Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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 regulations are the latest example of the humiliation of this proclaimed sovereign United Kingdom Parliament in adopting laws that it did not make and laws it cannot change—laws that are made in a foreign jurisdiction. We have already seen that in multiple examples. We have had it in the vehicle type regulations, under which people cannot now buy a new car in Northern Ireland made to GB-type regulations and must buy one made to EU-type regulations at an extra expense of £4,000; we have had it with tumble dryers—there are certain types of tumble dryers that can no longer be bought in Northern Ireland; and now we are to have it in respect of machinery. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so fragile that the composition of a leaf blower coming into Northern Ireland placed it in jeopardy? It really is ridiculous beyond belief. The fundamental constitutional and democratic point is that in this Committee this afternoon, parliamentarians are being invited to nod through laws that they did not make, did not write and cannot change to enforce the EU regulation that is coming in in January, and to enforce it in a part of this United Kingdom in respect of which this is supposed to be the sovereign Parliament. What an insult to all of us as parliamentarians to belong to a proclaimed sovereign Parliament to have to pass laws that we did not make and cannot change. That is the very essence of what is before us. The Government, as has already been referred to, have said it themselves. In order to produce their reset, they are going to bring in a statutory instrument to make the whole of the United Kingdom compliant with EU laws. Not satisfied with subjecting my part of the United Kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction making laws that we cannot change, they are now going to set the whole United Kingdom under identical laws made in a foreign place. I really do think it is time that we, as parliamentarians, woke up to what we are being asked to do. I have one practical question for the Minister. Under the regulations, Northern Ireland’s goods will have to bear the European CE marking and the UKNI marking, and then they will be able to be sold into Great Britain. What about machinery made in Great Britain? How can it be sold into Northern Ireland? It will not bear the CE marking. Will it bear the UKNI marking? Have we created a situation in which we are going to cut the pipeline of supply from GB to Northern Ireland? I really would like the Minister to address this question: what is the effect of the regulations on the sale of machinery made in Great Britain to another part of the United Kingdom? I would like a very clear answer on that because, in significant measure, it goes to the heart of the matter. Please, Minister, answer that question.

• 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

  Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB-Northern Ireland sales?

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House. I have to say, there is an inherent absurdity, and indeed a constitutional offence, in having to come to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom to ask whether there will be any tariff arrangements on moving steel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Indeed, one recalls that last Thursday, the Minister said that he could not tell us because he had to await the EU decision, which underscores how absurd it is that these matters are governed by a foreign jurisdiction and not by ourselves. I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, is there any quota differential in regard to any class of steel, and if so, in respect of which classes? Secondly, will the EU’s new traceability rules, which it calls the “melt and pour” rules, be applied to steel being imported into Northern Ireland? If they are, they will impose an extra layer of bureaucracy, with form filling and certificates having to be obtained that are not required when steel is brought into Great Britain. Could we have clarity on that? Thirdly, last Thursday the Minister said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain will not be covered by the UK trade measure. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption—if we want to call it that—in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we do not make steel; we rely exclusively on importing it. Many businesses in Northern Ireland depend very much on steel imports, yet here they are facing a new regime tomorrow and only hearing about it today.

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

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on steel tariffs in relation to Northern Ireland.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said that the business of this Government was to secure the borders of this nation. In that context, can I therefore ask him how many of the buses travelling through the open back door into the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic have ever been stopped and how many of those seeking asylum have had their credentials checked since this Government came to power two years ago? We all know what happened a few weeks ago in north Belfast, where an asylum seeker is now in custody for attempted murder, yet there has been no effort by this Government to close that back door. Why is that? Why are we allowing people to enter this United Kingdom unchecked? We talk about stopping the small boats. When are we going to stop the buses?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Northern Ireland Office · Hansard source

