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 9 of 90.
“I am pleased to hear it. I certainly do not read The Guardian , and I certainly do not share the view, held by some of its readers, that we should pay more taxes. In closing, the Government have a huge responsibility to tax wisely and to spend wisely, and I do not think they have got that equation right. In fact, they are spending recklessly in many areas, and taxing recklessly as well. That will impact on their long-term objectives, but it will also impact on the lives of our constituents day to day.”
“Let me try to understand the Minister’s logic. First, he recognises that we will need oil and gas. Secondly, he is going to tax oil and gas companies. Thirdly, he is telling them that his Government are creating an environment in which there is no future for oil and gas, but he still expects them to invest. Where is the logic?”
“The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?”
“I look forward to hearing her speak later in the debate in defence of these measures, which will cost jobs. We have heard that those jobs will be replaced by highly paid, skilled jobs in the renewables industry, but there is little evidence of that so far. Indeed, if we look at the sources of the materials and the providers of, for instance, wind turbines, we see that the skilled jobs are not in Britain. We are making ourselves dependent on countries such as China which have control of the earth metals and valuable metals that are required to provide the necessary equipment for the renewables industry.”
“Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) said that hers was the party that was interested in ordinary workers. As has already been pointed out, no Scottish Labour Members are taking part in the debate. I suggest that the 100,000 workers in Scotland who depend on the oil and gas industry feel abandoned today because there is no one here to defend them—although I have to say that if I were a Scottish Member I might not want to stick my head over the parapet, defend measures such as these, and then have to go back to my constituents to explain. I suspect that they will go through the Lobby and vote for those measures, but— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is opening her arms and saying that she is from Scotland.”
“The Government have set a number of objectives that they wish to achieve over the next five years. Central to those objectives are growth, highly paid jobs, energy security, and increased investment. However, when I look at clauses 15 to 17, I ask myself, “Have the Government gone mad?” They are undermining the very objectives that they are seeking to achieve through their policy of taxation, a policy that I believe is driven more by green ideology and by prejudice against some high-earning companies than by any economic logic. The economic logic of these proposals, and indeed the predictions made by those who have fed in the data and the information about them, indicate that, at least in our major oil and energy industry, investment will go down, production will go down, and highly paid jobs will go down. The hon.”
“The idea that we will rely on fossil fuels until well beyond 2050 but not produce them ourselves—in fact, we are going to discourage companies from producing them in the United Kingdom, even though we know that we have the resources—and somehow or other we will still guarantee security of supply, and security of energy, for our constituents is just madness.”
“It is not just that they have not been tried and tested. There is also an acceptance—indeed, it is the Government’s own stated position—that even with those technologies, we will be reliant on, and will need, oil and gas not until 2030 and not even until 2040, but beyond 2050. If we do not extract as much oil and gas from our own resources here in the United Kingdom, where will we get it from? We will get it from abroad, which brings us to the issue of energy security. The places where energy is likely to be produced will not be stable countries, countries that will always be favourable towards us, or countries that are ruled by rational rulers. It will come from countries where rulers are irrational, and take political decisions about who they do or do not trade with on a whim.”
“Unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the hundreds of thousands of people facing rising fuel bills, the 100,000 workers who will face redundancies and an industry that we very much need in this country going into decline.”
“If the Government are so sure that this cunning plan is going to work—I think Baldrick would have been embarrassed by this cunning plan, I have to say—they should not fear any examination of it. They should welcome it. In fact, maybe once the assessment is done, they will be able to point to red faces on the Opposition side of the House. If I were as certain as the Minister is that his plan was going to work, I would be saying, “Right, we’ll do the assessment and we’ll make you eat your words.” I suspect that the reason that new clause 2 will be rejected today is that the red faces and the eating of words are going to be on the Government’s side of the House.”
“It will go to foreign countries, because that is where production will take place and where the oil companies will be taxed. They will get taxed where they make their profits. If they are not making any profits in the United Kingdom, they will not pay any revenue in the United Kingdom. They will take their production and tax revenue elsewhere. There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.”
“He argues that putting out a tax plan somehow gives assurance to companies, but sometimes it confirms their prejudice that Britain will not be a place where they have a future, or where they wish to invest. I turn to the third impact of these measures, building on a point made by the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley. The Government’s whole approach is to tax oil and gas companies, get money, and help working people by putting it into schools and so on. But the predictions are that we will not get more revenue, because if there is less production, there is less tax to be paid. If there is less tax to be paid, the Government have less revenue to invest in the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to invest in. Where does that tax go?”
