Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have done the right thing, because steel is strategically important and the jobs are locally important. The Minister has asked what is next. I suspect that the House will come back to this issue, maybe very shortly, because over the last decade, we have seen energy-intensive industries flee the United Kingdom. Aluminium is gone, we have hardly any oil refineries, and we have one steel plant left. The reason for that is the mad net zero policy, which the Minister has tried to defend today. Decarbonisation has increased our energy costs, so that they are three times higher than in the US and eight times higher than in China. We do not have any local supplies of raw materials; we bring them halfway round the world. Carbon taxes add to the cost for businesses. Does the Minister accept that the economic reality is that we pour public money in at one end, and see it going down the net zero drain at the other?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Government have once again stood firm with Ukraine as it fights to defend its territory and send a message to dictators that they cannot change borders by military force. The Secretary of State has been asked twice already about this today, but we are giving €21 billion-worth of munitions and so on to Ukraine, and billions of Russian assets were seized as part of the sanctions we imposed on the regime. We have not had an answer from him yet on what progress is being made on that. Does he not fear, like me, that given the transactional nature of the way in which President Trump approaches these negotiations, those assets could become part of the negotiations, which would mean that Russia could hold on to them, avoid sanctions and avoid paying for the carnage it has caused in Ukraine?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  While the Scottish National party may see this as a judgment made by judicial bigots, most people will see it as a decision of common sense and will wonder why the courts had to decide what was a man and what was a woman. But given the intolerant, threatening and violent response from the trans lobby, will the Minister assure us that the judgment will not be undermined by the guidance she issues to the House and that vulnerable people, sports teams, hospital patients, teachers and children will be protected and not adversely affected as they have been in the past? Will she also assure us that it will be raised at the highest level of Government that Northern Ireland must be included in these protections?

• 8 Apr 2025 · National Wealth Fund: Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  What discussions has the Chancellor had with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the national wealth fund is used to promote economic growth in Northern Ireland? Does she not agree that the big impediment to growth is the fact that she is taxing businesses to death?

• 8 Apr 2025 · EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State says that the EU will take action on tariffs in its best interests, but businesses in Northern Ireland expect the Government to take action in the best interests of the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. He talks about how this can all be resolved by the reimbursement scheme. The fact of the matter is that the reimbursement scheme has failed. Businesses have to produce masses of information, and there are delays in payments—some businesses have to wait for hundreds of thousands of pounds to be reimbursed in taxes. That is not the answer. Surely, the answer is for the UK to collect the taxes that we impose on American goods and leave the EU to collect the taxes that it imposes.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  Jesus of course warned his disciples that in this world they would have tribulation. Many Christians across the world have experienced that tribulation in their own personal lives. Over 340 million Christians are actively persecuted for their faith. That ranges from discrimination, to imprisonment, torture and death. I think many of us find it difficult to contemplate and comprehend that people making the choice to be a Christian know that, in some countries, that is what they will suffer. One of the most moving experiences I have had in this House was at the Open Doors event, where I met a pastor from Nigeria, who told me that his church of 400 members was down to 22 because most of them had been killed. He was going back to be their pastor and to lead them, regardless of the consequences. I do not know how many of us in this room would have that kind of bravery. In this Parliament, we have a duty to keep highlighting these issues through the questions we ask and the debates that we have. The Government have power to do things through their trade, aid and asylum policies. One of the bishops in Syria told me that the Christian Church had been decimated in Syria, but even when refugees went to refugee camps, they were the first to be persecuted and discriminated against there. I think our asylum policy has to bear in mind those groups fleeing persecution and still being persecuted as they should have priority. There is much we can do and I hope that debates such as this one encourage the Government to do it.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  The statement today is further evidence of the economically damaging and market-distorting impact of the unrealistic net zero policies. The only reason that the Minister is having to impose fines on producers is that demand does not meet the targets that she has set for the production of electric vehicles. Does she not accept that the response from producers will be either to cut back production, reducing jobs, or to reduce the price of EVs, reducing profits and investment in the UK? Are car workers going to be the next group of workers to be sacrificed on the altar of net zero?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have seen a good example of faux outrage in this House today, as Members have condemned the Israeli Government. Would the Minister accept that, first of all, the Israeli Government have every right to decide to whom they give entry and to whom they refuse entry? Will he remind some of his colleagues that it was not so long ago that they were campaigning to get the President of the United States excluded from this country?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Great British Energy · Hansard source

