Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate, which cuts to the very heart of what it should mean to be part of the United Kingdom. If we construct, at a foreign institution’s behest, an internal international border within our own country and require customs checks and declarations, and the payment of tariffs on the movement of goods, it should be no surprise that we will hugely upset our country’s internal market. That is exactly what has happened. I would go further and say that that is exactly what was intended, as it was notoriously said in Brussels that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland. What we have evolving before our very eyes is the dismembering of the United Kingdom, as an object lesson to any other member state of what happens if they dare to leave the EU. We have created a situation where, because Northern Ireland is in the EU single market and under its customs code, GB is in law decreed to be, within EU terms, a foreign country whose goods must be checked when they move to within the EU, which is how Northern Ireland is regarded as far as the single market is concerned. It should be no surprise that there will be disruption to the market as a consequence. It was the intention of the EU to build an all-Ireland economy as a stepping stone. That was the design, and the protocol is working in that sense: it is delivering what it was intended to deliver. When we hear from the FSB report that 34% of businesses that previously traded with Northern Ireland have stopped trading, that inevitably means that trade with the Irish Republic—it was the purpose of the protocol to build an all-Ireland economy—is increasing. We have statistics from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to show that, over recent years, purchases from the Irish Republic have increased by 50% in comparison with those from GB, taking account of inflation. We therefore have the protocol in action illustrated for us, and its intention to build an all-Ireland economy. All that is set against a background where the Minister present today is under a statutory obligation, under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, to secure and maintain Northern Ireland’s internal place in the UK market. It is supposed to ensure that goods can travel freely, but it does not and never will, because that is impossible to achieve. More than that, with all the spin that attended the Windsor framework, we were told that we were protected under article 16. If there was any diversion of trade, we were told that the Government would step in and take actions permitted under article 16. Well, there has been diversion of trade—lamentable, demonstrable and huge diversion of trade—and what have the Government done? Nothing. They have simply run away, taken a blind-eye approach and refused to act under article 16. Indeed, only a few weeks ago in a Delegated Legislation Committee, I had a Minister tell me that article 16 specifies that there has to be “a massive distortion to trade.” —[ Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23 June 2025; c. 9.] No, it does not; it refers to any diversion of trade. There has been a diversion, but there has been no action, which makes the Government wholly complicit in the dismantling of this Union and the divorcing of Northern Ireland economically from the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless and until that is addressed, this issue will not be settled. The Government talk much about their great reset—well, they had an opportunity, and they did not take it. If they are going to align SPS rules, why did they not say to Europe, “We’re taking back sovereignty and control of SPS in Northern Ireland.”? That is not what the reset does; it retains EU sovereignty of SPS in Northern Ireland, and then makes a separate deal for GB. We are on the road to dismantling this Union, courtesy of this protocol—and that is why, as a Unionist, I will always hold out against it.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  The House will be aware of the serious street disturbances in my constituency last month following the alleged rape of a young 14-year-old girl. Last week, Ballymena magistrates court was informed that the chief suspect has fled back to Romania. Does the Minister agree that extradition that works is an imperative, and that extradition that works expeditiously is an even greater imperative?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  A substantial level of political knockabout is inevitable in a debate such as this, but when it degenerates to the Punch and Judy of “It’s your fault—yes it is!” and “No, it’s not!” it is not really doing anything for my constituents who live in the moment of this Government. Therefore, the debate should properly have a focus on what the Government are doing in respect of our economy. In Northern Ireland, we have felt, and continue to feel, the brunt of many of those measures, some of which, such as the inheritance tax on family farms, are cited in the motion. I agree entirely with the analysis of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) as to the depth and long-term consequences that that is having on family farms. However, I want to focus for a moment on the other side of the inheritance tax imposition: namely, business property relief, because that has not had the same attention but is having an equally detrimental effect on many businesses. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where we have the staggering statistic that 89% of our businesses are micro-businesses—in the UK, the figure is 23%—which translates into the reality that most of those businesses are small family businesses. Those small family businesses, by virtue of what is happening to them with business property relief, instead of planning for growth are now having to plan for death—for inheritance—which is having a suppressive effect on our economy. We must add to that the fact that we in Northern Ireland live subject to the pernicious Irish sea border, with all the costs that that brings. I heard some hon. Members lamenting that we got Brexit. Well, I lament the fact that in Northern Ireland we did not get Brexit—we were left under the EU’s clutches and controls. Let me illustrate that with a practical example that has just come to light. As a result in Northern Ireland of our living under EU rules, we live under the general safety regulation, and that means that a purchaser in Northern Ireland who wants to buy a new car from a car salesroom in Northern Ireland will be charged £4,000 more than his counterpart in Great Britain. Why? It is because the GSR has to be met. That is but another illustration of how individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland are being oppressed by the lack of Brexit and the continuance of EU rules. I have heard talk today about wonderful trade deals. Those wonderful trade deals mean that goods coming from those countries into Northern Ireland are treated as coming into the EU. Therefore, if there is a differential in tariff, they pay the EU tariff. Those tariffs would not be paid in GB if those goods had 0% tariffs, or they might have a 10% tariff, but if they are being brought from the US or India into Northern Ireland, the EU tariff will be paid. Some say, “You can claim it back.” Well, if someone is willing to go through the hideous