  More

  In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, lamented the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to agree a budget; indeed, for any of the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive to even agree with their own party on a budget. That, clearly, is a difficulty in terms of providing the services for the people of Northern Ireland. It would do this House well to ask more probing questions on how, not for the first time, the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to agree a budget. Are there political influences at stake? Sinn Féin controls the Department of Finance. Sinn Féin does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, so is it really any great surprise that when it is in charge of the Department of Finance there is a stand-off about agreeing a budget? For Sinn Féin, the default position is always to blame the Brits, demand more money and turn that into a political campaign on how Northern Ireland is being treated unfairly. Even if it had all the money imaginable, Sinn Féin would not seek to make Northern Ireland work. It cannot make it work and then say, “But none the less, we need the fundamental constitutional change” which is its raison d’être and what it demands. There are at play bigger issues than a mere failure to balance the books. On balancing the books, many of the parties that form the Northern Ireland Executive bear much responsibility themselves. When devolution was down and coming back at the beginning of 2024, there were parties now in the Executive who had no interest in getting a durable financial settlement. They had such a stampede mindset that they just wanted back into government. They did not support negotiations to enhance what could have been the ongoing sustaining financially of the Northern Ireland Executive. There were others who just wanted back into the Executive for the very sake of power and preferred to lie about what they had achieved in terms of safeguarding the Union. This was an Executive restored on the basis of the biggest lie for generations in Northern Ireland: that the Irish sea border had been removed. It patently has not been removed. There was much that should have been done by the Northern Ireland Executive parties at the time of going back into devolution to extract the financial settlement that was needed. Now we have reached the situation where overspend is the norm in Northern Ireland. That overspend is built on an expectation that in due course there will be a bail-out. That has been the pattern throughout the years and that is the expectation of this Executive: in due course, there will be a bail-out or a writing-off of the moneys that have been overspent. It has happened before and that is the essence of the demand again. Are the Government going to do that once more? We have had occasions when past Governments have said to the Northern Ireland Executive, “If we’re going to bail you out, you have to transform and do all sorts of things to save money. Maybe you have to raise some money yourself.” None of that has happened. The absence of that engendered a belief that yet again they can produce the begging bowl and have the overspends written off. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how clear he is about whether or not that will yet happen again. Reference has also been made to policing. Yes, policing is grossly short of funding and it is a scandal that, in my constituency and others, if you can muster together three or four community constables you are doing well for a town and multiple villages. It is a scandal, but it does bring one back to the absolute folly of ever having devolved policing and justice. The Government’s attitude today is, “Policing and justice is devolved, so you find the money.” The allocations are wholly inadequate. If policing and justice had never been devolved, the Secretary of State would have had no escape route in terms of finding the money to give policing to the citizens of Northern Ireland. It was a moment of folly, just over 10 years ago, to devolve policing and justice. There is a real burden that I wanted to come to, and it is this. The Northern Ireland Office’s promotional website states that the Northern Ireland Office has three priorities, and within the second priority are the wonderful words, “protecting the UK internal market”. That, of course, is the one thing that this Government have lamentably failed to do. Instead of protecting the UK internal market, this Government have wrecked it, because we now have an internal market that is partitioned by a full international customs border down the Irish sea, courtesy of the very lies I referred to earlier and the Windsor framework. Far from protecting the UK internal market, the Northern Ireland Office has gleefully presided over the sabotaging of the UK internal market. In a recent survey, the Federation of Small Businesses found that 38% of GB businesses that used to supply Northern Ireland have stopped supplying it. Why? Because of the unbearable paperwork and burdens that are put on businesses in order for them to trade with Northern Ireland. Far from protecting the UK internal market, we have a UK internal market that has been riven by this Government’s actions. When we look at the small print in these accounts, we see that the Government are going to give the mighty sum of £2.25 million over three years to a body called Intertrade UK, the purpose of which, as the name suggests, is to promote trade within the United Kingdom—and the Government are giving it £750,000 per annum to do so. Intertrade UK has no staff and no offices—nothing. Let me contrast that with InterTradeIreland: InterTradeIreland exists for the correlative purpose of promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis. It gets £5 million a year of British taxpayers’ money. It also gets southern Government money. It has over 40 staff, plush offices and a real programme of work. Contrast that with Intertrade UK—the Secretary of State thinks it is adequate to give that organisation no staff, no offices and £750,000 a year. Intertrade UK is seeking to promote trade within an economy of 70 million people, and it gets £750,000 to do it. InterTradeIreland is supposed to be promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis for a population of 7 million, and it gets millions upon millions, 40 members of staff, and more. Where is the logic? Other than the logic of wanting to do down inter-UK trade, where is the logic of being so abundantly miserly with Intertrade UK in comparison to the funds being given to InterTradeIreland? When I read that the Government’s second priority in this area is this idea of “protecting the UK internal market”, I see it as a joke—not just a joke, but a very sick joke—because the very opposite has been done to my part of the United Kingdom. I use this debate to draw attention to those facts and to say to this Government—more in hope than expectation—that one day they will realise that they are the Government of the United Kingdom, and that means promoting the United Kingdom, not promoting the partitioning of it. It means promoting the growth not of an all-Ireland economy, but of an all-UK economy. Sadly, this Government, deliberately and consciously, are failing in that fundamental mission.