Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

The Democratic Unionist party supports the Bill, wishes it to come to fruition, and hopes that it achieves its objectives. I will not rehearse all the reasons why, which have been given plenty of times in other debates, but we must tackle the criminal gangs. We cannot go on with the pressures and costs that mass illegal immigration puts on society, the Government and the taxpayer. For that reason, we will oppose most of the Lords amendments. As the Minister and other speakers have pointed out, many of the amendments are designed to weaken the Bill, undermine it, and ensure that it does not work, so that we remain with the old, flawed system that we have been trying to put aside.

The Minister said that the Government oppose the Lords amendments because they do not want the Bill weakened, and he is right, but the Bill is already weakened in respect of one part of the United Kingdom. I seek assurances from him; how does he come to the conclusion that pushing the Bill through will safeguard all parts of the United Kingdom against illegal immigration that is being channelled through different parts of it? The Government promised in “Safeguarding the Union” that the Bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, but that was written in full knowledge that following a court judgment in Northern Ireland, the Bill could not apply there because of section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and article 2 of the Windsor framework. Two more court judgments since then have made it quite clear that because of article 2, the Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, where the full weight of EU law and the full protections of the European convention on human rights and the European charter of fundamental rights apply. That means that many parts of the Bill will be disapplied in Northern Ireland. There are three court rulings on this.

The Government know what is in the Windsor framework, the withdrawal agreement and the withdrawal Act, yet they continue with the argument that, despite all that, the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. I would like to hear from the Minister where that assurance comes from, given that he knows the terms of the legislation and the Windsor framework, and about the three court judgments—from October, February and the end of February.

If Northern Ireland becomes the weak spot, the policy becomes meaningless. People think, “The boats aren’t going to come from France across the sea to southern Ireland on a 24-hour journey, and people will not come up through to Northern Ireland,” but it must be remembered that of 77 cities in the United Kingdom, Belfast already has second-highest number of illegal immigrants per 10,000 of population. There is already a channel through the Republic into Northern Ireland and then, of course, into England. That needs to be addressed, because a promise has been made in a Government deal, and because of how that could undermine the whole immigration policy. Of course, if Northern Ireland does become that channel, the real danger is that we finish up not just with a border for goods, but with passport controls for people moving from Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Could you mention some of the amendments as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, I am doing so, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was making was that we will support the Government in rejecting Lords amendments 1 to 6 because they weaken the Bill, but the Government must recognise that their own inaction is also weakening the Bill.

I am surprised at the attitude that the Government have adopted to Lords amendment 8. Since the policy is designed to assure people that the Government have got on top of illegal immigration, I would have thought they would have welcomed the opportunity to publish daily the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom. In fact, I would have thought they might have done a Ken Livingstone: put a banner on the building across the river and published daily, “This is how many people we have removed.” Is the reality that the Government know that the Bill will not have the wanted effect, and that the publication of such information would be an embarrassment? We support that amendment, because we believe that there should be a very public way of judging the success of the policy.

I really cannot understand the Government’s attitude to Lords amendment 10, either. We have a duty to those who served with the Army in Afghanistan at difficult times, putting their life in danger, and who are now in danger of losing their life under the brutal Taliban regime, which wants to take revenge. It is not that people could use such a provision to sneak their way into the United Kingdom; we have good records on those who served the Army. They and their families are at risk, and surely we have a duty to them.

I remember speaking to people from Northern Ireland who served in Afghanistan. They spoke glowingly of the folks who interpreted for them, and the folks who gave them background knowledge, supplied them with information, went out with them on patrol daily and so on. We have a duty to those people. I cannot understand why the Government would resist Lords amendment 10. We will certainly be supporting it, because we believe we have that obligation. I would like to hear from the Minister how the promise made in paragraph 46 of the “Safeguarding the Union” deal will be delivered in Northern Ireland, given that courts have judged and ruled that the Bill cannot apply in Northern Ireland. If it cannot apply in Northern Ireland, are the Government aware of the consequences for Northern Ireland of being further isolated from the rest of the United Kingdom?