paperwork of a reclaim and they can prove that the goods they brought in will never end up across the border in the EU, they can eventually—maybe after a year—get a refund. What does that do for cash flow in any business? Those are the realities from Northern Ireland that the Government are refusing to face up to. They are causing trade diversion, yet the Government lamentably refuse to deal with that. This motion carries considerable merit for me, in that it draws this Government’s attention to what they promised, and the contrast with what they are delivering is very substantial indeed. The Government might have a huge majority, but it is about governing well and not governing in whatever way takes their fancy or the fancy of their Back Benchers. They should do the job, do it right and do it right as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Lewell. I note the selective stricture following a speech that exceeded twice the limit that was allegedly set, but I will do my best. May I begin, as a Member from a Northern Ireland constituency, by placing on record the heartfelt thanks of the people of Northern Ireland for the service of our military within Northern Ireland during our darkest days—those who stood between us and the horrendous terrorist threat that we faced? I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and include the gallant local security services of the UDR and the RIR in that. All of us in this House who daily exercise freedoms need to be mindful that when those freedoms were under the most horrendous terrorist attack, it was our security forces who stood between us and their destruction. For the many who paid the ultimate sacrifice, we want to remember their service and sacrifice today. The route to the prosecution of our security services is now through the inquest process. It is the inquest process that is poisoning the well of justice in Northern Ireland. Remember this: an inquest, as has been said, is supposed to be about who died, where they died and how they died. Our Government have allowed inquests in Northern Ireland to become unfettered in their overreach, as illustrated most dramatically in the Clonoe inquest, where every outcome was explored to the point where the judge presiding over that inquest reached wholly prejudicial findings, which then resulted in him saying, “I am now referring this to the PPS.” Let us remember this: inquests operate on the balance of probabilities. That is how we reach a verdict in an inquest, whereas in a criminal prosecution we reach a verdict by proving beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet four SAS soldiers, according to the presiding judge, were meant to step forward and say to nine approaching fully armed IRA men, with a huge machine gun on the back of their lorry, “Hands up, please surrender”. According to the coroner, that is what they were supposed to do, even though those IRA men had just shot up a police station, returned celebrating their actions by firing over the house of a deceased terrorist who had been one of their own, and then arrived at a car park. In the most outrageous overreach, the coroner said that they were ambushed by the SAS, and the soldiers should have said “Hands up, please surrender”, with no regard to the fact that when facing nine fully armed terrorists, a split-second decision has to be made. In England, that could not have happened, because under the inquest rules there, when a coroner reaches the view that there may have been some unlawful activity, he must stop the inquest and refer the matter to the prosecution service. That is the right way to go, because it is for the PPS, not the coroner, to look at the matter and decide the approach. The Secretary of State needs to bring into effect in Northern Ireland the same rules that govern inquests in England, so that if there is an allegation of illegality—or it occurs to the coroner there might be—he stops the inquests and sends it to the PPS, rather than giving an outlandish ruling that creates the public perception that there is huge criminality. That is the lawful and proper way to go. I must say I regret the fact that when I wrote to the Secretary of State pointing that out a few weeks ago, I got a limp response that really it is a matter for the Justice Department in Northern Ireland. No—this Government are said to be tackling legacy issues, and if they are to do so, they need to tackle inquests and cut off the root that is now producing the potential prosecution of some of the bravest of our citizens.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  For over 50 years in Northern Ireland, we have had judge-only trials in terrorist cases, probably for understandable reasons. All non-terrorist cases have been jury trials. In my professional life at both the junior and the senior Bar, I have practised before all those courts, and my experience firmly confirms to me that public confidence is most attainable when we have jury trials. Irrespective of how cautious and diligent a judge is, they can get case-hardened, and that is the source of why public confidence rests most in the jury system. Does the Minister agree that the key determinant in retaining jury trial is whether an offence is indictable or not? If it is an indictable offence, the first port of call must be a jury trial.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Pub Bombings · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the House. He mentions Julie Hambleton. I have met Julie many times over the years. I salute her courage and tenacity, and that of her fellow campaigners. I hope we can reach the point that they want to reach. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the House. He made an exception for the Finucane family and created a hierarchy of victims. Surely the largest, most devastating terrorist act in our nation’s history is deserving of equal treatment, and a public inquiry should be given. Of course, there is one organisation that knows who carried out the bombing—the IRA. But though it demands transparency of others, it holds to itself its wicked secrets.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, at the outset of these proceedings about the passing of Lord Tebbit? Lord Tebbit was a great friend of Northern Ireland, particularly of the many fellow victims of IRA terrorism. May I return the Lord Chancellor to the subject of the backlogs in our Crown courts? In Northern Ireland, we have the worst of all records; it takes an average of 551 days to conclude a Crown court case. Murder trials have been stalled since last September with no new start date. We have a Minister of Justice locally who talks the talk but never walks the walk, and particularly does not walk the walk in settling the ongoing remuneration issue that is holding things up. Would the Lord Chancellor bring some pressure to bear on the local Justice Minister to sort this matter out?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  We in Northern Ireland had a salutary experience recently when a major road project on our A5 was struck down by the High Court because of a failure to comply with net zero expectations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Given that the legislation is very similar in Great Britain, is the Secretary of State satisfied that all these new road projects will not also fall foul of the net zero campaign?