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  Surely the Minister must agree that sustaining and instilling confidence in victims is essential to securing and sustaining prosecutions, and therefore any indication that there could be early release of such a person is bound to undermine a victim’s confidence. Last week in Northern Ireland, through the bravery of two young women, we saw Jeffrey Donaldson convicted as a child rapist—a man who passed himself off in this House and elsewhere as a statesman, demonstrating that no one, thankfully, is above the law. But if we get into the business of early release for child rapists, how do we ever hope to sustain victims coming forward?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Border Security: UK-Ireland Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Lady surprised by the misrepresentation from the Secretary of State about what the common travel area means? It means simply that there is common travel for those who are legally in the country, not those who are illegally in the country. Is she also surprised that, for all the Government’s talk, they have taken no steps to deal with the pull factors that bring these illegal immigrants to the United Kingdom? They get free accommodation immediately when they apply for asylum, a weekly amount of money and they are registered with a GP and a dentist, and we are then surprised that they pass through many safe countries to come to the United Kingdom.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  The Health Secretary told us that his bottom line was to protect children, but he also conceded that puberty blockers can affect adversely bone density and brain development, so why is he taking the risk? Our 11-year-olds are not guinea pigs; they are children entitled to grow up without state-sponsored harm. Surely that should be the starting point.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  For Northern Ireland, there is both a key sovereignty question and a key economic question. Because of the iniquity of our being subject to EU law, we are already under EU tariffs when it comes to steel imports and quotas, paying 25% once we cross the quota. I have a simple question: can the Minister assure my steel importers that the writ of the United Kingdom will govern their imports, not the writ of the foreign EU?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support the points made by the Opposition. This is a rushed and ill-conceived piece of delegated legislation, and I have major concerns about its impact on Northern Ireland and the specialised steel in our defence sector, which is quite significant to the whole nation. There is real concerns about what will happen to that. Northern Ireland is in a very difficult and different position. This regulation purports to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, but I must question whether it really does or will. Northern Ireland is, because of the absurdity of being subject to EU law, already subject to EU quotas and tariffs on steel. In the main Chamber, the Minister for Industry talked earlier today about ongoing negotiations with the EU on this matter. However, legally, as things stand, the EU sadly has the status and sovereignty to decree the tariff regime in a part of this United Kingdom. It is absurd beyond measure, but that is the situation. The rest of the world’s steel is already coming into Northern Ireland, and if we exceed the quota, it attracts a 25% tariff. Under EU rules, that is due to rise to 50%. Incredibly, GB steel coming into Northern Ireland has to pass through a full international customs border—the red lane—because no one can properly say that its ultimate manufacture would not be at risk of going into the EU. It therefore passes through the red lane and is subject to customs declarations and, in certain circumstances—if we exceed the quota—to tariffs. It is not this Government or Parliament shaping and dictating the tariff rules in respect of steel in Northern Ireland. It seems that the Government are trying to align themselves with the EU provisions to diminish that situation as much as they can, but what if they do not succeed in their negotiation with the EU? I would like the Minister to tell us what the Government are trying to achieve for Northern Ireland in this negotiation with the EU. Whatever they achieve, will steel entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the world continue to be subject not to UK laws, tariffs and quotas, but to EU laws, tariffs and quotas? What does that situation do not just for the coherence of our United Kingdom economy, but for the constitutional position of a part of this United Kingdom? Could the Minister tell me what the consequences of proceeding with these regulations will be for GB steel entering Northern Ireland and not deemed a risk, although there will not be very much of that? What are the consequences for GB steel coming into Northern Ireland that is deemed at risk of moving into the EU in its finished form? It seems that it is the EU—not this Minister or Government—that is dictating and setting that framework. Employers in my constituency are dependent on steel. We do not produce any steel in Northern Ireland, so we depend totally on exports. My employers are already subject to the 25% tariff for rest of the world, which is now going up to 50%. What is their future under these regulations? I do not see many answers. I do not even see that question addressed in the explanatory memorandum. We are a United Kingdom. If we are bringing in United Kingdom legislation, we should at least explain what the effect will be in each part of the United Kingdom. I want to hear from the Minister a clear explanation of what the impact of these regulations will be and how that sits with the supremacy that has been surrendered to the EU.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to draw the Minister back to a point I raised with him at an earlier stage of the Bill, when he gave me what I would call a holding reply. When this legislation goes through, will the whole United Kingdom be subject to it, or will my part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—be subject to the EU’s AI laws as they affect the digital sector? Businesses in that industry in my constituency want to know whether they will be governed by this Bill or by the EU’s AI Act. In other words, will the EU’s AI Act and Cyber Resilience Act be added to annex 2 to the Windsor framework, which would give them superiority and direct application in Northern Ireland? Can we have an answer—are they going to be added or not?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that if we are to excel, we must excel on a UK-wide basis? Does he agree that it would be a very retrograde step to have part of this United Kingdom subject to another jurisdiction’s AI regulations, rather than those of the UK? Does he agree that it is imperative that the AI regulations that govern our digital sector are those of this Parliament and not those of the European Parliament?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, given that Transport for London now has 500 Chinese buses ordered and on the streets of London, there is a glaring opportunity for huge embarrassment to this nation if those kill switches were ever used on the buses in our capital city?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I greatly welcome the ban and the fact that it will apply across the United Kingdom. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there are no cross-border loopholes such as virtual private networks with the Irish Republic that could be exploited to allow children in Northern Ireland still to sign in?

