Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  There are not many MPs here from other parts of the United Kingdom, but I find it even more staggering because that trade diversion has impacts on constituencies of MPs across Great Britain. If goods are being brought from the Irish Republic or other parts of Europe, that means jobs lost in GB, from suppliers that would normally have been selling goods in Northern Ireland.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  It may seem of little consequence to say that there is a customs border, but in practical terms, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it means that when goods are brought from GB, they are subject to full customs checks and customs codes have to be filled in? If Laird Grass Machinery in my constituency wants to bring a tractor in, about 15 items in the tractor have to have separate customs codes. Filling in the paperwork to bring in one piece of machinery can sometimes take an hour.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Although the Minister paints a picture of firms signing up and supply still coming through, does he accept that the FSB has indicated that in retail, plant nurseries and firms that use steel, 32% of small businesses in those sectors in GB are no longer supplying to Northern Ireland? He cannot ignore the problem of suppliers stopping supplying from GB and businesses in Northern Ireland not being able to get the supplies that they were previously able to get.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  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 a major reason why he is politically and economically punishing one of our allies, which supplies us with important intelligence information? Does he also accept that this will punish Palestinians, eventually lead to a total boycott in order to be effective, and lead to economically damaging retaliation—

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  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. Does the Minister not recognise the part that her Government continue to play in perpetuating the problem by housing those who come, by providing them with better health services than some people in our country can access and by setting such a low standard for asylum criteria that 92% of them stay? Would it not have been better to put the people back on the boat—

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  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. Lady intend to take to remove this barrier to economic growth in Northern Ireland?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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. But of course, that is not the real reason; the real reason is contained in the regulations themselves. The regulations make it quite clear that they are necessary because Northern Ireland has to be regarded as if it were a member state of the European Union. That is the reason for this legislation. Although we have had Brexit, the vote and the decision to leave the EU, Northern Ireland is still to be treated as if it were a member of the European Union. That is the real reason behind it. 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. Most of the goods affected by this legislation will originate in GB. For years, those goods were able to enter the Northern Ireland market without any damage to the agriculture or nature of Northern Ireland. The implication is that, somehow, the majority of the trade coming across from GB in plants, seed potatoes and so on must be suspect. That is why we have to have these separate regulations: to protect us from goods that, for years and years, we sourced from producers in GB. Now, suddenly, we need to protect the Northern Ireland economy from those goods. That is just nonsense. The real reason is that EU laws now apply in Northern Ireland. We are regarded as an EU state, and therefore those EU regulations have to be imposed. There is nothing to do with the protection of biodiversity or anything like that. What exactly will these regulations do? First—the Minister has actually used these words himself—they will fully implement the Windsor framework. They are to fully implement EU laws in Northern Ireland—laws that were never decided by this House or by the Northern Ireland Assembly, but by a foreign Administration, and about which there was never any say. What is the impact of that? Let me give one example. When it comes to the import of seed materials, we would have imported a lot of our seed potatoes from Scotland. Now there are regulations stating that, if someone brings in more than 2 kg of those seed potatoes, there is a whole pile of additional administration. As a keen gardener, I used to send to Fothergill’s—as did a lot of other people—to get my seed potatoes. I cannot get them any longer, because business-to-individual sales of many plants are forbidden under these regulations. If, for example, some of the big potato growers in my constituency want to bring potatoes in from outside, there is a whole range of information that has to be provided if they import more than 2 kg of potatoes, and draft regulation 5(14) states that. What has been the effect? I can think of a number of companies that used to sell to me as an individual consumer or to garden centres in my constituency. They no longer sell. Why? 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. Last year, 43 such consignments were seized by DAERA and either detained, re-exported or destroyed. That begs the question, if DAERA already has the powers to do that, why is the legislation required? It is required because it now gives DAERA the ability to do this with the imprimatur of the EU. We have not only the imprimatur of our Government, which signed up to the Windsor framework agreement; we now have the imprimatur of the EU. The regulations are full of jargon and everything else. I am trying to spell out the practical implications. As I have said, first, Northern Ireland is now treated as part of the EU. I do not know how anyone who claims to be a British parliamentarian can accept that as a reason for this legislation. Secondly, the legislation has disrupted trade significantly. In fact, there are some goods that are not even subject to regulation—they are simply banned. There are some trees that would normally have been imported into Northern Ireland that are now banned from being brought in because the EU has regulations against them. