Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Many of the Ukrainian refugees living in my constituency have expressed relief and gratitude that there has been continuity of policy in still supporting Ukraine with the change of Government. But at a time when Russia is finding that its economy is affected by the war and is having to rely on Iran, China and Korea to continue the war, does the Minister think it unwise to start talking of negotiations about land and so on, which will only encourage Putin and his regime? Should we not be talking about increasing the resolve of our partners, giving military support and seizing Russian assets to let Ukraine use them?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the fact of the matter, despite what the Chancellor has said, that businesses have been abandoned? There is no safety net for them. To use the words of the Chancellor, “What we have done with the increase in employer national insurance is leave it to the business to work out”. Businesses are bearing the brunt of this, and it is really too bad. As far as the Chancellor is concerned, they will have to grin and bear it.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill represents a major breach of the promises made by the Government when they stood for election. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), was right: people should be cynical, and people are cynical about the way in which politics is sometimes conducted in this country. He talked about his amazement at the anger expressed from the Opposition Benches. I assure the House that, were the situation reversed—with the Conservative party on the Government Benches, introducing measures that the Office for Budget Responsibility, the IFS and everybody else said would hurt ordinary working people—Labour Members would be incandescent with rage. That is the whole point. A promise was made: “We will not tax working people.” At the end of the day, when people have to pay for their goods, their shopping and so on, it really does not matter to them whether their income has been reduced as a result of direct taxation being taken out of their pay packets in the form of income tax, or whether it has been reduced indirectly by taking the money from their employer. In turn, as the IFS, the OBR and others have said, that will impact on real wages. As the IFS pointed out, it will especially impact the real wages of the lowest paid—that is the whole point. We can play with words, but the truth of the matter is that a tax increase has been imposed on employers, and the OBR says that in 76% of cases, the impact on wages will be felt by ordinary working people. That is a broken promise, no matter how we look at it. The Government’s excuse has been that they will try to alleviate that impact. People have talked about different sectors so far in the debate, and I am not going to go through all of them, but let us just look at two examples. The first is small businesses. We are told that they can deal with the impact because they are geniuses. What will they do? They will increase productivity. Funnily enough, the public sector is to be protected—the Government are not looking for any increases in productivity there. We are told that small businesses will find ways of decreasing their expenditure, but funnily enough, the Government are actually looking for ways of spending more money. They are spending £9 billion on a quango, Great British Energy. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero came back from COP29 and told us that the Government were now committed to giving £300 billion away to foreign Governments for climate change, but he would not even tell us how much the Government were going to pay out to those Governments. For the nationalisation of the railways, again, there is an open cheque book. We are told that there are no alternatives. Businesses have to find alternatives, but the Government happily spend the revenue that they are taking. Then, of course, the social care sector and GPs are told, “Go to the NHS and renegotiate your contract.” The NHS does not have to pay the national insurance rise itself—it is exempt. Do we really believe that when the GPs and the social care sector go to the NHS and say, “We want to renegotiate our contracts,” the NHS is going to say, “Oh, you need money for national insurance? There you are—take it.” All the excuses have been given today: we are told that there is no money, but it can be spent on other things. We are told that the social care sector and GPs can renegotiate, and that the private sector will be inventive. Let us see some invention by the Government, rather than broken promises.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I make it clear why these regulations are required? The only reason for introducing them is that the previous Government, supported by the present Government when they were in opposition, accepted that Northern Ireland should be divided from the rest of the United Kingdom. Normally, these checks for goods coming from a third country would have been done at the recognised international border of the country that is imposing them. However, because of the decision to divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom and to disregard the international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the checks that would normally have taken place there, these checks are necessary for trade going from Northern Ireland into GB. I welcome the fact that Northern Ireland trade has been differentiated from trade from the Republic of Ireland into GB, but the fact of the matter is that there will still be impositions for those who are trading across the border. Those impositions will be disruptive and will mean that trade is convoluted. There is a certain irony in what is being proposed. First of all, we can do checks without physically stopping anything at the border. One of the reasons for a border between Northern Ireland and GB was that we were told that it was impossible to do checks on trade from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland or vice versa without having physical checks on the border. Now we are told that it can be done by the production of certificates, done at warehouses, done at the point of destination and so on. There is a bigger question for the current Government. The issue is not going away; it is still causing difficulties for trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Why cannot the principle and the practice that are being established in these regulations be applied to all trade, including trade from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic? Secondly, the draft regulations will leave Northern Ireland exposed to the dangers, problems and issues against which we are trying to safeguard the rest of the UK market. The SPS checks and certifications apply to goods that are moving from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB; they do not apply if the goods are simply moving from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. There are fears about that, and quite rightly so, because it is clear that the authorities in the Irish Republic have been lax in the past when it comes to imposing regulations on animal safety and so on. According to the draft regulations, goods can move from the Republic into Northern Ireland and can be used in Northern Ireland, be consumed in Northern Ireland or reach their final destination in Northern Ireland without any checks. It is only when they move into another part of the United Kingdom that such checks will be imposed. That indicates that as a result of the current arrangements with the European Union, Northern Ireland is being left exposed not only to the disruption of trade, but as regards the safety of some of that trade. I would like to hear from the Minister what the intention is in the longer term. If checks away from the border prove ineffective, and traders decide to ignore them or abuse them, at what stage do the Government envisage the possibility of physical checks on lorries crossing into GB from Northern Ireland? How would those lorries be distinguished from lorries originating in the Irish Republic? What about lorryloads brought into Northern Ireland, put into Northern Ireland-owned lorries and taken into GB? It would be a constitutional and economic affront if we found ourselves in a two-way system. Vehicles are already being checked when coming from GB into Northern Ireland, even though very little of that trade will ever finish up in the Irish Republic. If barriers were imposed in the other direction, it would be a double affront to people in Northern Ireland. Whatever approach is taken, the issue will always arise of where the international boundary is placed within the country that we belong to. The Minister says that the regulations are an interim measure and that she will look at the border operating model later on, whenever it is imposed, formalising it in a more structured way. We will closely monitor how this works and what happens in future. As long as this uncertainty goes on, businesses in Northern Ireland will be left with the question of the cost of doing business in our main market. We have already seen the uncertainty that the checks on goods from GB to Northern Ireland have caused for businesses in GB and in Northern Ireland. This is yet another irritant—another barrier that will disrupt the flow of trade between the two parts of our country. It does not augur well for the promise of unfettered access. Indeed, the very fact that we have to impose these checks indicates that the flow of trade within the United Kingdom is not normal and will not be normal until the issue of the protocol and the Windsor framework is dealt with.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Since those checks do not cover the goods when they come into Northern Ireland, but only when they go into GB, what assurances can the Minister give to people in Northern Ireland that they will not be subject to dangers or disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom will not face?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The move towards the border control operating model started under the last Government. As several hon. Members have already indicated, it was chaotic: no one could give any answers about how it would operate. I am sure that we have all met traders in our constituencies, especially hauliers, who could not get answers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or any other Department. Will the Minister make sure not only that Northern Ireland Members are informed, but more importantly that businesses, which know the difficulties of operating under that model, are informed and have discussions with her?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Point of Order: Rectification Procedure · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise to the House for my failure to declare an interest when tabling a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on 26 January 2024. When I tabled the question, I inadvertently neglected to declare my interest of a fact-finding trip to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which was paid for by the Turkish chamber of commerce. That was a breach of the rules. I apologise to the House for that error. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his time and care in rectifying this matter.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Migration and Border Security · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Administration cannot, Pontius Pilate-like, wash their hands of this immigration mess that has placed intolerable burdens on mostly disadvantaged working-class communities, but the Government now have responsibility for this matter. They cannot pass it back again: they have responsibility. What I would like to hear from the Home Secretary today—despite what has happened since July, with 20,000 more immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, hotel places up and foreign criminals still waltzing through the courts claiming human rights to stop themselves being removed—is what she intends to do to remove the pull factor that encourages people to see Britain as an easy touch.