Northern Ireland

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. In all the discussions he has used his knowledge of the issues. If we have a Government who simply ignored the points that he made, either because they did not know or did not want others to know, that makes it even more disgraceful. That is why when we have a Humble Address, it is right that we scrutinise, ask questions and raise issues about what exactly is meant by the promises made to His Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, I do not believe that what has been said or the promises that have already been made address the issues. If we are going to address the issue of keeping Northern Ireland firmly within the United Kingdom, the Windsor framework has to go and the principle of consent has to be restored. The people of Northern Ireland and elected representatives in Northern Ireland must have the ability to make the laws that they are elected to make.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members know, we had two significant statements after departmental questions, and it is likely that this debate will go for another hour. A significant number of people put their name down for the general debate on farming that was to follow. That will now be rescheduled, and Members will be told in the usual manner when that debate will take place.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the remaining speakers that they should be focusing on the amendments and clauses. They should be speaking to those, not making a Second Reading debate speech.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Of course, my party tabled amendments to the Bill that cannot be discussed and decided on because of the House’s earlier decision about the instruction to include Northern Ireland in the scope of the Bill. We will support many of the amendments that have been tabled, because we believe that the scope of the Bill should be as wide as possible and that while it mentions specific animals, there are other animals that may well be subject to exports in the future.

I do not know if those who tabled the amendments have noted the irony of what we are discussing. This is a Bill to ban the export of live animals, and we are seeking by various amendments to make sure that any other animals not named in the Bill can also be included. Here is the irony: since 2020, the area of the United Kingdom to which the Bill applies has not exported any live animals; the only part of the United Kingdom where there are substantial exports of live animals is the part of the United Kingdom that is not included in this Bill. I do not know if people have noticed the irony of that.

In fact, I remember that at the time when there was criticism of the Government for not bringing forward this legislation, one of their defences was that we had not had any live exports. Of course, we could have live exports in the future, but the Bill addresses an issue that is not an issue for the area included in the scope of the Bill and it ignores the part of the United Kingdom where there are massive exports. Some speakers have said that at least the problem of exports will be made a bit less of an issue because the land bridge is no longer available for exports from Northern Ireland to the rest of Europe. However, that is not the answer, because exporters will of course simply use a more circular and tortuous journey through the Irish Republic.

I first became involved in this issue maybe 20 years ago when I was on a motorbike holiday through the Alps in France. I had not spoken to anybody who could speak English for about two weeks, and I noticed a lorry with a Northern Ireland registration number. I was a member of Belfast City Council at the time, and we had closed our abattoir because the conditions did not meet EU standards. I thought, “There’s somebody from Northern Ireland. I’m going to follow that lorry, and when it stops, at least I’ll have somebody I can talk to.” I thought I would find somebody who could speak English and could understand my sort of English.

I followed the lorry along a long and windy road through the Alps outside a town called Nyons, and it finally stopped at an abattoir in a small village and unloaded its sheep. The sheep came from outside Ballymena, and the driver told me they had come down through the Irish Republic, across the sea, through France and up into the Alps. That journey had taken me on a motorbike—and not because I was going slow either—about three days, and these animals were being transferred to a slaughterhouse. Because I was interested in the issue, I wanted to see what the slaughterhouse was like. We had closed that slaughterhouse in Belfast, but the place to which these animals were being transferred for slaughter from Northern Ireland was like an outhouse of the slaughterhouse that we had closed in Northern Ireland because it did not meet EU standards.

That awoke me to the issue, because I did not think that animals were transported such a distance. This Bill, even with the amendments that have been tabled, will still leave that route open. The objective that the Government are seeking to achieve will not be achieved. It is ironic that we have a Bill about animal welfare that ignores the main source of concern about the transport of animals across the continent of Europe.

I know what the Minister said about the challenges, but I wonder whether he has considered the challenges for this Bill under WTO rules, which the Library has highlighted. There is a reason for not including Northern Ireland, but would he like to comment on the challenges that the Government anticipate may occur and what their response would be? Are they going to use the response of making exceptions?