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, pointed out, it was also not even deemed necessary to have a consultation or to get consent. I wonder how much of the information in support of, or even about, the regulations was gathered from many of the garden centre owners in Northern Ireland who are severely impacted by them, whether by not being able to get supplies, supplies becoming more expensive or, more likely, now having to go to the Irish Republic to get their supplies, where they are more expensive and probably inferior goods. That is the irony. In my own constituency, the wee forest at my own house is now affected by Ash dieback. Many of the trees there are now dying and have been cut down. They were not diseased trees that came from GB, where the regulations require that the trees be inspected. They came from other parts of the EU without the necessary inspections. That is the irony. The Minister can talk about protecting biodiversity, but the regulations do not do that. All they do is ensure that a bad agreement, which should never have been signed, and which has constitutionally split up the UK and its internal market, is now going to be fully implemented. I say to Members, regardless of their political persuasions and everything else: that is not right and should not be supported. It is a bit of an irony that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill in the main Chamber, which is meant to be all about democracy in the United Kingdom, and yet we are not exercising democracy in Northern Ireland if we pass this legislation. It is not just some kind of semantic argument about what democracy is; it has real practical implications for people who live in my constituency.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the DUP, I wish the Prime Minister well in his job. I hope that he does deliver on his promises on energy, the economy and so on. I note, however, that it took him only about 30 seconds to break his promise on no point scoring when responding to the Leader of the Opposition, although a bit of point scoring is not a bad thing. The Prime Minister has pointed out that confidence in Government is important. In Northern Ireland, it has recently been shown that the Parades Commission—a public body with a very significant role in curtailing people’s freedoms—acted illegally, showing bias and showing disdain for applications from the Unionist community. The commission failed abjectly in its duty, and yet its arrogant members have refused to resign, even though they know they do not enjoy any public confidence. Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State to ensure that there is an immediate dismissal of this discredited body?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way? She has just insulted my colleague.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  A lot of my points have already been made by my colleague, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Once again, we have regulations going through this House that drive a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The law for batteries already applies, and these regulations will simply make sure that it is possible to enforce that law. The law, as has been pointed out, covers a wide range of businesses that sell to Northern Ireland. The Minister made mention of cars, vans and e-bikes, but if we look at the assessment prepared for this, the law covers much more than that. It covers businesses that manufacture: computers; consumer electronics; watches and clocks; motors, generators and transformers; electric lighting equipment; domestic appliances; electrical equipment; motor vehicles; repair of electrical equipment; motor vehicle parts; waste and scrap—the list goes on. In Northern Ireland, the law covers 776 businesses. In the rest of the United Kingdom, it covers 26,268 businesses. Although the Minister said that the cost will be very little, the fact is that businesses will have to think, “Do we have certificates of conformity? Have we fulfilled all the regulations? Have we scrutinised all the parts we bring in, and are we sure that they have all the markings required?” Under the batteries regulation, it is not just what the products contain but how they are labelled that has to be considered. Even inadvertently, businesses may find themselves in a situation where they are breaking the law. The costs are not de minimis. It is estimated that the initial set-up costs will be £35,000 per business—maybe the Minister will confirm that—and the annual running costs over a 10-year period will amount to £33,820. What impact will that have on internal trade? As the Minister said, the set-up costs may not be expensive for large motor manufacturers selling high-value battery cars. However, for small businesses, it will be yet another reason not to bother supplying to Northern Ireland, because the costs of doing so will be outweighed by the revenue—Northern Ireland may only be 1% or 2% of the market of many small businesses. If additional costs are imposed, including the paperwork and so on, it does not make sense to supply to Northern Ireland. That has already happened. The fact that many transport companies are now taking container-loads of goods to England and bringing empty containers back, adding to transport costs, is a direct result of the drip-feed of EU laws applying to Northern Ireland but not to the rest of the United Kingdom. They make it not worth while to comply with regulations in order to supply to Northern Ireland. Businesses simply say, “Well, we are not supplying any more.” The Minister has tried to make the case that the EU regulation will make batteries safer and more environmentally friendly. If that is true, does it mean that because of the delay in regulations being changed in the rest of the United Kingdom, people in the rest of the United Kingdom are using batteries that are less safe and less environmentally friendly? It seems from her speech that her answer is that businesses want uniformity, and eventually the Government will seek uniformity. If we are going