• 2 Dec 2024 · North-West Syria · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, we find the people of Syria squeezed between two vicious regimes: the Assad regime and the terrorists. We know from what has happened in the past that they will again be subjected to barrel bombs and find themselves cowering in basements, that they will be denied basic medical facilities and so on, and that they will flee. Are we pre-empting where bases and camps might be set up based on what we know from the past about the kinds of routes that people are likely to take? More importantly, given that minorities have been persecuted in such camps, have we put in place arrangements to safeguard them, and, as was suggested earlier, to assess asylum claims in those camps, rather than forcing people to flee across Europe in the hope that they get asylum once they reach the coast?

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the initiatives and recognise that this is not a problem that has been created by the Government; it has been with us for a long time and started long before July this year. Northern Ireland has the highest level of economic inactivity in the UK, despite the fact that I can think of many initiatives in my own constituency for people with learning difficulties, for apprenticeships in certain sectors, for the work of local colleges and so on. Despite all that, the problem persists—and that is in a place with almost full employment. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, despite a Budget that will make it more difficult to recruit, she can set objectives for the number of people she believes can be brought from unemployment into work as a result of the initiatives?

• 26 Nov 2024 · COP29 · Hansard source

  More

  Let me get this straight. The Secretary of State is welcoming a conference to deal with CO 2 where the host country tried to use it to sell oil and gas deals; where the leaders of those countries that are the major producers of CO 2 did not even bother turning up; where we sent 490 civil servants, flying them out to attend the conference; and where the main topic was how to extract money from countries that were guilty of the sin of industrialisation. The Secretary of State has shot out his chest today and said, “We are now leaders in global climate.” It is hard to be a leader when we have no followers, that is all I will say. How can the Secretary of State face the hard-pressed taxpayers of the United Kingdom, who are reeling under the impact of the latest Budget, and expect them to pay out billions to foreign countries—

• 20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has outlined the lack of confidence in police services across the United Kingdom because of the failure to deal with real crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. At the same time, we learn that three police forces have spent a year investigating a tweet by a columnist after a report from someone in Holland. Surely, if there is to be reform, one thing we should do is tell the police that they are no longer the thought police. They are meant to be dealing with crime. If that means changing the bad law introduced by the last Government, will the Minister make sure it is done so that we do not have any more of this nonsense?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The boast was that Northern Ireland would have the best of both worlds—the European market and the UK market. Would the hon. and learned Member accept that all the evidence says that, even apart from just the undemocratic nature of laws being imposed on us, businesses are facing huge tax burdens, where they have to pay taxes and then claim them back? They have been shut off from their markets and cannot get supplies, and there are still many sectors of the economy that cannot get supplies from GB.

• 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?