Sammy Wilson
MP for East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also…”
“It is a sad state of affairs when ordinary people feel compelled to take direct action against illegal immigration into our country as a result of successive Governments failing to stop the invasion of our country by illegal immigrants, aided by criminal gangs.”
“The Chancellor has rightly identified trade frictions as a major impediment to economic growth. As a result of the Windsor framework, the internal market in the UK has been severely disrupted by EU-imposed restrictions on trade, which mean customs unions, mountains of paperwork and physical barriers. What steps does the right hon.”
“We would not need these regulations were it not for EU regulations having to apply to a certain part of the United Kingdom because it is regarded as part of the EU, regardless of the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU. This is not about protecting biodiversity.”
“Because they are now subject to all these additional regulations. If they do not abide by those regulations—we have already seen this—those goods can be seized, destroyed, re-exported or detained by DAERA in Northern Ireland. That is not something which is just a maybe; it happens currently.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Minister outlined why these regulations were necessary and gave what, to most on the Committee, would be an acceptable argument: they are to protect biodiversity in Northern Ireland and to ensure that diseased plants are not accessing the Northern Ireland market.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,500 lines we hold for Sammy Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 90.
“The people who did it had no alternative.” Apart from the impact on the victims, it also sends a message to those who are listening that maybe this was not a bad thing anyway. If the situation arises in the future, will those young people be easily recruited to commit the same acts? In the Minister’s response to me, she argued—I hope that I have got this right—that the amendment will prevent legitimate debate on historical events, but reading the amendment shows that nothing can be further from the truth. The amendment says that the offence would occur if the comments relate “to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed”. Therefore it does not prevent people from saying that something happened in the past or that an event is historical and a debate can be around it.”
“We’ve got to have freedom of speech.” That is fine, but when that freedom of speech is abused and the law prevents us from stopping that, we should be concerned. I met with Jewish students recently. Some 49% of Jewish students have heard either directly or in their presence the glorification of Hamas terrorism and what was done on 11 October. We have to bear in mind that this is prevalent in our society. It is prevalent in Northern Ireland. This is not just about promoting the terrorist message. It is also about the impact it has on the victims of terrorism and the anger it causes when people in public positions are allowed to stand up and praise the actions of those who killed their loved ones and maimed members of their family, arguing, “I’m proud of the people who did it. I honour the people who did it.”
“The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. The whole point of the amendment is to ensure that there is not the ability to keep on promoting the terrorist message. We do not just need a physical defeat of terrorism but an ideological one. They make their arguments to ensure that if they have to pause their campaign or do not achieve all their objectives, the poison is injected into the next generation, who will have justification for carrying on what they want them to do, to achieve their goal. Increasingly, the narrative of politics in GB is being infiltrated by sectarian arguments and sectarian division. All of us should be worried that the law is inadequate to deal with those who have evil intent. I know that some will argue, “But people have to be allowed to say what they want. We live in a democracy.”
“Given the threat that the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon present to world peace—in the middle east and beyond—does the Prime Minister not accept that action against the regime was inevitable, in order to cut back its military ability and its ability to blackmail the rest of the world by illegally stopping an important waterway? That has economic consequences for our country, but does he accept that, given the additional tax revenue for the Government from increased fuel prices, there is room to give extra support and that, in the longer run, we can extract our own oil and other resources, get the tax from that and have a secure supply that cannot be interrupted?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?”
“When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor.”
“Does the Minister not agree that if the nation is listening to this debate, it will be totally confused, or else think that this must be one of the most incompetent Governments ever?”
“I doubt whether many people across the nation are watching the Parliament channel at the moment to see this statement. The Minister started off saying that this space is critical to our national security, allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability in global trade, is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and abroad. Anyone watching this debate might then ask why the devil, if we owned it, we were giving it back to the Mauritian Government to then lease it for £35 billion from a Government who are more interested in some of the states that are hostile to our interests in the area.”
“A recent Policy Exchange document entitled, “Closing the Back Door” highlighted that, as a result of the Irish Government freeloading on the UK and NATO, they were increasingly reliant on the UK for security, particularly regarding air defence and maritime security, resulting in an inability to protect their own airspace and territorial waters, including crucial transatlantic cables. That has created a back-door vulnerability for the UK and NATO. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government to up their game and provide for some security measures? Does he have any concerns that a future Irish Government that included Sinn Féin could lead to any co-operation breaking down?”
“As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?”
“The Government may not want to be drawn into a war with Iran, but Iran has declared war on us by attacking our bases, trying to kill our civilians, attacking our economy, and even engaging in acts of terror in our country. We have found this weekend that we rely on the US to protect our bases, and require its defensive capability to do so. Does that not lead the Secretary of State to the conclusion that, rather than begrudgingly providing limited access to our bases, we should be giving full support to the Americans and the Israeli Government in destroying this regime, to stop it fomenting war in the middle east and blackmailing us economically?”