“The second point I want to make is that we are leaving ourselves open to a situation in which companies that we need to invest in energy production will not do so. The OBR has made that quite clear, but even if it had not made its predictions, economic logic should make us understand that if we take investment allowances away from people and tax them, they will have less money to invest. The Minister makes a great point: by putting all these measures on the statute book, he creates certainty for the industry. He does create certainty, because anybody looking at the Bill knows for certain what the future entails: they are going to be taxed until the pips squeak, so they will look for other places to go and make their investment.”
“Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.”
“I think we all welcome the fall of the Assad regime, but it is important that he and his henchmen are eventually brought to justice. As we have seen in Iraq and Libya, the swift fall of a dictator leads to a dysfunctional state, with potential for illegal immigration, terrorism and many other problems. What can the Foreign Secretary say about Britain’s role in ensuring that Syria does not become a dysfunctional regime, how we can prevent terrorism from moving from Syria into other parts of the world and, importantly, how we can deal on the ground with those who will genuinely have to seek asylum, rather than pushing them into the hands of people smugglers?”
“With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.”
“The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.”
“There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.”
“We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time. I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.”
“I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies. As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported.”
“At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.”
“I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people? The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held?”
“Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that. Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups.”
“It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do. Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be “followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”. I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”?”
“Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans “for evacuating individuals from the premises”. As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event. However, the Bill applies to retail as well.”
“I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).”
“I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event. When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.”
“It is amazing to look at the volume of law: there are 70 pages containing not the details of the law but simply the headings of the law. That shows the extent to which the EU has its foot in the door in Northern Ireland.”
“Does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that in the Brexit negotiations those so-called allies made it clear that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland’s removal from the United Kingdom? Far from being allies, they declared themselves to want to be colonisers.”
“During the early stages of the negotiations, the permanent secretary of the then Brexit Department told the Select Committee that the Irish Government, before Leo Varadkar took over, were actually exploring those kinds of solutions. The politics of the changeover in the Irish Republic and the willingness of Leo Varadkar to become the puppet of the EU in these negotiations stopped that method of looking at the border.”
“The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.”
“I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.”
“Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]”
“The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.”
“My right hon. Friend says that even when solutions are found, they are not implemented. We have heard examples of things that people never imagined would be problems becoming problems. The fact is that every time a solution is found, because we in Northern Ireland are subject to laws that are different from those in the UK, new problems arise. Unless we deal with the fundamental issue, namely what is causing the problems, we will be continually looking for solutions and continually fighting to get them implemented, and that is not good either for business in Northern Ireland or for confidence in the Union.”
“Does my right hon. Friend not find it even stranger that for products moving from the Republic of Ireland into GB, the Government rushed to find an accommodation? Only last week, the Minister told us that she was totally satisfied that checks away from the border would be perfectly suitable because producers in the Republic of Ireland were getting concerned about access to the GB market, yet our Government cannot find any urgency for facilitating the movement of products from GB to Northern Ireland.”
“First, will the Minister accept that the arrangements referred to in the Belfast agreement were security arrangements—army watchtowers and Army posts along the border? Secondly, despite what she has said about the common travel area, does she accept that guards are stopping and searching vehicles on roads in and out of Northern Ireland, to take people off them, because they believe that they are illegal immigrants? The common travel area is not even being respected by the Irish Government.”
“Does my hon. Friend not find it really angering that the Government justify this policy by saying that a few big landowners buy up land as a way of escaping inheritance tax? Yet, the impact is not on the big landowners; it is on ordinary landowners, such as those she has described. The impact on the countryside will be enormous.”
“He said he intends to continue to speak with the Irish Government. The Irish Government have shamelessly taken our Government to court while doing nothing about the collusion and activities of the Irish state and Irish security forces in aiding and abetting the killing of soldiers and genocide along the border. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there is a discussion on legacy, they address the past sins they are guilty of?”
“I welcome the fact that the Government, as part of their appeal, will appeal the way in which the scope of article 2 has been extended, even to include overreach into national policy. I say to the Secretary of State that as long as article 2 remains, there will always be contention about how much say the EU will have—not only on law and activities in Northern Ireland, but on policy made in this House. On the decisions he has made on inquests, civil cases and disclosure, the Secretary of State has to be honest with this House: that is not going to result in terrorists being taken through the courts or through the process in Northern Ireland. It will result only in ageing members of the security forces being dragged once again through the courts and suffering as a result of the service they gave in Northern Ireland.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“The heavy burden of business rates and the national insurance contributions that the Government are going to impose on small businesses is taxing businesses to death. Does the Minister recognise that in doing so, he is going to cause unemployment, higher inflation and lower growth, and that we are heading for higher taxes in future because of the downward economic spiral?”