Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered goods trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Trade within any nation should be so simple and uncomplicated that it ought not to be a focus of much debate. And so it was within this United Kingdom until some time ago. One of the founding principles of this United Kingdom, as set forth in the Acts of Union, is that all parts of the United Kingdom should be on an equal footing when it comes to trade. That, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade among and within all parts of the United Kingdom. But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, which upended that equilibrium. That happened because the Windsor framework treats Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom as subject to the EU’s customs union. As a consequence, the EU’s customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated and regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that flows the iniquitous Irish sea border—a full international customs, sanitary and phytosanitary and trade border—which is truncating and partitioning this United Kingdom. In consequence of the Irish sea border, we have checks and customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—a part of this United Kingdom whose economy was historically very integrated with Great Britain, which is where our raw materials came from, and to where we sold most of our goods. To impose upon such an integrated economy an international customs border was inevitably going to grossly and disadvantageously affect trade, and so it did.

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

  More

  I think all that is self-evident, but sadly, we have a Government who are deaf to those issues, and sadly, the hon. Member’s party seems to have come to terms with them, because in Stormont, the DUP is now prepared to implement the Irish sea border and the Windsor framework, but let me be very clear: the integrity of our single market has been utterly destroyed. Among the practical consequences of that are unimaginable levels of trade diversion. We were once a wholly integrated part of the United Kingdom. Once barriers are erected, trade is discouraged. Various surveys show that that has happened. From the Federation of Small Businesses survey, we know that 34% of GB companies that used to trade with Northern Ireland have ceased trading. Why? Because this paperwork and this checking is such a disincentive that it is not worth the bother. This week, I received figures from the Department for Transport that I find quite astounding, and they make the point with great clarity of what it means to have had trade diversion. According to the Department for Transport, in 2022, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles—in other words, GB haulage companies bringing goods into Northern Ireland. Last year, that figure fell to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In just four years, there has been a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles.

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

  More

  Of course. The fact that 34% of businesses—many of them small—that previously serviced and supplied Northern Ireland have ceased, is obviously having a detrimental employment consequence for those firms in GB. It is not just big or small firms that are suffering but ordinary consumers. One of the most striking illustrations of that, particularly pertinent to this House, is that items purchased online from our own House of Commons shop cannot be delivered to Northern Ireland. It cannot supply to Northern Ireland because of the EU’s general product safety regulations. It is impossible to order a packet of House of Commons fudge, a leather folder, a candle, a keyring or a Christmas bauble—not even this bookmark I have here. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so delicate that it could not withstand the import into Northern Ireland of a bookmark? How preposterous and ridiculous is it that we have got to that point? I suspect that the Minister, in trying to excuse and wave this away, will tell us that we have the wonderful advantage of dual market access. What a fraud and con. Dual market access has amounted to nothing for Northern Ireland. We were told that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west. Strange then, that in all the years of the Windsor framework there has not been a single incidence of foreign direct investment because of dual market access. That is for one very good reason. If a manufacturer coming to Northern Ireland is told it is wonderful that they can sell to GB and to the EU, they should ask where they are to get their raw materials. If they are told they should get their raw materials from Great Britain, they would have to pass through an international customs border. They might have to pay duties and do all the paperwork. Suddenly, the attraction of setting up in Northern Ireland as foreign direct investment disappears very fast. Any perceived advantage of dual market access is cancelled out by the Irish sea border itself. Many the Minister will tell us that the Government will do an SPS deal, which will solve many of these problems. Will it? The SPS deal is not a United Kingdom-EU deal; it is a GB-EU deal, leaving Northern Ireland utterly, totally, irreversibly under EU rules pertaining to everything of the nature of SPS. The SPS-GB deal means that, in addition to Northern Ireland being disenfranchised by being allowed to make the laws that flow under SPS, the whole United Kingdom is to be disenfranchised and Great Britain is to join us, unable to make laws about her own SPS arrangements. It is no silver bullet whatsoever. We might be told, as we are often foolishly told, “Oh, but it’s about protecting the Belfast agreement.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement. Indeed, if it had anything to do with it, it is in this context: the Belfast agreement created a scenario where cross-community consent was supposed to be the barometer for everything, yet when it came to the Windsor framework being imposed on and extended to Northern Ireland, the one thing in the Belfast agreement that was liquidated was cross-community consent. That was taken out so that the protocol could be extended, knowing that it did not and would not have cross-community consent. The Windsor framework makes a nonsense of the Belfast agreement argument by trashing the very core of it—namely, by removing cross-community consent. I come back to where I started. If we are a United Kingdom, why oh why are we denying to my part of the United Kingdom and that of my colleagues the most fundamental tenet of being a United Kingdom—namely, unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom? It does not have to be like this. We could deal with the border issues with the EU through mutual enforcement—in other words, something relatively simple. It is a hallmark of international trade that if you are making goods for a foreign country, you make them to their standards and vice versa. That is the essence of mutual enforcement, with criminal sanction so that there is liability if that is not done. That is what protects each other’s markets. We do not need all this paraphernalia of the Windsor framework. Indeed, if it had anything but the political purpose that lies behind it, we would not have all this paraphernalia. We are in the appalling situation where local businesses, particularly those that depend on GB-Northern Ireland trade, have no help from the Government and are having to set up their own Intertrade UK business association to try to highlight these issues. I am grateful for the work they have done and the statistics they have provided; thankfully, at least they are trying to look after our interests, in sharp contrast to this Government.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All our constituents in Northern Ireland who are in the business of trading goods have had many very daunting experiences in that regard. Of course, the Minister will probably tell us, “Oh, but the Windsor framework established the UK internal market system.” What a fraudulent name. An internal market is customs-free, yet under the UK internal market, previously called the green lane, customs declarations still have to be made. People make customs declarations when they are travelling from one single market to another. They have to be in a trusted trader scheme, to which they have to pay to belong. They have to undergo checks on 5% to 8% of all goods passing through, and in some circumstances, they have to pay duties—truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade as it should operate within any national internal market.