  More

  In pursuit of their unrealistic and costly net zero policies, this Government have committed billions of pounds to carbon capture; guaranteed long-term prices to renewable energy sources, which has added to consumer Bills; and set up GB Energy, a costly quango. One project that is likely to apply to GB Energy is the proposal for a massive wind farm off the coast of Northern Ireland and adjacent to the Giant’s Causeway, a world heritage site and major tourist attraction. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that GB Energy does not support a project that would have a detrimental effect on our tourism industry?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  While no one wants to see the continuation of war in Gaza, under the terms of the ceasefire agreement Israel has the right to take action where there is an immediate threat. We have seen that Hamas have refused to release hostages and are now firing rockets into Israel. They are planning further attacks and, indeed, attacking and murdering their own citizens who protest against them. Is it not reasonable in those circumstances for Israel to take action to defend its own country? Should it not be the priority of this Government to ensure that Hamas release the hostages whom they are cruelly and cynically holding, and to ensure that UK aid is not used to prop up Hamas and help them to reassert their authority?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Member has read the schedule to the Bill. Agri-food products are not covered.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Although Opposition Members will perhaps deliberately choose to believe that the words and assurances given are ambiguous, does the hon. Member accept that even Government Members in the House of Lords believe there is an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up? One comment was: “The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 712.]

