was now more difficult to trade with Northern Ireland—that is, bring goods from GB into Northern Ireland—than it is to trade with Australia and the USA, which is why it would stop trading with Northern Ireland. What has been the Government’s response to all this, as it is well known? I am pleased that the FSB has now independently verified what we have all known anecdotally, as constituency representatives. I suspect that the Minister will say, “Oh, but we are doing our best. We have put in support mechanisms. We have the trader support service, we have HMRC guidance.” I hate to tell the Minister that the survey shows that 78% of businesses say the support is either “poor” or “very poor”—in other words, useless. The report says, “a similarly high proportion found access to the support difficult. Businesses frequently cited confusing or inconsistent guidance. As one NI manufacturer put it, navigating new customs paperwork via the Trader Support Service often feels like a ‘guessing game’.” It is a joke of a system. The defence is, “We have put in support mechanisms.” Well, they are not working. The second argument—and we have heard the Secretary of State make it repeatedly—is, “Oh, but you have other benefits. You have access to the dual market. You have the benefits of being able to sell into the EU, which companies in GB cannot do as freely, and to sell into the GB market.” We know now that the GB market is not accessible, and that supplies are not coming through. As far as the dual market system is concerned, when businesses were surveyed, 88% said that the opportunities were not explained—they did not know what the opportunities were—and 64% said that they did not even understand what the opportunities were. They said that it seemed like the Government were making no effort to promote the great benefit that was meant to be the result of the Windsor framework. I suspect that the reason why the benefit has not been promoted is because, as many of the companies said, it is more in theory than in reality. There is no real benefit. Of course, the latest argument is, “Well, the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU will smooth it all out.” Every time I hear that argument, if I am at home, I look down into Larne harbour from my study window and see that, despite the promises that the SPS agreement will do away with a lot of these checks, there is a border post being built—I can see it clearly from my study window. £140 million is being spent on it, and only last night, the local council was asked to sign a memorandum of association to ensure that it supplies staff for that border post until March 2029. Even if the SPS agreement were to do that, it covers only a very small part of the trade. All of the customs requirements, duty payments, checks, delays and parcel post will still be affected. EU regulations, affecting many businesses because the EU has different standards, will still apply. The one thing I hope I do not get from the Minister today is the same complacency, disdain and “I couldn’t care less” attitude that Northern Ireland experiences from our Secretary of State, whose attitude has been little short of disgraceful. Pontius Pilate-like, he has washed his hands of it all. If anything, he acts more like an EU emissary to Northern Ireland than a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can see that you are getting a bit uneasy, Dr Huq, but I notified the Secretary of State that I am angry at the way in which he has treated Northern Ireland, and he knew I was going to make these remarks this afternoon. In fact, I think I spelled them out to him. Let us look at some of the Secretary of State’s comments. When my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) recently raised a statistic from the FSB survey in the House, his attitude was, “Well, if some of the businesses can trade with Northern Ireland, why can’t the rest of them? It is up to them to decide where they want to trade and where they don’t.” When someone who is meant to be standing up and fighting for Northern Ireland takes that kind of attitude, I despair about whether this issue is being taken seriously. In a recent letter to me, the Secretary of State indicated that, as far as he is concerned, the main thing is to ensure that we “faithfully” pursue the Windsor framework because the EU is getting angry that some of the regulations may not be fully implemented. Here we have damaging regulations for Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State’s response is, “Well, I have to stand up for the EU. Northern Ireland businesses? Let them paddle their own canoe.” I know that others wish to speak, and I am pleased that so many have stayed on the last day. I do not want them to miss out, so this is the last thing. What do we need? I could go through many of the options that we have proposed and that the Government have dismissed, but I ask the Minister for one simple thing. All the paperwork, all the regulations, all the delays and all the checks are founded on one thing: that goods entering Northern Ireland from GB are regarded as at risk of going into the Irish Republic, contaminating its economy in some way and breaking EU rules. Custard, the stuff we heat and pour over apple tarts or put into trifles, was deemed to be a dairy product, but it was not required to be labelled until phase 3 of the labelling requirements. However, the EU decided that perhaps custard should have been regarded as a product at risk, so it changed the labelling requirements. One of the big supermarkets had custard in its supply chain, and the EU bureaucrats decided that this custard must be hunted down—“We cannot have it coming into Northern Ireland and finding its way into the Irish Republic.” Lorries with mixed loads were stopped and searched. The offending custard was hunted down, discovered and exposed. That delayed the lorries, which did not reach the depot in time, so their goods could not be broken down and distributed to the various shops. It affected the supply chain and the supply of shops in Northern Ireland. Here is the irony: the supermarket did not have any shops in the Irish Republic. The offending custard was okay one day, but not the next, because it did not have a label that it did not require the previous day. There was no evidence that anybody was dying from eating this custard in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, but the supply chains for a major supermarket in Northern Ireland were disrupted. I am sure many Members could tell story after story about how the regulations are having an effect. What is it all down to? It is down to goods presenting a “risk”. What risk? We do not know. A simple change could be made so that goods are deemed at risk only once they leave Northern Ireland and go into the Irish Republic or elsewhere. The Road Haulage Association and Federation of Small Businesses have asked for that. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure that happens. After all, all the companies that are selling these goods have VAT returns. HMRC trusts those companies at the end of the year to declare how much VAT they owe. If the goods have gone out of Northern Ireland, they do not have to pay VAT. Why can that VAT return not be used to follow the goods to where they eventually go? There is much disruption to trade, though not to all of it. I am sure Members will talk about the inequity and constitutional implications of EU law applying to Northern Ireland, but one simple change can be made. Rather than kowtow to the EU, or be afraid that the reset with the EU might be disturbed if we ask for something simple, I ask the Minister to consider that one simple change, which many businesses have said would restore their ability to trade freely within our own market, selling goods that are not at risk. It would be of immense help to the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the Minister has stepped in at short notice and is probably reading from the Government brief, but I am really disappointed. He talked about the review of the internal market and how the legislation was designed to uphold Northern Ireland’s position and ensure the free movement of goods. I do not know whether the Minister has listened to what Members have said here today, but the free movement of goods is not happening. The internal market is being disrupted. He talks about ensuring that no more unnecessary barriers arise, but we have the labelling coming through now and the EU export control system coming through in September. We also have all the new EU legislation, which will impact on businesses and create different standards in Northern Ireland. The Minister then put the cream in the cake by saying that the Government are committed to the Windsor framework, but the Windsor framework has been the cause of the issues raised in this report. All I can say is that this Government are going down the road of making sure they do not upset the EU—

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that this war must end. However, we must remember that it was started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people, took captives and still abuse those captives today. The war could finish tomorrow if the terrorists released those captives and agree to a ceasefire. Much has been said today about Israel trying to starve the people of Palestine, but the fact is that since the new arrangements were put in place to stop Hamas stealing aid, 82 million meals have been supplied in Gaza. Instead of talking about a two-state solution and recognising a state that does not exist—and that, if it did exist, would be controlled by terrorists—our Government should be standing by the Israeli Government, who are seeking justice for their own citizens.