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

  More

  The Minister will know, because I dealt with it at some length, about the issue of diversion of trade, which is illustrated by the fact that there has been a 75% fall in the tonnage of goods supplied by GB-registered vehicles into Northern Ireland. Does he accept that there is diversion of trade? If he does, when will the Government activate article 16 of the Windsor framework, which is supposed to be a protection against it?

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

  More

  I absolutely agree. The hon. Member makes a valid point. Some might say, “Well, what does trade diversion matter? As long as you get the goods, does it matter where they have come from?” Of course, the corollary of trade diversion is what it is doing to our economic links. It is consciously and deliberately building an all-island economy. In place of Northern Ireland being a fully integrated part of the UK economy, the whole idea of trade diversion—indeed, the whole idea of the protocol and the Windsor framework—was to build the stepping stone to an all-island economy, to step us out of the United Kingdom. And that is what is happening. When the Windsor framework was introduced, it contained article 16. It promised that if there were any trade diversion, the Government would step in and sort it out with the EU. There is lamentable and demonstrable trade diversion, but the Government are blind and deaf to the issue, refusing to act. The challenge to the Minister is this: why, in the face of demonstrable trade diversion, is that other part of the Windsor framework—article 16—not being implemented?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Robert Hamill Inquiry Report · Hansard source

  More

  I should declare that in a previous life I was one of the defence counsel in the murder case that arose from the shocking death of Robert Hamill. So there was a murder trial and there was a due verdict of not guilty, and we should not forget that either. May I ask the Secretary of State, after £33 million and more, what is it that we now know from this report that we did not know from the public murder trial, and that we did not know from the public appearances and reporting and trial of Robert Atkinson? We have spent over £33 million, and most of what is in this report was already in the public domain. Perhaps what was not in the public domain was the fact that the audacious, constant propaganda that the police officers had colluded in the murder has now been wholly debunked, and the report quite properly finds that they did no wrongful act or omission facilitating that murder. That is a big price to pay to arrive at that conclusion and the conclusion that there was no collusion, contrary to the constant refrain of some for almost 30 years. I welcome the fact that that at least has been laid to rest.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the aftermath of the Windsor framework and the damage done to intra-UK trade, section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was passed, which was said to promise that there would be no further export procedures that could impact adversely on trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Yet, in new clause 94, we have such constraints in the imposition of a licensing programme, whereby to bring—I will not say “export”, as it is an internal market—a medical device from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, a licence is needed by the recipient. How is that compatible with section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act?