• 2 Jul 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people?

• 2 Jul 2025 · EU Trade Agreement: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  If the reset deal is supposed to bring an end to the SPS checks, when will the customs posts, which are there for the purpose of carrying out those checks, be demolished? Instead, the Secretary of State willingly presides over the ever-tightening EU noose on our economy, with agricultural machinery being the latest that has to kowtow to EU diktats. Meanwhile, trade diversion is rampant and the Secretary of State looks the other way. When will he stop acting as the Secretary of State for the EU and start acting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In the first lines of her statement, the Secretary of State affirmed that this Government believe in equality. Where is the equality in evaluating one person’s eligibility for the daily living component of PIP on the practical consequences of their disability, and evaluating another on the date of their application?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  What we saw was an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast on our national broadcaster. Those who chant “kill the IDF” are endorsing those who kill them—and those who kill them are Hamas. It was an endorsement of the terrorism of Hamas, yet the BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast. Therefore, perhaps it is time for the Government to consider cutting the licence fee.

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  For weeks, some questions on China have been deflected on the basis that we should wait for the audit, so it is rather disappointing that the insight we get today is very opaque. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he reveals that China is the UK’s second largest research collaborator. Has he done an audit of the nature of that research? Are there economic and intelligence risks from that research, and are the Government minded to take any steps either to monitor or to control the extent of that research?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In this strategy, I read a number of encouraging promises. I quote two of them: “controlling our borders” and “controls on immigration”. How will applying those two promises work out at the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which allows unfettered immigrant passage into the United Kingdom? If we are going to control our borders and control immigration, when are we going to start controlling that border?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Why should the House of Commons, and those in the country that we represent, not be entitled to know whether their Government support or regret the American action? Does not equivocation on that issue bring succour to those who we say must be robbed, quite properly, of their nuclear potential?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Desmond. As a Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the draft regulations. They come in a context in which there has already been an indisputable, substantial and worrying diversion of trade in terms of the supply of goods and produce to Northern Ireland. The most recent figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency indicate just how significant that is, yet within the Windsor framework there is supposedly a mechanism under article 16 to enable the Government to take action should there be a diversion of trade. However, this Government, like the last, are blind to that issue and do not want to take on the EU on any of these matters. It is important for the Committee to understand the genesis—how we got to this point. It all arises from an SPS regulation, EU regulation 2023/1231. This is a regulation that was made by a foreign political organisation—the EU—and the most astounding thing about it is that it makes rules that exclusively apply to non-EU territory. It makes regulations that apply not to itself, but to this United Kingdom. This is the first time since Brexit that the EU has asserted legislative power over the United Kingdom. It tells this United Kingdom that, in a series of three steps, there shall be introduced by this United Kingdom “not for EU” labelling on goods moving within this United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is the diktat of the EU: the three steps in Regulation 2023/1231. As the Minister has alluded to, we come today to the final third step, which is to be introduced in just a few days, on 1 July. Building on the previous two steps, it decrees that goods that are moving from Great Britain, allegedly within the UK internal market, must, by EU law, carry a “not for EU” label. That, of course, has cost implications for those who are sending them, which is why, as a result of the requirements already imposed, a number of companies have simply opted out of supplying to Northern Ireland. Here is the most ludicrous aspect of this SPS regulation: it creates no prohibition on any EU citizen—most particularly in the Republic of Ireland—purchasing any of these “not for EU” goods. So we put on GB suppliers a costly obligation to engage in labelling of goods that they might be sending to Northern Ireland, but, within Northern Ireland, anyone from the Republic of Ireland can come and buy those goods and can do whatever they want with them. This is supposedly about protecting the EU single market. How can it be that we have this ludicrous situation that goods are labelled as “not for EU” but can be brought into the EU with no consequence, all under an EU regulation that puts a burden on the United Kingdom but no burden on its own citizens? I guarantee that if anyone went now, at this very moment, to any of the supermarkets in Northern Ireland around the border, in Enniskillen, Londonderry or Newry, they would see people filling up their car boot with goods labelled as “not for EU”, because they are cheaper. Yet we have this ludicrous situation whereby we are now going to impose an even wider duty on