China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that that is the case. He can sense the strength of feeling on the issue in the Chamber; so many Members from across the House have spoken of Jimmy Lai today. That is why every UK Minister who engages with China will raise Jimmy Lai’s case.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic about giving trillions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money in reparations for slavery that occurred hundreds of years ago. However, when it comes to modern-day slavery in China, despite what he states was said privately, all we get publicly is a mealy-mouthed press release—a read-out from the Foreign Office that does not even mention the issue specifically. Why is that? Is it because the Government realise that we are now dependent on China for many things, including the delivery of the net zero policy? China controls 70% of the rare earth metals that we will need to deliver renewable energy. We have left ourselves open to that kind of blackmail, and now we cannot speak up against human rights abuses.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman has a point. This Government have been in power for three months, and we have a lot to clear up, given the mess that was left to us—he is right about that. That work begins with the China audit.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Self-determination is the key word, and we absolutely support the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in that regard.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Coming from Northern Ireland, I am not surprised that this Government have surrendered British interests against the wishes of the people who live there, because, after all, they supported the previous Government’s deal in relation to EU demands on Northern Ireland. The Government have given away a strategic interest. They have not published the deal. They will not reveal the cost. They will not guarantee that there will be no Chinese influence in this strategic area. They have handed this strategic interest to a country that has no historical claim. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the impact that this has on other people who are eyeing British territory—the EU in respect of Gibraltar and Argentina in respect of the Falklands? This is a dirty, dangerous and desperate deal. It is a shameful surrender of British interests. Is the Foreign Secretary relying on the fact that the Government have a huge, sledgehammer majority that can drive this through the House, despite its impact on long-term British interests?

[Mr Lammy]

I think the right hon. Gentleman lost much of the House when he said that the people live there—they do not; that is the whole point. This is a deal that will give them the right to resettlement on the outer islands. I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s caricature.

Middle East Update

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have raised the issue of aid workers, and the tremendous loss of aid workers’ lives in this conflict, directly in all my meetings with the Israeli Government. Another issue sits alongside this: the issue of deconfliction. In any war, there are rules, and one of the rules is that aid workers should be able to get medical supplies and aid to the civilians who need it. There have been real issues with deconfliction zones, and the number of aid workers and UN workers who have died in this conflict, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The only people who will be overjoyed by this decision are the Hamas terrorists who murdered six hostages in cold blood at the weekend. They have been handed the hope that this Government will not stand firm in their defence of Israel’s right to defend itself.

Let us look at the threadbare arguments that the Foreign Secretary has used. He says that these arms might be used to breach international humanitarian law, yet he admits that the Government cannot arbitrate on whether Israel has done so to date. He says that civilian deaths have been caused, yet hardly a couple of paragraphs later in his statement he states that the civilian deaths are the result of Hamas embedding itself in the civilian population, with no regard for the people affected. The last reason he gives for his decision is that Israel is responsible for those deaths, but he then admits that it is not possible to determine who is responsible for the deaths—or, indeed, how many deaths there have been; in most cases, we rely on Hamas propaganda for that number.

I say to the Foreign Secretary that this is a bad decision, which we will live to regret. I believe that it is, unfortunately, the result of the pressure that Labour MPs have felt in their constituencies from pro-Gaza protests.

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this party supported British fighters taking to the skies on 13 April in the defence of Israel when missiles were being delivered from Iran. This party supported the last Government in their defence of Israel following the attacks from the Houthis in the Red sea. I remind him that I have not gone as far as Margaret Thatcher went in 1982. Governments of both types—including under Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat, and Gordon Brown—have had to make these difficult decisions. I stand by a party and, I hope, a Chamber that recognises the importance of international humanitarian law, and the clear risk assessment that we have been required to make to ensure that this country is not in breach of that law.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I want to make some progress, but I have said that this party would negotiate, just as we negotiated the Good Friday agreement.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The shadow Secretary of State has made much of the Government abandoning their obligations, but surely the obligation in the protocol was designed from the EU’s point of view to protect the EU single market. How does this Bill not give that guarantee to the EU, when goods going into the Republic will be checked, when there will be severe penalties on those who try evade those checks and when any firms producing in Northern Ireland will have to comply with EU rules when they are sending goods to the Republic? Surely that safeguards the single market and the obligations will be met.

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, it needs to be improved, but the question is how. What is the best method to achieve that? Is breaking international law and placing ourselves in a situation in which our EU partners do not trust us the best way?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point in relation to the escalator that should be fundamental to the welfare system, but with respect that is not the point I am making. We are reducing the supply of social housing, and many people on a decent wage simply do not have the assets to reduce the demand for social housing. That seems wrong-headed. In the previous Parliament, we heard much about a council house being built for every one that came off the market. That has not happened and it will not happen with housing association properties either.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, if the properties are not coming on to the market because tenants have security and stay in them all their lives, that if a mechanism could be found whereby the capital receipts had to be put into new housing, that would increase the supply of housing available for social tenants?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is related to the ability of local authorities to borrow in order to build. However, even if they were given powers to borrow in order to build, they would want the security that the house they had built would not come off the market three years later. We have therefore created a terrible vicious circle that will lead to tremendous hardship, I suspect, in the next five years.

There are real concerns about asking the Metropolitan police to find another £700 million-worth of cuts. It took 2,500 officers to restore order to many of the streets of this country during the 2011 riots. That is exactly the number of officers we have lost over this last period. It is true that response times are good, but neighbourhood policing is disappearing and the crime that bedevils deprived areas is rampant. We should think again.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Sammy Wilson and David Lammy

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to get into the complexities of how APD is calculated, but anyone with just a basic knowledge of geography knows that the Caribbean is closer than California, yet California is regarded as closer in terms of calculating APD. Even here there are anomalies that have regional impacts.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Have the Northern Irish been able to forge any solidarity with the small nations in the Caribbean that are suffering in this way? The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many British citizens of Caribbean background and, as they are certainly not the country’s richest citizens, many of them cannot afford, as a family of four, £332 extra in APD to fly back to the Caribbean on a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although this tax is regarded by some as a tax on the rich and therefore a progressive tax, it is not: it is a flat-rate tax and therefore it is a regressive tax. Many of those who are hit are travelling on holidays or to see their families, and they save up for that even though many of them are on low incomes. Indeed, 45% of those who are hit by it would be regarded as being on medium or below-medium incomes, yet they pay the same tax as those earning more than £80,000. Leaving aside the impact on growth, on exports and on industry, the regressive nature of the tax makes it an unfair tax, and that is another reason this issue needs to be looked at.