• 4 Sept 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I first thank the hon. Member for his service in Northern Ireland, and extend those thanks to the thousands of servicemen who came to my part of the United Kingdom to defend democracy and to defend us all from terrorist forces? He mentions moral issues. Is not the greatest flaw in the Government’s Bill the moral equivalence that it creates between the terrorist who wakens up determined to kill and the law and order agent who wakens up determined to defend people from being killed?

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  Thank you, Sir Alec; I can do that by taking the Committee precisely to the words of the regulations. Here we are, a Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, supposedly, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the Committee has been invited to write into six separate regulations affecting these issues in Northern Ireland a declaration to the effect that Northern Ireland is not really part of the United Kingdom, and in fact is someone else’s territory. If anyone is interested, I invite them to look at page 17 of the regulations. Things can be found in numerous places, but on page 17 there is an amendment under part 7 of the regulations to the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. At the top of the page, it says: “In these regulations”— these are regulations affecting a part of the United Kingdom— “any reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union…any reference to the Union”— that is the EU— “or Union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland.” What we are putting into legislation that applies to Northern Ireland and the standards that apply to a range of materials and goods is a formal legal declaration that my part of the United Kingdom is not in truth a part of the United Kingdom. According to this, I am to be read as being part of the EU’s territory. I say to every member of this Committee: if the regulations said that about your constituency, what would you say? I say that in particular to Conservative and Unionist Members. If the regulations said that their part of the United Kingdom is to be treated as if it is not part of the United Kingdom, but as a territory of a foreign jurisdiction—namely, the EU—would they come to this Committee, nod the change through and say, “It is only technical”? It might be technical to the Minister and the official Opposition, but I can tell them it is a lot more than technical to the people of Northern Ireland who we represent in this House. It is a fundamental constitutional slight on our supposed membership of the United Kingdom. Through that slight and through the regulations we have imposed laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that someone else makes. The regulations do not put into these six statutory instruments standards made, created or thought about by this House; they impose standards made, created and thought about by foreign parliamentarians, none of whom we elect. That is the mischief and the insult of the regulations that we are imposing on those who deal with seed potatoes or any of these plant health issues. They are someone else’s regulations. What sort of parliamentarians are we if we think it is okay to let someone who no one from this United Kingdom elects decide what the standards should be within this United Kingdom? That is precisely what the regulations do today, and that is far more than technical, Minister. It is fundamental. It goes further. Under part 7, we now are imposing sanctions if someone breaches foreign-made regulations. What sort of United Kingdom is it? This House is going to pass regulations that say that people can be fined or dealt with by other sanctions not because they break the regulations of our own Government or the regulations of their own Parliament, but because they break the regulation of someone else’s Parliament. That is the absurdity that the Windsor framework has brought to Northern Ireland. Unless and until this House wakens up to that absurdity and asserts itself as a sovereign Parliament—supposedly—of this United Kingdom, we are going to continue to be subject to this insult. I say to every member of the Committee, particularly those who profess a belief in the Union of the United Kingdom, that it might be a small measure to some—not much more than a technical issue—but the Committee could at least take a small stand against it.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has effectively just said: that it is right for this House to disenfranchise my constituents, to take from them to right to vote for those who make the laws in 300 areas. Those 300 areas are what shape our economy in Northern Ireland: how we manufacture our goods, how we package them, how we sell them. All that has been removed from the reach of any single constituent in Northern Ireland to elect anyone to have any say over that. That is disenfranchising and that is the fundamental objection, from a democratic point of view, to the Windsor framework. I therefore say to this House that yes, we can argue about whether 16-year-olds should have a vote. What I say is that if 16-year-olds are due to have a vote in Great Britain, 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland should have an equal reach on their franchise. It should enable them to elect those who make the laws, and not be subcontracted out to those we do not elect. That is why those two new clauses are there. That is a probing, fundamental issue that touches upon our commitment to equal citizenship and to the fundamentals of our democracy, which is everyone’s right to participate on an equal footing in our democracy, electing those who make our laws. It is incontestable—it is wrong—to say to my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland, “It is good for us in Great Britain to have those rights, but it is not good for you.” That is fundamentally wrong. I make a final point on a different subject. I tried to intervene on the Minister but she would not take the intervention. On the £100,000 cap, will she confirm, in winding up, that Sinn Féin, for example, which is a party registered in Northern Ireland, will be exempt from the effect of that cap if an Irish citizen living abroad makes a donation in excess of it? Is that the position? If it is, and it is my reading of the Bill that it is, why has that loophole not been closed? Why should I or anyone else have to compete with a party that is not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us? Perhaps the Minister will address that, because it seems to be a loophole crying out to be closed.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the House for some time to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a privilege to speak in the debate, because it is the ultimate manifestation of involvement in our democratic process. The policy paper that goes with the Bill says: “The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity”. What that speaks to is equal citizenship: that every citizen, no matter from where, who is on the electoral register in the United Kingdom should be able to have the same right to elect those who make their laws, whether that is for a council, a devolved institution—if they have one—or the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Those who make our laws, whoever they are, should be subject to the right of every citizen to elect them. What I bring to the debate is the situation in Northern Ireland. That is how it used to be—until 2021, my constituents had the equal right to elect, whether at council, Stormont or Westminster, those who were making their laws—but under what we now call the Windsor framework, in Northern Ireland we are denied the right to elect those who make laws in 300 areas of law. Those laws are not made in this place and they are not made in Stormont. They are made in a foreign Parliament, elected by no one from the United Kingdom. That takes me back to that founding, underlying principle: the right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity. New clause 122 and amendment 152 bring that matter to the House’s attention by suggesting that unless and until there is an equality impact assessment in respect of the whole United Kingdom’s participation in all aspects of democracy, the Bill should not have effect. Let me put it to the House like this. The Bill proposes that a 16-year-old in Cardiff, London or Edinburgh who has paid no tax and who has never served their country has full franchise on all aspects of law—they can elect everyone who makes rules governing their lives—but a 67-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all his life and who has served his country, or any other citizen, is denied that right to elect those who make his or her laws in over 300 areas of law. That is the inequity that I respectfully suggest the House needs to face up to.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Today the Prime Minister has spoken with great passion about empowering local people and allowing them to make decisions that affect their own lives. On that theme, could I ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its people to Northern Ireland when it comes to making the laws? Currently, laws in 300 areas are made by a foreign Parliament, not by this United Kingdom. These are laws we do not make and cannot change. Indeed, the Prime Minister inadvertently put a focus on this issue when he referred to the cut in VAT on electricity bills—a cut that could not apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to foreign EU law that no one has voted for. In his crusade to empower local people, will the Prime Minister set about the fundamental task of restoring UK sovereignty—people’s sovereignty—to my constituency? Speaking of my constituency, he mentioned Wrightbus. May I invite him to visit it at the earliest opportunity?