to have different laws from the EU, there must be good reasons for that. If we are going to have the same laws as the EU, they at least ought to be properly debated here so that we can make a decision. Do we want to use the freedoms that being out of the EU grants us, or do we simply want to slavishly implement EU regulations in the United Kingdom without any discussion or debate? That is certainly what is happening in Northern Ireland. I have pointed out that it means that Northern Ireland businesses now need to be doubly sure of the decisions that they make and the supply chains that they use, and very often they find that they are placed at a disadvantage. If I were to say, “Northern Ireland has been used as a guinea pig, and EU laws have been introduced without any debate or discussion as to whether they are desirable and will improve the situation or whether they will have an adverse impact on the economy”, some members of this Committee would say, “If Northern Ireland is used as the foot in the door, that is well and good because we want to have the great reset that gets us back as close to the EU as possible.” There are others, especially on the Opposition Benches, who have made it clear that Brexit gives us freedoms and that we should use those freedoms. There should be a warning in what the Minister has said today. These regulations will be the first step to having these regulations in place across the United Kingdom. I want to have uniformity of law across the United Kingdom, and as someone who fought to leave the EU, I want that uniformity to be based on discussions that elected representatives in the United Kingdom have and the decisions that they make. I do not advocate that we resolve the problem of having two different sets of laws—one that applies in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom—simply by going down the same undemocratic route as we in Northern Ireland have experienced. In light of the injustice of different laws applying in Northern Ireland, severe sanctions are now being imposed on those who either inadvertently or indirectly break the law, and there will be costs that affect businesses in Northern Ireland and distract people from selling in Northern Ireland. I do not have a vote in this Committee, so I say this to those who do: vote against the regulations.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I was elected to this Parliament, and the concern I have expressed is my concern as a parliamentarian. On the consultations, let us not forget that people are not fully aware of the impact of proposals until after it has all happened. My main concern, which all Members should share, is that we are elected to this place to make laws, and this is where the laws should be made; they should not be made elsewhere. We are not discussing the making of the law in this Committee; we are only discussing its enforcement, because the law has already been made. It was automatically applied in Northern Ireland. We are now discussing how we make sure that that law, which was made elsewhere, is imposed in Northern Ireland, how we penalise people in Northern Ireland who break the law—either directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently—how we impose penalties on those people, who imposes the penalties and who carries out the inspections to ensure that the penalties can be imposed. Let us be under no illusions: we are not discussing the merits of the law. It has already been introduced in Northern Ireland, and it was introduced by another lawmaking body, not this House.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Trade Costs · Hansard source

  More

  6. What discussions he has had with representatives of the logistics industry on the cost of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Trade Costs · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will be well aware of the importance of the logistics industry in Northern Ireland, and also of the burdens that are falling on it at present because of the Brexit arrangements, which have pushed up costs, led to delays, and resulted in many containers coming back empty from Great Britain. On top of that, we now have the added costs of a carbon tax on ferries coming to and from Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this industry is important to Northern Ireland, and is being strangled by the arrangements with the European Union and the net zero policies? What steps does he intend to take to address those issues?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Not only have we not had a hand in putting them together, but we have not even done an impact assessment, and we have not done an impact assessment because that is out of scope, as this is part of the Windsor framework. Of course, there is also the cost on local councils in Northern Ireland of implementing the regulations. I do not know what that will be, and I suspect that none of the councils have even been consulted on what additional staff will be required or what costs it will impose on them. When we pass a piece of legislation, we should at least ask these questions. First, does it make one part of the United Kingdom different from another? It does, and the explanatory notes show that that is the case. Secondly, is it necessary? Given that the only necessity highlighted in the explanatory note is that we do not want to upset relations with the EU, I am not so sure that that is a justifiable reason for passing the legislation. Lastly, if we are passing legislation, surely we should know what impact it will have, and we do not know what impact this will have. For all those reasons I say to Members that before we carelessly vote in favour of this change, let us at least consider those points.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The standards applied to machinery made in Northern Ireland will be different from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member asks about the detail, but very often we do not know the cost until we actually have to apply the different standards. For example, in Northern Ireland we export a lot of agricultural machinery, and if the standards imposed by the EU require more work, more materials and more safety devices than those applied in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be a cost. We do not know until we actually see the standards applied and compare them with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because we export a lot of that machinery to GB, businesses could be at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of enforcement. There is also the cost on councils.