Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks about undermining the delicate political balance. We were told that that was solved by the Belfast agreement. It was the Belfast agreement that decreed that, for every key decision, there should be a cross-community vote, yet this is a key decision and the cross-community vote is to be abrogated. Where is the respect in what she is saying in terms of the efficacy of the Belfast agreement or of this vote?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The late Lord Trimble was absolutely right about that. What is happening on Tuesday is an invitation to the Assembly, courtesy of the Government’s directive, to tear up the key central portion of the Belfast agreement on cross-community consent. There is another point.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to make some progress. I strongly refute the fallacy that to depart from the Windsor framework is to breach international law. On the contrary, to perpetuate the infringement of our territorial integrity is to breach international law itself and, indeed, the Belfast agreement, which was built on consent, of which there has been none in respect of the current arrangements. The correct application of international law is to the effect that agreements that contradict the regulating principles, including respect for territorial integrity, are themselves the villains of the piece. Having set out everything that is wrong, let me come to the solution. The Government have always told us that we cannot conduct sanitary and phytosanitary checks away from the border. It cannot be done, so we must have a border—in our case, in the Irish sea. But this week a statutory instrument was laid before this House that does exactly that. It does it for goods that come from the EU, via Northern Ireland, to GB. It says that the goods can be checked wherever they arrive, such as at factories or other premises; they do not have to be checked at the border. If we can do that for goods coming through Northern Ireland to GB, why can we not do it in reverse? Of course we could check goods without tampering with sovereignty; we could do so anywhere within the territory of the United Kingdom. It is not the impracticability of carrying out the necessary checks that is the problem; it is the fact that under the surrender of sovereignty it has been insisted that they are carried out in the Irish sea border. That brings me to clauses 16 to 18 and the concept they would permit of mutual enforcement. I readily accept that the clauses draw heavily on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022—which found the approval of the previous Parliament—but they are none the worse for that. What they do is simple: they say that two respecting neighbours—that is what I hope the United Kingdom and the EU are—with the necessary trust between each other can operate a system where they mutually check the goods flowing through their territory to ensure they meet the standards of the recipient territory. That is a fundamental tenet of much of international trade. It is something that can be built upon in respect of this matter that the United Kingdom says, “Yes, we know the EU wants to protect, it tells us, its single market and, yes, we want to protect our single market, so we will undertake, by virtue of criminal sanction for those who do not, to check that goods flowing from our factories to your consumers, from our territory to your territory, meet the standards you set, and we expect you to do the same.” That can be done without any of the paraphernalia that we presently have.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are human medicines, and there are veterinary medicines. The vast swathe of veterinary medicines currently stand to be prohibited. As for human medicines, there are some for diabetics that are still subject to difficulties.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been very generous in giving way. In a way I am not assisting my cause, because I know Government Members want to talk the Bill out. I would rather see them take a stand on whether they are for or against the subjugation of sovereignty within the United Kingdom. I am going to move on and deal with these issues. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to my taking a case to the Supreme Court. Why would I not? It is the Supreme Court of my United Kingdom. Why would I not take a case to the Supreme Court and test the laws that relate? I remind the House again that what the Supreme Court had to hold is that, because of the protocol so enthusiastically supported by Labour Members, Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom has been subjugated. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental building block of article 6 of the Acts of Union is in suspension because of the import of the protocol. Some tell us, “Well, we don’t want to face these issues.” There is no option, we are told, because of the Belfast agreement. I have even read and heard people say, “The Belfast agreement prohibits a border on the island of Ireland.” I hold the agreement in my hand. I have read it many times. Perhaps someone could direct me: where in this document does it say that there cannot be a customs border on the island of Ireland? Where is it? It is not there! We already have a currency border, a VAT border, a tax border. Nowhere in the Belfast agreement does it say that you cannot have a customs border at the international boundary of the United Kingdom—nor should it. And then I am told, “This would breach international law if you did not have the protocol.” That is not correct either. A fundamental premise of international law is respect for territorial integrity. What have I been talking about for the last hour, if it has not been about respecting territorial integrity? That is the fundamental premise of international law. It all goes back to the General Assembly of the United Nations declaration on principles of international law. What does it say? It says that territorial integrity is key, and that the declaration constitutes the basic principles of international law. It says: “Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at…disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of any other state.” If only that had been adhered to. The declaration says: “Where obligations under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of this charter, the obligations of this charter shall prevail.” So the fundamental principle is respect for territorial integrity. That is the governing principle of international law, so when an agreement comes into play that defies the fundamental requirement to respect territorial integrity, that agreement falls, not international law.