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

  More

  I certainly recognise that, once again, Northern Ireland is being used in the reset as a cover to realign the whole United Kingdom with the EU. That, of course, is the gameplan of this Government, and this is but a small example of how they are going to deploy it. They hide behind Northern Ireland and say, “Oh, well, we are doing it in this part of the United Kingdom, so we will all simply align ourselves to laws we do not make—laws we cannot change. We will impose upon the whole United Kingdom the disenfranchisement we have already imposed upon Northern Ireland, which cannot make laws on this because it is subject to foreign jurisdiction. We are now going to say to the whole United Kingdom, ‘You do the same. You subject yourself to a similar disenfranchisement of your own electorate so that they do not elect the people who make the laws that govern them.’” That will be the ultimate outcome. On the laws governing the type and use of batteries, which is one of a vast number of areas where this is going to happen, the Government will say, “You, the electorate, are not worthy of electing people to make those laws. No, we are going to be colony-like, subjecting you to laws that someone else makes.” The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth might think that is a good way forward, but I certainly do not. I remind the Government that section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is very clear. It requires that in developing any regulations, these draft regulations included, the Government should have special regard to “the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the…internal market”. They are not maintaining an integral place if they are applying different rules—foreign rules—to a part of the United Kingdom. Section 46 also states “the need to respect Northern Ireland’s place as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom; and…the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of…streamlining trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. That is the very opposite of what these draft regulations will do. They will impede trade so that a battery cannot be bought from Great Britain. Another aim in section 46 is “maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market”. Therefore, even under the statutory test of section 46 of the Internal Market Act, these regulations fail, and they fail lamentably. I ask every self-respecting Member of this House simply to apply the test they would apply if this was being done to their constituents. They know that they would not do this to their constituents, so why do it to mine?

