Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 11 Sept 2024 · Patrick Finucane Murder · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 2 Sept 2024 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 2 Sept 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity of approach to the situation in Ukraine following the change of Government here. However, the Minister has mentioned a number of times today that we are giving a long-term arms commitment to Ukraine. How can she make such a commitment, given the concerns about the equipment and ammunition available to our own armed forces, and what steps has she taken to ensure that the United Kingdom’s defence industry is geared up to meet both the commitments for our own armed forces and those that she is making to Ukraine?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Casement Park: Redevelopment · Hansard source

  More

  Many people were surprised when the Secretary of State, on first being appointed, made it his priority to deliver on Casement Park. Committing £320 million for a stadium to host five matches at a time when there are huge waiting lists to be dealt with in the health service, and with special educational needs and social housing needing funding, is an indefensible use of public money. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s view has not been influenced by any personal interventions by the chief of staff of the Labour party, for whom this is a personal project, and can he confirm that such an intervention would be a breach of standards in public life?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Casement Park: Redevelopment · Hansard source

  More

  2. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the redevelopment of Casement Park.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Did the hon. Gentleman also note that there was no mention at all of the cynical way in which Hamas have used civilians as human shields? They have used their schools, hospitals and homes. They are guilty of causing many of the civilian deaths that have occurred, because they have cynically used their own people.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but does he accept that much of that aid went to propping up corrupt regimes, which denied people the rights that we have in this country and was one of the things that drove immigration in this country? If aid is misspent or used to prop up regimes, it is detrimental, not helpful.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Aerospace Industry: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend pleased that Northern Ireland has tens of thousands of jobs in the industry? We are a major exporter as a result of the aerospace industry, and when people fly around the world, a third of the seats on aircraft are made in Northern Ireland. That is an amazing figure, showing how important the industry is not only to Northern Ireland but to Great Britain and the UK.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Aerospace Industry: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Given the difficulties with the apprenticeship levy and the way in which firms in Northern Ireland have lost out, does my hon. Friend wish, like me, that the Government will remedy that situation, so that when firms in Northern Ireland pay into the apprenticeship levy, they can benefit from that in training young people?

• 17 Jul 2024 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, may I correct something the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said? There has not been an increase in Sinn Féin representation following the election, though people might be forgiven for thinking so, given the way the BBC reported on the election in Northern Ireland. Secondly, may I congratulate the Government on their success in the election? Like others, we wish them every success, because a successful Government means a successful country. Thirdly, may I say to all those who have made their maiden speeches today that it is a very nervous experience? I can remember my maiden speech. My party’s leader at the time, Ian Paisley, took me aside and said, “Sammy, there are three things you’ve got to do. First of all, you’ve got to speak nicely about your constituency.” Over the years, I have listened to people speaking about their constituencies in their maiden speeches, and I have always thought that they would make great estate agents. Secondly, he said, “Say nice things about your predecessor,” despite the fact that I had spent a year knocking on doors, talking to people, addressing meetings and giving out leaflets to tell people why they should not vote for him. Lastly, he said, “Sammy, don’t be controversial.” Coming from Ian Paisley, that advice really capped it all. I will say two things about the King’s Speech in the time available to me. First, I am pleased that the Government are looking at how they can strengthen the Union and for ways to foster collaboration between the devolved Administrations, because sometimes devolved Administrations can be very divisive for the coherence of the country. They claim all the benefits and take credit for all the good things that happen, and they blame Westminster for all the bad things, which can cause division. As a Unionist, I am pleased to see that, through the proposed council of the nations and regions, we will hopefully get a greater degree of collaboration, communication and understanding between different parts of the Union. However, I have to say that this issue cannot be addressed unless the Government seriously look at the damage done to the Union by the previous Administration, which made Northern Ireland a sacrificial lamb in order to get a deal with the EU, leaving us with the economic and constitutional disadvantages and divisions that that has caused. Those are manifested on a daily basis, and the EU seems determined not to address them—whether it is veterinary medicines, which will wreck the farming industry; the recent dental amalgams, which will make dental treatment more expensive and very difficult in Northern Ireland; the latest controversy about funding for the shipyard and whether it contravenes state aid rules; or the disruption of supply chains, which is an issue that has to be addressed. We cannot have an economic division between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and a Government who profess that they want to strengthen the Union cannot ignore that elephant in the room. Many of the new Members who have been elected came here because they want to have an influence on the laws that govern the United Kingdom. There are 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland that are determined not by this Parliament or by the people elected in Northern Ireland, but in Europe, without any input from anyone in the United Kingdom. That is not democracy, and it has to be addressed. The second issue I will mention is the Government’s commitment to economic growth. In any country, economic growth depends upon cheap energy, and I am fearful that some of the policies that have already been implemented, and the promises made in the King’s Speech, will make it difficult to achieve economic growth. In the previous Parliament we lamented, almost on a monthly basis, the loss of energy-intensive industries. It did not matter whether it was Port Talbot, Corby or Grangemouth. Representatives from all over the United Kingdom saw the impact on their local communities, with thousands of jobs being lost because of energy policies and the costs of implementing net zero. If we are aiming for economic growth, we cannot allow the obsession with net zero to stand in the way of jobs in this country. I notice that in the commitment to net zero in the King’s Speech, we are told that we will get lower energy bills over time. Initially, of course, we will have higher energy bills. We want to remove the infrastructure that we have in place and put totally new infrastructure in place—windmills, new lines and all the other infrastructure that is required to bring energy from places where we do not currently produce it to where we need it. We need to strengthen the grid, because we are going to use more electricity. All of that costs, and it will put up consumers’ bills. At the same time, of course, we will make ourselves more dependent on the country that supplies all the vital metals required for that. We do not even gain any environmental benefits. The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) talked about the impact on his community. In my constituency, I see the Antrim hills being stripped of peat, 3 metres deep, to build wind farms. That is supposed to be environmental improvement. I look forward, over the period of this Government, to examining just what they do on this issue. We need to make sure that we do not have contradictory policies, whereby we aim for net zero but dip our hands into people’s pockets to pay for it.