Lastly—I emphasised this in my speech earlier and other Members have mentioned it—unlike the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who is not here, I am more concerned about the objective of the Bill of protecting the welfare of animals than about protecting the relationship we have, through the Windsor framework, with the EU. I find it disgraceful that someone who represents a constituency where I know there is large concern about animal welfare is more concerned about keeping good relations with the EU than respecting and dealing with animal welfare considerations in the region with the biggest exports of live animals in the United Kingdom.

I wish the Bill well, and it may well be that without it there would be a return to live animal exports. It may well be that it is addressing a problem that is not there in GB. It is there in Northern Ireland, but it is not going to be addressed. I hope there will not be a loophole, because unfortunately, as a result of the agreements that the Government have made with the EU in respect of Northern Ireland, even the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has spent so much time on, is in jeopardy of being circumvented, because the hunting trophy exports could come through Northern Ireland and get into GB. That is one of the problems that need to be addressed, and it will not be addressed by this legislation, which will only exacerbate the difference between the part of the United Kingdom that I belong to and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the way they have progressed this issue, which has caused so much devastation for businesses, families and individuals right across the United Kingdom. People who thought they had a good business, worked at it, invested in it and trusted the Post Office to do right by them, found that they were betrayed by those who knew that mistakes were being made and knew that the system was faulty, yet, rather than admit to the failings, decided to pursue innocent individuals.

I do not want to elaborate on the stories we have heard today, but this Government body and its officials wilfully pursued cases that they knew would destroy individuals, families and reputations. As has been said, postmasters and postmistresses are often regarded as pillars of society in their village or locality, and they suddenly found themselves painted as if they were thieves.

It was known from an early stage, it would seem, that the accusations were totally false. One postmaster said to me, “Surely somebody in the Post Office must have known at an early stage that it was not one or two individuals but hundreds of people who had served blamelessly for many years. Did they think a virus had come into the system and turned them all into criminals? Somebody must have asked questions.” It seems that someone did ask questions and that, as the inquiry has shown, it was known at an early stage that there were flaws in the system and the system was wrong. Even when it was found that these people were right, tens of millions of pounds were spent on pursuing them through the courts, as that was an easy way to shut them up, rather than admitting that mistakes had been made.

I welcome the three things the Minister has said today, although he will have to come back on a regular basis to reassure us. The Bill extends the period in which payments can be made, but we cannot keep delaying compensation for the many who have been left destitute, had their reputation ruined and lost their business. Although the Minister has indicated that, technically, all the Bill will do is allow the compensation period to be extended in case that is needed, I hope that provision will not be used—I accept his assurance that he does not intend for it to be—to drag out the compensation scheme, and that it is only for cases with complexities that will take time to work out. I hope he will come back regularly between now and August to update us on the number of cases that have been dealt with, settled and sorted out.

I welcome the point the Minister made about corporate and individual responsibility. We need to have that, because it was clear that individuals in the organisation knew that what was being done to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses was wrong and yet the corporate response was, “Let’s not admit anything.” As a result, some people were dragged through the courts and finished up with prison sentences. It does not really matter what level of compensation we give, because how can we compensate for broken marriages, ruined reputations, wrongful imprisonment, premature deaths and even driving people to suicide? No level of monetary compensation will ever deal with that, which is why it is important that those responsible are held to account, that there is no hiding place for them and that we do not see the affront we have had so far of the head of the Post Office at the time actually being rewarded. Indeed, not so long ago a Member drew to the House’s attention the fact that the Post Office bonus scheme meant that individuals in the Post Office were actually being given bonuses for giving information to the inquiry that they ought to have been giving in any case. What the Minister said on that is important.

I noted the Minister’s comment that taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of the money that has to be paid out. Fujitsu knew that its system was flawed and it has not been held to account. The Minister said that,

“where responsibility can be assigned”,

the Government would seek to have compensation drawn from Fujitsu. The evidence given to the inquiry already shows that a large degree of responsibility can be assigned to Fujitsu. If that is the case, I trust that the Government will be rigorous in pursing that company. It seems odd that a company that supplied such a system should have had its contract renewed not so long ago. We need greater scrutiny of that and we certainly need to see not only individuals held responsible, but the company that supplied the faulty software held responsible for making some of the financial compensation to these individuals.

