Tag: Sammy Wilson

  • Sammy Wilson – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Sammy Wilson – 2024 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP for East Antrim, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2024.

    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.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Sammy Wilson – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP for East Antrim, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2023.

    I appreciate the fact that you have called me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite the fact that Mr Speaker has reset the clock so that it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has never spoken in the House—[Laughter.] I have been called before him, so thank you very much for that.

    May I first, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, congratulate the King on his first King’s Speech and the way in which he delivered it? Our gratitude also goes to his mother, who for so long served our nation. I also congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. However, when the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) was being praised by some Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I must say that I wondered how they married up their commitment to net zero with the right hon. Gentleman’s pride in having three coal-guzzling steam engines and what that does to the carbon footprint in Yorkshire. Nevertheless, I am glad that some of the mad ideas—that we should change our lifestyles because of the threat from carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere—have not put him off.

    I want to note three things about the Gracious Speech. First, there are the things that I am glad about. I am glad that the Government have once again restated their commitment to stand by those who are under attack from tyrants and from terrorism, with their commitment to Ukraine and their commitment to Israel, both of which are under huge pressure at present. Indeed, across the world there appears to have been a tiring in support for the war in Ukraine and for the Ukrainian Government as well as, almost immediately, condemnation of the nation of Israel for standing up and doing its duty by its citizens who were brutally murdered by terrorists. Many people—some of them may be well-meaning, and some may be simply reacting to the cruelty of war—are calling for an immediate ceasefire. While the Government of Israel have their citizens held captive and while Israel’s very existence is under threat because of a huge terrorist army on its doorstep, regardless of how strong the siren calls are from the UN, nations across the world and all the non-governmental organisations, it would be foolish to go for a ceasefire.

    It is a typical terrorist tactic: when terrorists are under pressure or the state comes after them, they call for a ceasefire. What for—because they want to stop the violence? No. It is because they want to regroup. We have seen it in Northern Ireland. When the terrorists in Northern Ireland were under pressure, they declared ceasefires. It gave them time to regroup, and I do not think the situation in the middle east is any different. There will be difficult days ahead—I am sure there will be pictures on our TV screens that will make us all sorrowful—but I hope our Government stand by the resolution in the King’s Speech and stand by the state of Israel in defence of its citizens.

    The second thing that I am glad about is the Government’s willingness to grant licences to exploit the resources that we have in the earth and in the sea around our country. Whether we like it or not, we are going to use oil and gas for many decades in the future, so I cannot for the life of me understand why such a policy is even controversial. What is controversial about replacing imports with our own oil production? What is controversial about defending 200,000 jobs in that industry? What is controversial about ensuring energy security? We have already heard speeches today about the difficulties in financing our public services. What is controversial about promoting an industry that will pay billions in taxation, which can then be used to finance Government services?

    I am pleased that the Government have made a commitment to grant licences; the only thing I will say, given that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is in her place, is this. The one threat that I see to the ability to deliver on that pledge is that those who oppose it have been handed a sledgehammer, which they will be able to use in judicial reviews and court cases, and so on, because we still have a commitment in legislation to reach net zero by 2050. We have seen it already. Every time an infrastructure project is proposed that requires the use of oil and gas, it is challenged in the courts on the basis that to allow it will detract from the ability to meet our target of net zero by 2050.

    The Government can issue licences and invite applications for licences, but I have absolutely no doubt that every one of them will be challenged in court on the basis that we still have legally binding targets for 2050, and I suspect that it will be the same for some of the other measures that the Government have introduced. In fact, although there was a song and dance about how the Government were no longer banning the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2030, I note that legislation has been announced—I suspect this is to create a defence in court—to ensure that, whether or not there is a ban on buying cars, there will be a ban on making them. The manufacturers will be obliged to increase the percentage of electric vehicles they sell every year, despite the fact that the demand side of the market will not be controlled in that way—unless, of course, we find that quotas have to be set for sales, as well as for manufacturing.