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady also accept that the Bill is not necessary to promote exports? If a company wants to export its products to Japan or Timbuktu, it will have to align with the regulations that exist in those countries anyway. It does not need a Government Bill, and—far worse—it does not need a Minister to have the power to make regulations without coming to this place.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone listening to the debate would think that it is all about saving children from choking on toys, buildings not burning down because of defective batteries in bicycles, saving lives, safe products, and even the internal market and safeguarding the Northern Ireland economy, but it is not about any of that. It is nice to dress it up like that, and I suppose using that kind of language is helpful to make the Bill relevant to constituents, but the Bill is nothing to do with that. Time and again Members have spoken about those kinds of issues—batteries catching fire, defective toys and so on—but they can and have been dealt with already in law. Indeed, we have even heard Members talking about illegal products being sold, so we do not need some Minister to change the law; we need someone to ensure that the laws in place are enforced. We already have a mechanism to make things illegal, so if there are gaps in the law, we can just use that mechanism. Let us not obscure what the debate is all about. It is not about gaps and the need to safeguard people. It is all about the Bill’s agenda, which is to give Ministers additional powers. The public see a Government with a majority of over 200 who have been able to drive through legislation that has frustrated and angered them, whether it is taking money off pensioners for winter fuel or the legislation that was driven through last week to meet the net zero agenda, which failed to prevent us from buying solar products from China that are made by slave labour. I could go through all the other things that have made people angry, but a Government with a majority of over 200 now want to take on additional powers to allow a Minister to avoid having to come to this House to ensure product safety. I have no doubt that the real reason Ministers wish to retain that power is that the Government have already set their mind on resetting our relations with Europe. They know it is unpopular with many of their supporters. They do not want to have constant scrutiny in this House on a weekly or monthly basis of new regulations that align us with Europe, so it is far better to give Ministers the power to do that quietly, without consultation or a vote in this House. As a number of Members have said, the Bill gives Ministers the power to do that. Indeed, some of the Government’s own supporters in the House of Lords made the point that the Bill contains the potential for dynamic alignment. The Government have been ambiguous about whether the powers will be used to do that, but I am fairly sure that is the main reason. There is little enough opportunity for this House to look at and challenge legislation, but I believe it is wrong for a Bill to allow Ministers, under the cover of darkness, to take us back into arrangements that we have escaped from. Members have mentioned Northern Ireland. We know the impact of the EU general product safety regulations already, because they apply in Northern Ireland. Businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom that want to sell their products in Northern Ireland will have to have agents in Northern Ireland. The EU makes these laws to try to tie other countries and companies to its regulations. I suspect the excuse the Government will use for pursuing dynamic alignment will be, “We’re doing it for the good of businesses in GB as well as Northern Ireland, because if we’re aligned to EU rules, we escape some of the restrictions on trade that the EU has imposed.” But why did we leave the EU in the first place, and why did many businesses support leaving the EU? First, the EU introduced costly regulations that did not even need to apply to many businesses because they never traded with the EU, but they still had to adjust their products to meet the regulations, which incurred costs.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the hon. Member has described many of these toys as “illegal”. In other words, the law is there already. This Bill is therefore not necessary to deal with children choking on toys and all the other things he has outlined. The law is already there; the question is, do we actually implement the law?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member accept that if Ministers got up at 9 o’clock in the morning and worked until 9 o’clock at night introducing regulations on the basis of this Bill every day, but there was no enforcement or the enforcement was as weak as he says it is on pottery, we would be no better off?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gives the House the assurance that the idea is not to take us back to EU laws or to have EU laws imposed on the United Kingdom, and yet the Bill heavily references EU laws. How does he explain that?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The potential is there, and it has been put in the Bill. I suspect that clause 2(7) has been included in the Bill to give that opportunity, if not now, then at some future time. The other reason why businesses have opposed the implementation of EU regulations and the other danger of dynamic alignment is that many of the laws and regulations made in Europe that we may be aligning ourselves with only get there in the first place because powerful lobby groups lobby the European Commission to get regulations imposed. Those regulations may well suit one particular industry, or even powerful firms within that industry, but they do not necessarily benefit all of business. Some have said of the Bill, “Oh, this will give certainty to business,” but it may well give businesses additional costs. Given what has happened in Northern Ireland and the way that our market with the rest of the UK has been disrupted, some may think that I would welcome the measures, but I do not welcome them for two reasons. First, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), many of the restrictions are on goods that are not even included in the Bill, as the schedule excludes them. Secondly, even if this problem is solved, it does not deal with the issue. We know that because Northern Ireland is subject to the EU single market regulations—300 areas of law, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) keeps reminding us on an almost weekly basis. The issue is that we have allowed the United Kingdom to be divided by the deal that was done with Europe. When the previous Government was in power, I warned that this would happen and that Northern Ireland would be the foot in the door. I believe that that will be used as one of the arguments for this legislation. The DUP will oppose the legislation because we believe it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom and does not address the problems that are faced in Northern Ireland.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has claimed today that she is building foundations for the economy, but sadly those foundations are built on sand—increased borrowing, higher inflation, lower growth, jobs taxes and so on. How will such structures stand against the economic forces that will be affecting the United Kingdom, as she has described today? Specifically, what proportion of the transformation fund will be available to the Northern Ireland Executive for the important transformation of public services in Northern Ireland?