It is good that we have the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, here today. They are to be congratulated on the rigorous way in which they have pursued this matter. It gives hope that at least this issue is not going to be ignored, but it is important that we have regular updates so that the public can have assurance that Parliament and the Government are not ignoring it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Gerald Jones to make the last Back-Bench contribution.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. Ministers are encouraged to correct any inadvertently incorrect statements made to the House as quickly as possible. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I am sure the Secretary of State will correct any mistakes, if any have occurred.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that next Wednesday the Government are to bring forward a statutory instrument to the House in relation to the Stormont brake. Can I ask you to investigate the legislative basis on which such an instrument can be brought forward?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order and for notice of it. While it is not within the power of the Chair to do that in relation to the tabling of legislation in this House, there will be an opportunity tomorrow in business questions for him to ask the Leader of the House directly what the future business will be and under what auspices that statutory instrument would or could be brought forward. If he is unable to do that tomorrow, he could go to the Journal Office and seek further advice.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Only the Social Democratic and Labour party has suggested tonight that there are no problems with the protocol. Every other party now accepts that, to one degree or another, there are problems caused by the protocol, which is one of the issues we have faced in these negotiations. The Irish Government, through their Foreign Minister, have patronisingly come to Northern Ireland to tell us, “You don’t really know what you’re talking about. There isn’t a problem.” Of course that has fed through to the EU negotiators, which is one reason why it is important that we have this Bill.

I have listened to Labour Members ask, “What about article 16?” The first people to squeal if the Government had invoked article 16 would have been the Labour party. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about consulting the people of Northern Ireland, but she did not care too much about consulting on abortion. Now she is, as a Labour Member, appealing to the toffs down the other end of the building to defeat this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about Members of the other place.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for setting the parliamentary precedent that we are now allowed to refer to the House downbye as the “House of toffs.” I think that is a rather good suggestion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Gentleman will find it was corrected to “Members of the other place” or even “noble Members of the other place.” Toffs? No.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know whether “noble toffs” is acceptable, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Members have argued that surely we can do this by negotiation, so let us look at the record. The EU has said not once or twice but every time that it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol. The EU has said it every time it has visited Northern Ireland and every time it has met Government representatives. In fact, the EU has now gone further and is taking us to court to impose more checks.

The result of removing the grace periods would be to increase the number of checks per week for goods coming into Northern Ireland from 6,000 to 25,000. This is hardly flexibility from the EU. Indeed, the EU recently wrote to the Government to demand checks on not only goods but people on ferries or airplanes from GB into Northern Ireland. The EU is demanding that people’s personal baggage is searched to make sure they are not bringing in sandwiches or whatever else. Constituents told me this week that such searches have already started in Cairnryan. This is not flexibility but a hardening of attitude by the EU.

Whether by triggering article 16 or through negotiation, we all know what the outcome will be, and that is why the Government have had to take this unilateral action. The Government are not abandoning their obligations. In fact, they are honouring their obligations in two ways. First, they are honouring their obligation to the EU in so far as the single market will be protected by the goods going through the red lane, by the imposition of fines on firms that try to avoid the checks and by the requirement on firms in Northern Ireland that want to trade with the EU to comply voluntarily with all EU regulations. That safeguards the EU market, so we are living up to our obligations to the European Union.

At the same time, the Government are living up to their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, because the green lane or free lane—or whatever they want to call it—enables goods to come into Northern Ireland without any checks. It does not require the imposition of EU law on the 95% of firms in Northern Ireland that do not trade with the Irish Republic, and it ensures that judgments on whether the law has been broken are made by courts in the United Kingdom, albeit with reference to decisions made by the European Court of Justice.

If one looks at this Bill objectively, rather than through the eyes of those in this House who think we should have remained and still want to act almost as agents of the EU, it will help to restore devolution, it will ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom and it will protect the European single market.