• 15 Jun 2026 · The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly welcome any strengthening of sanctions against Russia or, indeed, any other aggressor, but there is one point on which I seek clarification. It is rooted in paragraph 4.4 of the explanatory memorandum. That says, as one would expect, “The instrument extends to the whole of the United Kingdom”. But it goes on: “It is subject to any obligation arising in respect of the Windsor Framework…in respect of Northern Ireland.” That means that the instrument is conditional to the supremacy of any overriding imposition under the Windsor framework. What possible provision of the Windsor framework could leave Northern Ireland less impacted—as it ought not to be—by these requirements with respect to sanctions? Why does paragraph 4.4 say that? In short, what is it in the Windsor framework that can impede UK sovereignty on this matter? Foreign policy, above all, must exclusively be an integral UK matter, and yet we are bringing forward regulations with an explanatory memorandum that says they are for the whole United Kingdom but subject to the Windsor framework. That is not acceptable: my constituents want to be as fully a part of the sanctions against Russia as anyone else. I urge the Minister to explain to us what lies behind paragraph 4.4. If there is some exemption or imposition in the Windsor framework, let us spell it out so that we can see what it is. It would be intolerable if what should be a UK-wide imposition were tempered, weakened or undermined by something that the EU required under the Windsor framework. Could we have that clarification?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  All that the perpetrators of last night’s dreadful violence did was terrorise the innocent, inflict harm on their own communities, and distract from the awfulness of the north Belfast attack—and, indeed, distract from the many peaceful protests that took place in my constituency and elsewhere. On all these issues, the law must take its full course against all illegality, wheresoever it comes from. However, the deadly impact of the continuing open border with the Republic of Ireland for illegal migrants still stands. This Government preside over a situation in which it is illegal to bring a garden plant from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, yet we have an open border with the Irish Republic, which gentlemen like this Sudanese man—an illegal immigrant—can cross unhindered into the United Kingdom. Does the Minister not see the problem?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I think that Saturday at Scarva was an object lesson in how not to do public order policing, because the mentality that seemed to infect all that was to inhibit, and even to seek to provoke—what I saw seemed to be of that order—those who were legitimately exercising a peaceful protest. Even in that regard, the changing of the designation and determination of the Parades Commission on when and where a protest was held seems to me to be ultra vires of the police powers that surround that. The police need to take a long, hard look at themselves in how they conducted those public order policing matters on Saturday. Having said all that, we do need a police force. We need those who serve our community, but we need them to serve it even-handedly—to serve everyone with equality and not to have anyone think that they are above the law or, indeed, to have anyone perpetuated in that view by a pandering to them. There are lessons there to be learned. Let us get a proper training course and training location for our police. Let us also get our numbers to where they should be. Chris Patten told us that we were to have 7,500 police officers. Today, I think we have 6,200. That is way short, and again I think that is a failure of the devolution of policing. Certainly, as Members of Parliament we would be in a much stronger position to really hold the Minister to account if policing had never been devolved. For me, this is confirmation of the folly of that action.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. I support both the concept of and the need for a proper training facility of modern standards for the PSNI. As has been referred to, some years ago, there was a proposition to have the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Prison Service and the PSNI on a joint training site at Desertcreat. Frankly, that would have cost a lot less than the cumulative cost now facing the PSNI alongside what was spent at Desertcreat for the Fire and Rescue Service. It was, perhaps, rather short-sighted not to have proceeded with that expenditure at that time. Policing is now a devolved matter, and the Minister will no doubt tell us today that the responsibility for it lies with the Stormont Executive. Maybe the devolving of policing, as some of us said at the time, was not such a good idea after all; if it had not been devolved, then there would be no hiding place for the Minister. There would be no batting this away and saying, “That is for Stormont.” The obligation would be—as I think it always should have been—with the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office. We are now in a situation where the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland is bidding for £116 million but, from what I can see, there has been no positive response from the Department of Finance in Stormont. She can make as many bids as she likes, but until the money is granted, nothing is going to happen. Is something going to happen under a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who would far rather squander money on net zero madness, needless and expensive Irish language signing, and useless north-south bodies? I would dare to say that the PSNI and its needs are pretty far down the Sinn Féin Finance Minister’s list of priorities. It would be far better if policing had never been devolved. Then, if this need had still existed, we could have come here today and really put it to the Minister that it was his responsibility and his Government’s obligation, and that they were the ones who were failing. Instead, he can rightly say, to a significant extent, that it is Stormont that has failed to provide the policing facilities. That was one of many mistakes made in respect of devolution. Yes, we need a training centre, but what will the training there encompass? I ask that question in light of the controversy last week in this place about the need to readjust the training directives for police officers in the United Kingdom, which had gone overboard in terms of their political correctness. Is the same thing going to happen in respect of the PSNI? I suspect that it is, because when I look at the PSNI’s “Race and Ethnicity Action Plan 2025-2030”, I read about matters such as: “mandatory… cultural competence training to all…officers”. What on earth does that mean? In paragraph 3.3.2 of the plan, I read language that speaks of: “Interacting…in an…appropriate and culturally sensitive way”. What does that mean? In Great Britain, we have seen training that reduced the scandal of what happened to Mr Nowak, when police arrived and, on the playing of the race card, automatically looked for the white man. That is what happened in that case. Is that what will happen in Northern Ireland under this PSNI training? If it is, we can do without it. We want policing based on training that is fundamentally fair and equal for all. Frankly, it is no comfort that this “ethnicity action plan” is to be overseen by our highly politicised and politically perverse Equality Commission. If that body has anything to do with the plan, then it will definitely head in the wrong way. There need to be lessons learned right across this United Kingdom, including from the attack on young Mr Nowak. There need to be lessons learned about the abomination of what has become a corrupting political correctness, which is affecting training for our services. People just want policemen who act fairly, who act swiftly, who act correctly and who are not constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering whether or not, when they do the right thing, they are offending some madness in some ethnicity action plan.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  Has it come to this? The Labour party-sponsored Patten report recommended 7,500 police officers and a new training centre. Do this Labour Government feel no connection or commitment to that? Are they happy to wash their hands of it?