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  This piece of legislation may seem innocuous, but it is yet another example of the wedges being driven between one part of the United Kingdom and another part of the United Kingdom—wedges not just in regulations, but in their practical effect. First, leaving aside the constitutional impact of the legislation, let us just look at the explanatory memorandum, which tells us: “This SI amends the 2008 Regulations, clarifying that their territorial extent is limited to GB”. Why? To allow “EU Regulation to function effectively in NI.” That is the purpose of this legislation. It removes Northern Ireland from what was UK-wide regulation, which will now be limited only to part of the United Kingdom, to facilitate the functioning of EU regulations in Northern Ireland. Those EU regulations will not have been debated in a Committee like this, nor will they have been discussed with Northern Ireland representatives. There will not even have been consultation with Northern Ireland when the regulations were being formed, as we cannot in any way feed into regulations that apply to the single market even though we remain a part of it. Leaving aside the practical effect of the instrument, that is the first important point that we all ought to note. Regardless of our views on Brexit or the EU, as UK parliamentarians, we ought to ask ourselves whether we should accept and vote for this kind of legislation Secondly, it disturbs me that the Government, as the explanatory memorandum makes quite clear, are going down this route and implementing the legislation because: “Failure to do so would create regulatory uncertainty in NI and risk undermining the UK’s relationship with the EU.” Once again, Northern Ireland appears to be being sacrificed on the altar of the great reset that the Government wish to have with the EU. They are saying, “Let’s not disturb them. Let’s not challenge them on any aspect of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework. Even though there should apparently be a mechanism for raising concerns, let’s not raise them, because we might upset those relationships.” Thirdly, the Minister has said that the regulations will not have any detrimental impact, yet the explanatory notes make it clear that no impact assessment has been done, because, as this comes under the Windsor framework and the protocol, doing so would be outside the scope of the Government. Even when we introduce regulations here, the arrangements we have with the EU mean that we cannot do an impact assessment. Such an assessment could have an impact in lots of different ways. For a start, we do not know the costs of the machinery safety regulations for businesses. All we are told is that, regardless of the costs, we now have a piece of legislation that indicates that we will enforce that legislation, and we will enforce it with very high penalties.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may have met representatives of the industry, but the question is: has he even listened to their concerns? They still say that the problems caused by his imposition of tariffs will abide with the industry. He said that he is relying on UK producers to be able to produce steel, but Tata has said that it will not be able to supply all the steel required, and one of the firms in Rotherham that he is relying on is in administration. How can he say with assurance that the supply of steel will be available? The question for Northern Ireland is this. If Northern Ireland producers have to bring steel from the UK, they need first to be sure that the UK quota has not been exceeded, so will the Minister assure us that they will not have to be concerned about whether there is any EU quota left? Otherwise, they may have to pay tax twice.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  People have a right to be angry that the Government have sought to impose hundreds of asylum seekers on their communities without consultation. The Minister has talked today about the deterrent factor. When we spend billions accommodating people, then support them financially and give them services that many local people are not able to get, and in 90% of cases grant them asylum, is that not a pull factor that brings people to the United Kingdom? Is the way to deal with it not simply to make it clear that if someone comes into the country illegally, it does not matter how good their case is—they will not be granted asylum?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member accept that there is a certain irony when the same people who are concerned about climate change and temperatures rising have campaigned for air conditioning to be taken out of buildings because of its energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions? We cannot have it both ways, can we?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  Would the right hon. Member accept that international trade is much different than trade within the country that we belong to? If the impediments are stopping trade within our own country, of course that is much more serious than companies deciding that they are not going to sell to countries abroad.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the argument that the Secretary of State is making. I served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board during the change from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the PSNI, and was on the finance committee of the board. We had continual battles with the then Secretary of State, who was no more generous or flexible than a devolved Minister would have been. Devolution or no devolution, the fiscal and the financial situation is the same. I suppose the difference is that, when it comes to putting on pressure, the Secretary of State here is perhaps a bit more remote than the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member accept that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has also said that, if spending allocations to the Executive were based on need, the Executive would be entitled to receive between £1 billion and £3.5 billion extra, which is part of the reason for this problem?