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

  More

  May I first correct the Minister? I am not a DUP Member, and I am surprised she does not know that. Secondly, she is also wrong to say that we are debating the merits of this law, as we are not. This already is the law in Northern Ireland, courtesy not of this House but of the EU through sections 7 and 8 of the 2020 Act. It already is the law, so all we are discussing now is how far we are going to penalise people if they breach this foreign law. We are not discussing its merits. If the Government wanted to tackle unsafe batteries, they should have done so across the whole United Kingdom, and they have not—they are hiding behind Northern Ireland.

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

  More

  Once more a Committee—and therefore this Parliament—has been asked to approve a regulation that has the effect of departing Northern Ireland from the UK legal framework governing the subject matter. Let us be clear: this Committee is being asked to nod through a regulation imposing a law that no parliamentarian in this United Kingdom made, scrutinised or had any hand in drafting. This Committee is being asked to nod through the imposition of a foreign rule—made by the European Parliament, not this Parliament—and to nod it through so that it is enforced with criminal sanction in a part of the United Kingdom, of which this is meant to be the sovereign Parliament that makes the laws and decides the criminal penalties. But no, we are here obeisantly to nod through a regulation to enforce foreign law on a part of the United Kingdom. The narrative is quite clear: the 2006 EU regulation historically applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. After Brexit, however, when the EU amended the regulation in 2023, it ceased to apply to GB, where it has been revoked. But a part of this United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, is to continue to be subjected to foreign-made, unfiltered, unchecked law made by the EU. And the consequence is that my consumers in Northern Ireland can now only use and be supplied with batteries that meet that foreign diktat. Of course, the EU is infamous for micromanaging everyone’s economy if it can. We can now only use, import and deploy batteries made not to United Kingdom standards. In fact, batteries made to United Kingdom standards will become illegal in a part of this United Kingdom, to the extent that a criminal sanction of imprisonment could be imposed for using a battery that meets UK standards. How absurd is it that in a part of this United Kingdom we are going to impose penalties on anyone daring to use a battery produced to UK standards? I am very disappointed that the primary concern of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is why it took so long to enforce foreign jurisdiction on a part of the United Kingdom. That is a quite shocking observation. When my consumers buy an e-bike, an electric car or a simple battery, the Government say they cannot buy one that meets United Kingdom standards. That is what we are doing here. I ask each Member whether they would do that to their constituents. Just think about that. Would members of this Committee impose on their constituents a foreign-drafted, designed and implemented law that means they cannot buy batteries made to the standard of their own country? That is the question.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Manufacturing Supply Chain · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office talk rather glibly about these matters, but the lived reality of the supply chain is very different: a full international customs border that is now inflicting damage on the import of steel; tightening import control system 2 checks; a parcels border; a plants border; and £192 million spent on building border posts—all to placate a European Union to which the Secretary of State and others seem totally beholden. When will the Secretary of State actually stand up for Northern Ireland? Can we please not have the usual trite reply that it is all the fault of Brexit, when it is the very opposite? The denial of Brexit is the altar upon which our supply chains are being sacrificed.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  Does it come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, if he is correct about the purpose of the Belfast agreement in that regard, that former terrorists who were elected continue to this very day to glorify and regularly celebrate their acts of terrorism? Surely that is not compatible with their having turned their backs on terrorism.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I commend the petitioners who brought forward the important issue we are debating. I certainly endorse both the spirit and the letter of the petition, but I want to make an important point. If the Government are ever to act on this matter, as they should, they must act on a UK-wide basis. I say that as someone who represents a constituency in Northern Ireland, where too often a double standard has been applied. We should not and must not have a double standard on the issue of terrorists being allowed to be elected in one part of the United Kingdom but not in another. I say that in the context of the sad experience of Northern Ireland. We have had a gallery of serious terrorist convicts elected not just to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and not just to this House—they do not take their seats but get all the expenses that the rest of us get; some have gone on to hold governmental office in Northern Ireland. I think of some of the more notorious ones, such as the Old Bailey bomber, Gerry Kelly, who came to this city to bomb the Old Bailey. A man died and, in due course, Gerry