    The third thing that I am glad about is that the Government will introduce a trade and investment Bill that will enable us to benefit from leaving the EU. I know that there are those who will tell us that leaving the EU is the most disastrous decision we ever made—we get it every week in this House. The truth of the matter is that all the doomster forecasters have been wrong. I can remember debates in this place when we were told that people would be queuing up in the supermarkets, unable to get food. The Office for Budget Responsibility told us that our GDP would fall by 4% because our trade would fall, yet statistics this week show not only that our trade with the EU has increased by 13%, but that our trade with the rest of the world has increased by 14%. One reason is that we no longer have to rely on trade deals that require 27 countries to agree policy and arrangements, and we can do what is best for Britain.

    I am glad the Government intend to build on that. People think that we do not make anything any longer as a result of Brexit, but only this week we find that we are the seventh biggest manufacturing nation in the world, having overtaken France, so there are good things. I am glad the Government intend to build on that and I hope they do so. When I see how they back off when there is a little opposition to moving away from EU law, I sometimes wonder whether we are prepared to use the best of our freedoms.

    I am sad about one thing: the fact that in the King’s Speech the Government had to make a promise to promote the integrity of the Union and strengthen the social fabric of the United Kingdom. I am sad that such a promise even had to be made. It is only necessary because successive Prime Ministers have played fast and loose with the Union in negotiations with the European Union. Relations with the European Union were regarded as more important than relations within the United Kingdom. We even had Ministers defending their decision about the withdrawal Bill in court, admitting that when the Bill went through this House we impliedly removed article 6 of the Act of Union, the very economic basis of the Union that there should be freedom of trade and freedom of movement.

    During recess, the Government introduced yet another statutory instrument, on plant health regulations. As a result of the negotiations with the EU, Northern Ireland is now regarded by the EU as a third country in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. In the plant health regulations introduced during recess, the Government of our own country are now, for the very first time, regarding Northern Ireland as a third country. So, there is much that needs to be done to promote the Union. The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) is a yoga specialist. I hope we will not see the same kind of yoga contortions from the Government when it comes to their position on the Union and Northern Ireland’s position within it.

    My last point is about one of those things that I think is mad, but others have praised: introducing legislation—albeit well meaning and everything else—to ban smoking. In 20 years’ time, some poor shopkeeper is going to have to decide, “Is that person who came in here asking for 20 fags 48 or 47? Is he going to have to send his 48-year-old mate in to buy the cigarettes for him?” Introducing legislation of that nature is just mad.

    I hope we will see delivery on some of the good things. I hope we will see the Government deliver on strengthening the Union, undoing the damage of the Windsor framework and the protocol, and restoring Northern Ireland’s position within the Union.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessments her Department has made of the effect of the relocation of the Visa and Entry Clearance Office from Dakha to New Delhi on people from Bangladesh applying for a visa to enter the UK.

    James Brokenshire

    An internal assessment of the potential impact of transferring decision making on UK visa applications from Dhaka to New Delhi was completed in early 2014. This assessment covered all key aspects of the move, including security, decision quality and customer service.

    There has been, and will be, no change to the customer experience when applying for a visa in Bangladesh. Customers are still able to apply in the same Visa Application Centres (Dhaka and Sylhet) and applications are decided within the same global customer service standards (15 working days for non-settlement or 60 days for settlement).

  • Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent discussions she has had with her Cabinet colleagues on the effect on tourism of an expansion of Heathrow Airport.

    Tracey Crouch

    The Government has accepted the case for airport expansion in the South East and the Airports’ Commission’s shortlisted options. Transport and connectivity are key issues within the tourism sector, as highlighted in the Prime Minister’s new Tourism Action Plan. The Department will be ensuring that tourism is one of the factors considered, when a final decision is taken on a preferred scheme.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reasons the Government’s Visa and Entry Clearance Office in Dakha, Bangladesh is being relocated to New Delhi, India.

    James Brokenshire

    Decision making on UK visa applications lodged in Bangladesh was moved from Dhaka to New Delhi in September 2014. Logistical changes like this are made for operational reasons and to refine the longstanding hub and spoke structure of the visa network, where applications are decided at regional decision making centres. UKVI retains a small team in the British High Commission, Dhaka to carry out local checks and the remote printing of some visas. There has been, and will be, no change to the customer experience when applying for a visa in Bangladesh. Customers are still able to apply in the same Visa Application Centres (Dhaka and Sylhet) and applications are decided within the same global customer service standards (15 working days for non-settlement or 60 days for settlement).

  • Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on the timetable for a decision on Heathrow expansion.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government is committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects the country needs. This includes delivering runway capacity to the timetable set out by the Airports Commission. The Government’s work in preparation for negotiations to leave the EU does not affect the timing of this decision.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2015-11-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his policy is on the taxation of travel expenses for councillors in Northern Ireland.

    Mr David Gauke

    A new exemption from tax and National Insurance Contributions for councillors’ travel expenses will take effect from 6 April 2016. This was legislated for in the Summer Finance Bill. It will apply to travel expenses paid to councillors across the UK, including those in Northern Ireland.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent steps the Government has taken to tackle the threat from the Asian hornet to the honeybee population in the UK.

    Dr Thérèse Coffey

    A contingency plan outlining the Government’s response against the Asian hornet is in place. The emergency measures it sets out are tested twice a year by the National Bee Unit ensuring that all field inspectors and support staff are trained in how to respond should an outbreak occur.

    Following a confirmed sighting of the Asian hornet in Gloucestershire, the National Bee Unit (NBU) enacted our established biosecurity protocols to confirm the scale of the outbreak and eradicate the pest. A single nest was located and destroyed. To date, no more live hornets have been seen in this area.

    The outbreak follows on from a policy review in 2013 whereby the National Bee Unit (NBU) increased the number of risk-based exotic pest inspections it carries out each year. These are targeted at early interception of non-native invasive species such as the Asian hornet. NBU Bee Inspectors also routinely provide advice and training to beekeepers to raise awareness of the threat and the need for vigilance.

    The Non-Native Species Secretariat has carried out a risk assessment looking at the risks and impacts of an Asian hornet outbreak. The key threat is believed to be against honey bee species, rather than other bee species. Asian hornets will impact on native species through predation, competition and impact on natural pollination.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sammy Wilson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what procedures are in place to ensure that animals sent from the UK for use in experiments in laboratories abroad were not subject to a greater degree of suffering than that which they would have experienced in UK laboratories.

    Mike Penning

    The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that before an animal can be released from the controls of the Act, in order to be sent to a laboratory abroad, I must be assured that:

    • the animal’s state of health allows it to be sent to a new establishment;

    • the animal poses no danger to public health, animal health or the environment;

    • there is an adequate scheme in place for ensuring the socialisation of the animal upon being sent to new establishment; and,

    • appropriate measures have been taken to safeguard the animal’s well-being when being sent to a new establishment.

    The Home Office will seek reassurance that there are appropriate measures to safeguard the well-being of protected animals exported, within the context of their use in scientific procedures. Consent is only given for export where it is to a recognised scientific research establishment with a requirement for the specific live animals and sending tissue is not practicable.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Sammy Wilson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sammy Wilson on 2016-10-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the threat from the Asian hornet to the honeybee population in the UK.

    Dr Thérèse Coffey

    A contingency plan outlining the Government’s response against the Asian hornet is in place. The emergency measures it sets out are tested twice a year by the National Bee Unit ensuring that all field inspectors and support staff are trained in how to respond should an outbreak occur.

    Following a confirmed sighting of the Asian hornet in Gloucestershire, the National Bee Unit (NBU) enacted our established biosecurity protocols to confirm the scale of the outbreak and eradicate the pest. A single nest was located and destroyed. To date, no more live hornets have been seen in this area.

    The outbreak follows on from a policy review in 2013 whereby the National Bee Unit (NBU) increased the number of risk-based exotic pest inspections it carries out each year. These are targeted at early interception of non-native invasive species such as the Asian hornet. NBU Bee Inspectors also routinely provide advice and training to beekeepers to raise awareness of the threat and the need for vigilance.

    The Non-Native Species Secretariat has carried out a risk assessment looking at the risks and impacts of an Asian hornet outbreak. The key threat is believed to be against honey bee species, rather than other bee species. Asian hornets will impact on native species through predation, competition and impact on natural pollination.