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by thanking the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for the work of her Committee and for the diligence she has applied to the job she has taken on. It is deeply appreciated by Members from Northern Ireland that we have a Chairperson who is totally interested in the work that she is doing. I would not always agree with everything that comes out of the Committee, but she has nevertheless shown a desire to try to get things sorted out in Northern Ireland. First, as has already been emphasised by a number of speakers, we are approaching this debate at a time when —a quarter of the way through the year—we do not actually have a budget in Northern Ireland, and not for the first time. I do not know, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has said, whether this is a co-ordinated political plan or an example of the incompetence of Sinn Féin Ministers. If it is a co-ordinated political plan, it is a very stupid one, because not having a budget and not having money allocated to Departments does not just affect the Unionist population in Northern Ireland—it affects everybody. It affects both Sinn Féin voters and Unionist voters. While it may add to Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is not a viable state, I nevertheless do not believe that they should be punishing they own constituents to prove that. We have to look at the context of Northern Ireland. Getting a budget agreed anywhere is always going to be difficult, because there will always be competing priorities and there are always people wanting more. I suspect that the Chancellor has had similar problems and difficulties even in this Parliament, where she is dealing with only one party—there may be a lot of factions within that party, mind you, but it is only one party. It is much more difficult in a four-party coalition where the parties have totally different outlooks and they have to decide how the money is going to be allocated. We have only to look at the current and previous Sinn Féin Ministers, because do not forget: every time a budget has not been agreed in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin have been in charge of the finances. I think that has happened on three occasions. The latest crisis has been caused because the Minister responsible did not consult with anybody before simply deciding on a budget—did not even consult with his fellow Ministers—and Ministers from his own party are now disagreeing with it. I have some experience of this process, because I served in that post in the Northern Ireland Assembly for four years. The Conservative party gained power here in Westminster in May the year after I took over, and in June the reserves that we had, which were about 3% of the budget, were taken back by Treasury, and we were then given a 2% reduction, so there was a 5% reduction in the budget for that year. The budget had already been agreed, and it therefore had to be rewritten. It was not easy, but it was possible because there was a willingness to work. We consulted and consulted, compromised and everything else, and we managed to get a three-year budget, even against that background. That is why I do not accept the argument that they cannot get an agreed budget just because there are financial difficulties. I do not accept the excuses. However, I would point out that Northern Ireland has for many years been underfunded, as has been confirmed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council review. I am pleased that our current party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), was the first person to raise the requirement to have budgets in Northern Ireland determined on need, and not just on the Barnett formula. There has been some success in that, as we now get the 124%. I accept that the Government took that argument on board, although they had not done so until my right hon. Friend persisted in pushing for that at all kinds of levels. However, even with that increase, there is still an historic backlog. I am not here to simply say, “Give us more money.” I understand that there are fiscal restraints right across the United Kingdom. However, where a fiscal deficit has been identified, I think it is incumbent on the Government to look at how that can be addressed. I am sure that some people back home will not be very happy with me for saying this, but I think it would be wrong simply to say, “The Fiscal Council has identified between £1 billion and £3.5 billion, depending on whether you compare it with Scotland or Wales, so there’s the money.” If additional money is to be given, it should of course be allocated on the basis that something is given back in return. Many people will say that interferes with the devolution settlement, because it means telling people how to spend the money. But I think it should be conditional: if people are looking for additional money, let us see how they are going to use it—to reform public services, to cut expenditure in the longer run, to make services more efficient. The money is given on that condition, and those conditions are measured, and the money is released on that basis. That would be one way out of the current difficulties facing the Executive. The money would be conditionally given, and it would be given for things that have been promised for some time, I think, but have never been done, either because it was too hard to do them or there was not the money to do them. Reform does require some expenditure up front, even if it is only getting rid of some of the surplus staff or reviewing some of the estate. Looking forward in the estimates, that is one way that the Government should be considering dealing with this particular issue. Secondly, the Northern Ireland budget is divided between what goes to the Executive—the bulk of it—and the Northern Ireland Office. We have to look at need. Let me just give some examples. On money allocated for agriculture, four times more is spent per head spent