• 9 Jun 2026 · North Belfast: Violent Attack · Hansard source

  More

  We are all shocked by the sheer savagery of this attack. Indeed, the only bright spot in this orgy of violence was the brave intervention of local citizens, whose courage we salute. What I want to know, and what I know that my constituents want to hear, is what will be done to stop the importation of an alien culture that thinks it is appropriate to try to behead someone within the United Kingdom. On the immigration status of this person, did they hold a visa before they came to the United Kingdom? Did they obtain a visa having come illegally to the United Kingdom? I think we are entitled to know. This House should be getting its information from the Secretary of State, not from a chief constable’s press conference. The House is entitled to know, because truth and transparency are the greatest antidote to rising tensions, so can we have the answers?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Was it not so obvious that not a single royal society of experts supported this Bill, just as not a single Member of this House was elected on a manifesto to support it? Yet we have this cry that it should be railroaded through—where is the democracy in that? We hear this audacious demand to use the Parliament Act, which has never been used for a private Member’s Bill and is only ever used for Government Bills, to ram the Bill through. If we take scrutiny seriously, we must not bring Parliament into disrepute. Passing a flawed Bill that allows the state and doctors to end vulnerable lives would most certainly bring Parliament into disrepute. This was a Bill riddled with flaws—my goodness, look at what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said— [ Interruption. ]

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your protection, Mr Wishart. I was not certain that I needed it, but I am very glad to have it none the less. This was a Bill so eminently flawed that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee eviscerated it, saying that it relied so much on delegated legislation that proper scrutiny was difficult. It was a shell of a Bill to give future Ministers the right to make all sorts of life-and-death decisions on this most critical issue—supposedly one of conscience. It was an appallingly flawed piece of legislation, demonstrated by the number of amendments that had to be moved by its own supporters and the number that then had to be counteracted by its supporters in the House of Lords. The thing was a farce, and the House of Lords did it a great service by putting it out of its misery.