“We should not be surprised by the attacks that happened in Golders Green last night because after all, we have been promoting this antisemitism in various ways across the United Kingdom—whether it is the sectarianism of politics that we have seen from some parties directed towards the Jewish community, whether it is a Labour council in Kent promoting an art show that shows Jews eating babies with blood dripping from their teeth, whether it is a chief constable trying to ban Jewish fans based on lies, or whether it is the leader of the Green party encouraging councils to boycott trade with Israel, even though that would be illegal. Does that not set the atmosphere that Jewish people are a target because Jewish people in some way are doing things that are evil and wrong?”
“Will the Minister accept that if these changes go through and people save less for their future, we will have pensioner poverty? That is the impact of these measures.”
“The Minister has insisted that he does not want to get drawn into a wider war, but with the targeting of our civilians and bases and our economy being strangled, how much wider could the war get? Does he not recognise that Iran has been able to close off the strait of Hormuz as and when it wants to, using its proxies and its geographical position? It is only once Iran learns the lesson that that tactic will not be accepted and that blackmail will not be accepted that that will not be repeated. What is this reluctance? Is it because we do not have the ability or we just do not have the political will?”
“Given that she is still to bring forward a plan to spend the £81 million granted in the Budget last year, will he ensure that he keeps her feet to the fire so that people in Northern Ireland can receive the support that they need now, not next winter?”
“I suppose it was inevitable that the Minister would take the opportunity to bang the drum for his disastrous net zero policy, which has been responsible for giving people in the United Kingdom the highest electricity prices in the whole of Europe. Of course, he talks about the need for energy supply and security. We have our own gas and oil and, as far as I know, it does not have to go through the strait of Hormuz or through a Putin-controlled pipeline, yet we have turned our back on it. I welcome the support for Northern Ireland, even though it amounts to about £34 per household, but I noticed that the Minister said he is working closely with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
“The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?”
“We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?”
“No building society would charge someone more for their mortgage if they got a bit richer; they enter into an agreement and the terms are there. The third point is that it is not fair that, in some cases, because of the freezing of thresholds, many people who are on low incomes are now dragged into the system of repayment, and pay up to 9%. A number of things have been suggested. The first is that thresholds should not be frozen, but should increase with inflation. The second is that interest rates should be clear and linked to CPI. The third is that repayment should be set at a reasonable level of 5%—”
“At the start of this debate, there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing as to who is to blame for this problem—was it the Conservatives, or the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition? I do not think that is the point. The point is that there is a problem, and we now have a Government who have the ability to deal with it. The second point—this word has been used time and again in this debate—is about whether the system is “fair”. I know the Chancellor believes that the arrangements in place are reasonable and fair, and I think that is wrong. It is not fair that people take out loans and then find that the terms of those loans are changed. It is not fair that, as people earn more money, the terms of the loans are changed.”
“Does the hon. and learned Member accept that the situation is even worse than that? If goods that are subsidised or get state aid in GB have a tenuous connection with markets in Northern Ireland, the EU can again limit the amount of state aid given, disadvantaging some producers even here in GB.”
“Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a further chilling effect? Namely, companies that might decide to invest in GB or in Northern Ireland may well feel that since they would be able to achieve less support in Northern Ireland than in GB, they will simply choose to invest outside Northern Ireland in GB, and jobs and investment opportunities will therefore be lost as a result of the picture he has painted.”
“Northern Ireland would expect to do well out of this process, because proportionally we export much more of our industrial production than other parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister rails against the decision on Brexit and so on, but does he accept that since the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave the EU, the Government’s responsibility was to make sure that the whole of the United Kingdom left on the same terms?”
“Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?”
“Last week the Government pushed through the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on domestic shipping. That will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland, because so many goods are brought into Northern Ireland from GB, or sent there, on ferries. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact this will have on consumer prices and manufacturing costs in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that Northern Ireland will face heavy costs because of this net zero policy?”
“I ask this particularly because when heckling fails, some Members of this House now threaten other Members by reporting them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to try to silence them that way.”
“Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored. Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner used her powers to silence Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who were questioning Ministers too vigorously, or who were not showing enough empathy when they made public statements about security situations in their constituency?”
“Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.”
“Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here. The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against.”
“I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country. Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent.”
“Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances. My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—”
“No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—”
“First, I am asking for a delay to allow further review and assessment of the impact. Secondly, given the likely impact on Northern Ireland and other isolated parts of the United Kingdom, I ask that the domestic application of the measure be dropped.”
“There is a case for saying that this measure should not be applied to domestic transport; we have heard about the impact on ferries to the islands. There is certainly a case for looking at the speed with which it is being implemented. I urge the Committee to consider those points. I know that I will not have a vote on this measure. I suspect that even if I did have a vote and we tried to pack the place, it would not make any difference. I just ask that these serious issues are considered. This is not just a whinge and saying, “We don’t like this applying to Northern Ireland.” The measure will have serious impacts on our main trade routes with GB. The freight rates for those routes will not achieve the result that the Minister outlined. I ask that the issue be reconsidered with two solutions in mind.”