in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, but that is not always reflected in the allocations. That is not because we are giving more generously; it is simply that Northern Ireland has a bigger agricultural industry, and that is reflected in the money that is given. Very often what is happening is that we are simply treated as if we were the rest of the United Kingdom, so we get much less per head, even though the industry is much more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) indicated in his intervention that poverty levels will impact the amount of money spent on health. Hence, the needs-based expenditure is more important than simply the block grant. There are three things I want to raise about the Northern Ireland Office expenditure. First, there is a 25% uplift in the DEL spending—the departmental expenditure limit. According to the papers we have been given, that is attributed mostly to the additional money required for the Finucane inquiry. I have to say to the Secretary of State that there are people who feel really sore about the way that moneys can be allocated to the investigation of one particular death because Sinn Féin has made it such a big issue, while hundreds of families across Northern Ireland have never had a proper investigation into the death of their loved ones. Yesterday evening I attended a memorial service for Ulster Defence Regiment victims in Northern Ireland: 192 UDR soldiers were killed during the troubles, and 62 were killed after they had retired or left the UDR, and many of their widows and families have never had any proper investigation into the death of their loved ones. Yet for the Finucane family we have had three Stevens inquiries—I remember those from when I was on the Policing Board. Then there was a review of those inquiries to see if they were adequate—the Cory review—and now we have another bout of the inquiry, with a nearly 25% increase in the budget of the Northern Ireland Office to facilitate that. That is not regarded as fair. When inquiries are driven by the political push of one particular party and the Government’s desire to keep them happy, to me that is first of all a waste of funds and, secondly, unfair. Secondly, part of the budget has been increased to deal with the ICRIR reports and investigations. As has already been pointed out, while there has been an increase for the ICRIR, there has been no equivalent increase for the police service. The police service reckons that it is costing about £24 million per year to facilitate providing the information, yet no allowance has been made for that. That puts pressure on a budget that is already predicted to be in a deficit of £58 million this year. That means fewer police officers on the ground and so on. Thirdly, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, one of the roles of the Northern Ireland Office is to promote the internal market. I do not blame the current Government totally from the mess that we are in; they inherited botched negotiations by the previous Government, but little or nothing has been done to remedy that. When the Assembly was going back, negotiations went on and we got a document called “Safeguarding the Union”, which was totally endorsed by the current Government, even though they were then in opposition. Part of that was about finding ways to promote the internal market. One thing that was recognised was that if there was disruption to trade, we would need to improve the trade routes, and so a ports fund of £10 million was agreed. Yet in a recent letter from the Secretary of State, it was accepted that although extra money was found for the Finucane inquiry and for the ICRIR, no funding has been allocated to the ports fund, which was designed to improve sea routes across the Irish sea and make them more efficient, so that goods could flow in and out of Northern Ireland in a less costly way. Will the Secretary of State tell us what exactly is the status now of that £10 million commitment? I met with the port authorities in Larne, who were hoping that they would benefit from that funding. It would have meant that they could widen and lengthen the ramps, take in bigger ships and bring down the cost of transport. It would also have opened new routes to GB. The port authorities put in £10 million, expecting—under the promise that was made—that match funding would be made available from the Government. Other actions have been taken by the Government that have made the routes more difficult, including the imposition of the carbon tax on shipping. That will be implemented from 1 July, and it is estimated to increase the cost of bringing goods across the Irish sea from GB to Northern Ireland, or vice versa, by around 7%. That, again, makes the route and the bringing of goods in from GB less competitive, on top of all the other reasons why companies do not want to sell to Northern Ireland now anyway—namely, the additional paperwork. In conclusion, I just say to the Secretary of State that, yes, we do have a budget crisis in Northern Ireland, but I believe that there could be some inventiveness from the Government. My colleague Gordon Lyons, who is the Communities Minister, has suggested to the Treasury that he will lean hard to get efficiencies and savings from fraud in the benefits budget. But he has asked in return that some of those benefits be shared with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin, which does not seem to wish to attack fraud, has been holding that up, but will the Secretary of State push with the Treasury the case for those savings from fraud that might be identified in Northern Ireland to be shared with the Executive to help reduce its financial pressures? Will he commit to working with Ministers to ensure that any additional funding is used in a productive way so that Northern Ireland can become much more sustainable fiscally than it is at present? None of us wants to be here. Certainly as a Unionist, I do not want to be here with a begging bowl year after year, but I believe that there is a responsibility on both sides: the Government must recognise that there is a deficit that needs to be dealt with, and that deficit must dealt with in a way that makes positive changes for the future.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?