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak to amendment 4 and the subsequent amendments in my name, and to new clause 3. It is right that where a public health issue is identified, this body should look at whether anything can be done about it through law, fiscal policy, or the other levers available to us, but we should ask ourselves, when we introduce laws, what the consequences are. Are there any unintended consequences, and how practical and enforceable are the measures? If they are unenforceable, all we do is bring the law and this place into disrepute. While some have described this Bill as well-meaning, essential, a flagship Bill, and a show of leadership, I am concerned that we have given little thought to, and had little debate about, the consequences, which are hitting us in the face. Let us be honest with ourselves: it would be good to walk away at the end of today’s sitting and say, “We have done a wonderful thing for future generations; we have introduced laws that will do away with smoking and will improve the health of the nation,” but we are ignoring the fact that we have introduced legislation that is unworkable, and to which I believe, through my amendments, there is an alternative.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was the next point I was going to come to; the hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was going to say. We will place a burden not just on the retailer, but on those who work in the retailer’s store. We are concerned about assaults on retail staff; we have taken legislation on the subject through the House. The evidence from the British Retail Consortium is that many of those assaults take place when goods are denied to individuals because they cannot offer identification and show their age, so we are placing retailers and those who work in shops in great danger. There may be a safeguard against that in some of the bigger stores that have security guards, but many of the shops that sell tobacco are small corner retailers that do not have security guards, or even anyone in the shop other than the shopkeeper or the person behind the counter. Yet we are demanding that they implement the legislation, regardless of how practical or impractical it is for individuals to make a distinction between somebody who is 37 and somebody who is 36, or whatever.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is easier to distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old. Usually, the younger the age, the easier it is to make that determination, but it is much more difficult when people are older, yet that distinction will have to be made. The idea may be that the cost of the licence will be so expensive that many small retailers will be squeezed out of the market, and the only outlets will be bigger stores where there are security guards. However, the sale of tobacco provides an important part of the income of many small retailers. Whether we like it or not, we are putting a burden on people who will find that they are exposed to dangers and difficulties, and will be subject to the law if they make the wrong decision. The second issue, which has been touched on today, is what happens when people cannot get the tobacco that they want. Where do they go? They go to people who are prepared to sell it to them illegally. We cannot run away from the fact that the sale of illegal tobacco is already lucrative, especially because of the tax increases that we have introduced. It is lucrative for criminal gangs and it funds many of their activities. We have heard statistics that 7% of cigarettes and 33% of rolling tobacco are already sold by criminal gangs. In Northern Ireland, it is probably far higher because paramilitaries were involved in the trade and used it to fund their activities for so long. If anybody thinks, “Oh well, we’ll deal with that problem when it comes,” look at the history of Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds found its way into the coffers of terror gangs and action was not taken, because it was sometimes too hard or too difficult to trace the things. Yes, action has now been taken, but do not think that we are going to have an all-out assault on the booming industry that this legislation will produce. My last point about the Bill being impractical is that it cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as part of the EU single market, we are under the tobacco products directive. The Irish Republic tried to introduce similar legislation and found that it could not because of that directive. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, challenging the Government to amend the Windsor framework so that the legislation will apply across the United Kingdom. This is not a counsel of despair because I believe that there is an alternative, as set out in the amendment. Indeed, the Government’s own modelling suggests that a much more practical way is to set the age limit at 21. If the figures and the modelling are correct—although there are questions about the tobacco modelling on doing away with smoking in a generation—and if we impose the age limit of 21, which avoids some of the problems we have talked about with the sale of tobacco, we reach zero consumption by 2050, just as we do with the generational model. That avoids many of the problems and difficulties I have outlined and the consequences for retailers, rather than rushing into this. It is a headline-grabbing measure, but it has not worked elsewhere. Why did New Zealand drop it? Because of the booming market in illegal tobacco. I believe that in a number of years, we will find that we made the same mistake.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will have the answer to that if he reflects on what we are debating today. We introduced that legislation, yet here we are, revisiting the issue, because people are still smoking and health outcomes are still bad—and we have additional problems, which I will come to in a moment, namely the illegal purchase and supply of tobacco. We have tried this in the past—we have tried bans and all kinds of other measures—yet we still have the problem with us. Let us consider the consequences. First, we are being asked to introduce legislation, the burden of which will fall on retailers, because it is at the point of purchase that the scrutiny required by the Bill, and its implementation, will have to take place. There is a question that we have not debated yet: what happens when a retailer is faced in a few years’ time with two people, one aged 29 and the other 28, both demanding tobacco? One says “I’m 29” and the other says “I’m 29 as well.” The retailer is meant to distinguish which of them he can sell tobacco to legally. That is a real, practical problem, and it places a burden on the retailer, because if he does not make the right decision, he faces a fine and the removal of his license, and that source of income for his business will be affected.

• 25 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister find it puzzling that the NHS will be exempt from these changes, yet the many services on which people depend for their health—dental services, social care and so on—will be hit by this rise in national insurance contributions? [Interruption.] No services will remain unaffected, so people will not experience the healthcare that they require.

• 25 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that I can have this intervention without a musical interlude. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having my phone switched on. Will the hon. Member accept that not only are services likely to be affected, as he has outlined, but the Government’s aim of raising additional revenue will be affected as well? As he pointed out, they have given in to the bankers and non-doms because of the fear of losing revenue. Anecdotally, we know that many businesses, whether those supporting the national health service or other small businesses, will cut back on the number of staff that they employ because they cannot afford them, and that will lead to a loss of national insurance and tax contributions. It could be an own goal for the Government if they cause pain to businesses but do not get any revenue from it.