“I have already mentioned the fact that this policy will first of all not reduce emissions because there are no alternatives, and secondly, the revenue that we raise from it will not be used to help operators transition from the methods that they use at present. There is nothing in this order about making money available for retrofitting, fuel experimentation and development, or putting power facilities on port sites to enable ships to use an alternative means of propulsion. This is simply a tax. It will not even achieve what the Government want—namely, to reduce emissions. It will have an impact on an economy—on a part of the United Kingdom —already burdened by actions that the previous Government took with the Windsor framework, which has been continued by this Government. This will be yet another cost on top of that.”
“My argument is this: if the 50% allowance has been put in place, it is only because the Government recognise the disproportionate impact that the measure will have on Northern Ireland. According to the operators, that 50% allowance will go nowhere near to wiping out the costs. It has not even been mentioned that this measure will have to be in place by July. There is not even any clear guidance available yet to the operators about what they will be required to do, and the EU is reviewing its emissions trading scheme simply because it recognises that there are technical details that need to be ironed out, yet the Government will load their scheme on to operators in three months’ time.”
“They may look to the Irish Republic, for example, for supplies instead of bringing them from GB, if the routes are more costly”, but the fact remains that we are dependent on GB, our main supply route is from GB to Northern Ireland and most of our goods are going from Northern Ireland to GB, so there is not even an alternative to switching, even if that were desirable, and it is not desirable because firms choose the GB market because it is profitable for them and they choose GB suppliers because they are the best suppliers that they can use for their businesses. The Government will probably say, “Well, yes, but we have made a 50% allowance for Northern Ireland”. I suppose the Minister will argue that that is a recognition that there is a special case for Northern Ireland.”
“On top of that are the regulatory costs, which, again, the impact assessment says will be passed on to the operators anyhow. That is before any mitigation measures; those are just the administrative costs. What will the total cost of this be? Those costs are bound to have an impact in many ways. The one thing Members can be sure of is that they will be passed on in higher freight rates, including in the freight rates between Northern Ireland and GB. Some may argue, “Well, that simply means that Northern Ireland producers will look elsewhere.”
“They cannot opt for the electrification of ships; first of all, it is quite expensive, and secondly, the port infrastructure facilities are not even available. It is also significant that there is no support package either. There was no talk anywhere in the Minister’s comments of the revenues raised being used to help the transition to different ways of transporting goods. The administrative costs that will be imposed through this order have already been mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. The assessment gives us a range of between £103 million and £287 million. I think that shows that it is just a guess, and it indicates that the Government do not have a clue what the administrative costs will be. That is only the direct administrative costs for the operators, by the way.”
“The order’s impact on emissions will not be all that great anyway. It is not as if the measure will be an incentive for operators to change their behaviour, as they cannot: there are no alternatives other than sea transport. Therefore, whatever additional costs are imposed will have to be borne by consumers. I know the Minister talked about the reduction in emissions and working towards net zero and everything else. Given the nature of sea transport and its importance for transport between Northern Ireland and GB, as well as the lack of alternatives, this policy cannot lead to transport providers changing how they behave. They cannot go for alternative fuels; near-net zero fuels would simply price them out of the market because they are four to five times dearer than the fuels they use.”
“The impact of the measure will have a disproportionate cost, especially in Northern Ireland, which relies on sea transport for the import of goods from GB, and for the export of goods from Northern Ireland to GB. Although the order is regarded as a domestic measure, it nevertheless affects an important part of our economic infrastructure, all to deal with an issue that results in about 1% of the UK’s total emissions. The order does not deal with a huge amount of carbon emissions, but it will have a disproportionate cost for Northern Ireland. That is on top of the costs that Northern Ireland already experiences as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, which has already added significantly to the cost of bringing goods in from GB and taking goods from Northern Ireland to GB.”
“I welcome the statement. It is a pity that it does not include hotels and restaurants, because the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland is under massive pressure due to taxes and the regulations that have been imposed. The Minister has confirmed that this will be new money and therefore there will be a Barnett consequential. Can he indicate how much that will be? More importantly, can he ensure that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister spends the money for the purpose that was intended, rather than spending it for other purposes, which he has done in the past?”
“Unusually, the Minister has resorted to bluster today, accusing those of us who are opposed to the treaty of being “irresponsible” and “toying with” the security of the country. Does he not accept that it is the Government who are toying with the security of this country by ignoring the views of the Americans who use the Diego Garcia base, the fears of the Chagossians and the drain on public finances? Are the Government not using their majority and their Members as pawns to push through a deal that they know is wrong, unfair and dangerous for the country?”
“Despite the fact that the plan will not apply to Northern Ireland, I welcome the aspect that applies to rented accommodation. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that, even with this plan, there will still be an up-front cost, so low-income families will have to borrow, which will be an impediment? Does he also recognise that despite what he has done on electricity prices, running costs will still be higher, because that is offset by the cost of his net zero policies, which cause electricity to be dearer than gas?”
“The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?”
“It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.”
“This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.”
“Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts. I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive.”
“It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad. The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.”
“The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties. If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong.”