British manufacturers. For what purpose? For the purpose only of showing how compliant doormats we are for the EU, for no practical purpose whatever. That is the reality of the situation. I therefore say to the Committee that it should not approve a regulation of this genesis and this nature. Of course, it is going to burden on industry in Great Britain, and it is not as if there were not already burdens. Even under the internal market scheme, if someone is sending produce to Northern Ireland, they must fill in a customs declaration, which is an expense in itself, and must belong to a trusted trader scheme, which is a further expense. Now, on top of that, they must label their goods as “not for EU”, even though there is no purpose, other than that which is farcical, in doing that. I say to this Committee: surely, out of respect for your own GB businesses, you should not be rushing into approving a regulation such as this, because it will add burdens, and it will cause companies to de-list. Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum recognises what some of us have always been saying: that creating an Irish sea border—creating barriers within our own supposed internal market—will discourage trade. That is why the Government say they are bringing these regulations—to protect against discouraging trade—but will it? First of all, any “small company”, which is a company with fewer than 50 employees, is not affected: it can de-list Northern Ireland with no consequence. So, in my constituency, artisan cheese people who might buy from a small supplier in Wiltshire, or dear knows where, will no longer simply be supplied, with no penalty upon the provider, because small companies are exempt. This will also enforce the requirement on GB producers to label their goods, even though their goods will never come to Northern Ireland. That is what Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom should realise. The draft regulations, if the Government act upon them, will require producers in GB, supplying only to GB, to put on their produce, “not for EU”. These regulations are ill-considered and will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the distortion and upset to the UK internal market that has flowed from the Windsor framework and the protocol, which were identical in this regard. If this Government want an answer to the Irish sea border, it lies in the very simple but workable proposition of mutual enforcement: we send goods to a recipient country, meeting its standards, and vice versa. We do not need any of this crazy, trade-reducing paraphernalia. We certainly do not need to add extra cost to business, which is what these regulations will foolishly do, all for the purpose of the Prime Minister being able to say, “I’m a faithful implementer of the Windsor framework,” even though the Windsor framework is tearing apart this Union and is literally divorcing Northern Ireland from its natural market, which is so impeded by regulation, to which this legislation is adding.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Lady advise us whether there is any other area of law governing the taking of life in which the guardrails of the criminal law have been removed? That is what new clause 1 proposes when it comes to the voiceless child. Is there no thought of protection for them?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady refers to Northern Ireland. It was courtesy of her intervention back in 2019 that we had foisted upon Northern Ireland the most extreme abortion laws of any place in this United Kingdom—laws that totally disregard the rights of the unborn and treat them as a commodity to be disposed of at will and at whim. In consequence, we have seen a huge, unregulated increase in the destruction of human life through the destruction of the unborn in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is an example that anyone should want to follow in any part of this United Kingdom.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary refers to this inquiry as a national inquiry, but it is not, is it? The inquiry’s terms of reference and scope will exclude concern about grooming and organised sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland, whether by foreign nationals, paramilitary groups or others. Is that less important to this Government? Will the legislative change increasing the statutory rape age to 16 apply across the whole United Kingdom?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The whole House will be appalled, as I am, by the grotesque and wanton violence that has afflicted Ballymena in my constituency, and appalled by the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. There can be no excuse for the resulting violence. However, the Government must be aware of the underlying tensions produced by uncontrolled, and often undocumented, immigration. In that regard, would it be in order to ask that the Government make a statement to the House on what they will do to constrain the flow of migrants who legitimately travel under freedom of movement from one EU country to another—in this case, into the Republic of Ireland—and then pass unchecked from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland? That has been a contributor—particularly in respect of Romas, it would seem—to the concentration and the resulting problems. None of that excuses violence, but it is a matter of concern to many. How can I obtain a statement from the Government on how they intend to address that gap in our ability to control who comes and goes from our own country?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I greatly welcome this overdue U-turn, but if £35,000 is the correct cap, why did the Government impose misery on millions of pensioners last winter? Is not a basic part of getting something wrong saying sorry? It is not enough to say, “Look at all the things the Conservative party did.” That is not the point. The point is that this Government think they are better than everyone else. Why will they not say sorry?