Kelly was convicted and put where he ought to have been—in prison. He escaped, shooting a prison officer in the head in the course of his escape. He was then able to stand for and be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. More than that, he was able to become a junior Minister to the First Minister of Northern Ireland. And more than that, he is to this day a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Think of the absurdity of that: an Old Bailey bomber sitting in judgment over a police service on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. If the Government ever act as they should, they must take action across this United Kingdom to prevent all those with terrorist convictions from attaining office. Of course, Kelly is not alone. There are many more, including Conor Murphy, a man who was elected to this House. He has never served here, because Sinn Féin refuse to take their seats, but he still got all the expenses of this House. He is a man who was convicted of the possession of explosives and given a five-year sentence, and he still has unanswered questions about his knowledge of the murder of young Paul Quinn in south Armagh. Yet he is a man who was once an MP, then a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and then a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. That is what happens when we do not fetter the rights of those who have taken up the bomb and the gun and we allow them to abuse the democratic process. I think of another continuing member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Pat Sheehan, who got 24 years for an attempted booby-trap bomb. He still serves as an elected representative. I think of Paul Butler, who was convicted of the murder of a policeman. The Principal Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Carál Ní Chuilín, is a convicted terrorist. She was convicted for a booby-trap attack on a police station. There are many more besides. That illustrates what happens when we do not address an issue like this. There are abiding lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland I must correct the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who said that Martin McGuinness had no convictions. Martin McGuinness was convicted twice by the Dublin criminal court of membership of the IRA, which is a terrorist offence. Yet he went on to become Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. There are two abiding consequences of allowing terrorists to be elevated to elected office. The first is that it sanitises the very acts of terrorism. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), we have a situation in Northern Ireland where regularly, weekend after weekend, elected representatives glorify acts of terrorism and salute the so-called bravery of those who were what they call freedom fighters and what the rest of us call vile terrorists. For example, to this very day the First Minister will regularly salute the memory of terrorists. She does that from a position of elected office, and that elevates, sanitises and justifies the very acts of those terrorists. That is the fallout of allowing terrorists to be elected to public office. The second, chilling, abiding consequence of allowing terrorists to be elected is that it sends a very dangerous message to the next generation of people who might be tempted to tamper and get involved in terrorism, because what do they see? They see that it worked for the previous generation of terrorists. They end up in the highest offices in the land, so it incentivises rather than disincentivises the pursuit of terrorism. If young people, misled by dissident republicans in Northern Ireland, look at the Sinn Féin Benches and see multiple former terrorists presenting and parading as statespeople, having attained elected office, what message does it send to those young people? It sends a message that terrorism worked for them—“So why not for us?”, they might think. That is one of the dangers of allowing the elevation of terrorists into elected office. An act of terrorism is an act that deliberately takes on the political system to destroy it by the bomb and the bullet. It is wholly incongruous, given the definition of terrorism, to then have those terrorists, still boasting of their acts of terrorism, involved at the highest levels of that system. I come back to my first point. If the Government are to act on this petition, and they should, they need to act on a nationwide basis across the United Kingdom. We cannot have one rule for one and another for another. There cannot be any hiding behind what is euphemistically called the peace process in Northern Ireland to justify the elevation of terrorists, because peace came in Northern Ireland—I will correct some Members here—not because of the Belfast agreement but because our gallant security forces defeated the terrorists, who were then, sadly, able to win the peace and gain what they gained. With those thoughts, I strongly support the petition, and I salute those who brought it to the House.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about standards in voting and public life. As I indicated in my speech, weekend after weekend, we have people in public life glorifying terrorism and saluting the memories of their fallen colleagues, as they call them, who were vile, vicious terrorists. How is that upholding any standard in public life?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Today the Department confirmed to me in a written answer that over the years 2018 and 2019, the Ministry of Defence paid almost £12,000 to Jeffrey Donaldson in respect of a peacekeeping consultancy for the Cameroons. How common is it that sitting Members of Parliament are paid consultancy fees, and who else has been paid?