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In pursuit of the hon. Member’s filibuster, he tells us how much he adheres to international law. Why does he not adhere to the declaration and the principles of international law from the United Nations of 24 October 1970, which says in very emphatic terms that there is a duty in treaties “not to intervene in matters within domestic jurisdiction of any State” and that the principles of international law require respect for territorial integrity? If those are the principles and the Windsor framework infringes on those principles, is it not the Windsor framework that is flawed, and not the declaration of fundamental principles?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the deal was reached under false pretences—if it was reached in breach of international law, because it breached respect for territorial integrity—yes, the first thing this Government should do is reverse that arrangement. They should not continue with a deal that does not respect the territorial integrity of this United Kingdom. That is the fundamental principle of international law, and if international law has been disregarded to get this arrangement, the arrangement is disreputable and not worthy of continuation. That would be of more interest to our American friends than our saying, “We will make a deal that will sell out some of our own people—that will create circumstances where any trade deal we do will benefit the EU through the back door—but please, Mr President, make a deal with us.” That will not happen, and the Government need to realise that. Let me try to draw my remarks to a conclusion by turning to clause 19. It seeks to reinstate the fundamental operating principle of the Belfast agreement, which is that every key decision in Northern Ireland, because of our divided and troubled past, should and must be made on a cross-community basis. It is there in black and white in the agreement, yet next Tuesday, the most key decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly has ever taken will come before it without a need for it to have cross-community consent. That decision will be on whether Northern Ireland should continue, in 300 areas of law, to surrender its lawmaking powers to a foreign Parliament. There is nothing more fundamental, either to Northern Ireland’s constitutional status or to the governance of the people of Northern Ireland, than that. However, to ensure the desired outcome of that vote, a move was made to remove, especially for that vote, the cross-community requirement, so that for the first time in over 50 years we will have a majoritarian decision of considerable import taken in Northern Ireland. That is a rigging of the arrangements of the Belfast agreement. Strange as it might be, through this Bill, I am the one championing the requirements of the Belfast agreement by asking: if the modus operandi is to ensure cross-community support, why has the vote been rigged to remove cross-community support? One might have thought that the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down would be the champion of the Belfast agreement, and would want to ensure that its fundamental operating principle of cross-community support was respected, but no: she and her party are cheerleading for the vote. They brought the matter to the Assembly when the Executive failed to. It is an important point—a point that cuts to the heart of the operation and stability of the Belfast agreement—that for the first time, a key decision is to be taken not on the prescribed cross-community basis, but on a majoritarian basis. What does that say to me and my community? It says, “You don’t really matter. It is more important that we get this vote through. Cross-community? Ah, that was about protecting nationalism. It was never about protecting Unionism.” Well, sorry, but we are calling that in today. We say, if it is good enough for nationalism, it should be good enough for Unionism. Why are this Government and this House trying to say to Unionism in Northern Ireland, “You don’t matter on this issue. We will railroad you”? That is the fundamental point.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member think that there is such a thing as breach of trust when it comes to relations within the United Kingdom? Are the citizens of this United Kingdom entitled to expect equal citizenship, and to be governed by laws that their nation makes, or are those things secondary to tipping our cap to the EU? Is that his stance?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Maybe the hon. Member could help me. What would he call taking a territory and subjecting it to someone else’s laws? What would he call it other than colonisation? Is that not the very essence of what he and his colleagues wear as a badge of pride in their anti-colonialism? Is that not what it is in name and in truth?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Next Tuesday, the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be invited to agree that the European Parliament should make its laws for the next four years in 300 areas of law affecting Northern Ireland. The Cabinet Office issued an explanatory document that does not set out what was meant to be set out, according to the Windsor framework. Article 18 said that the process would be conducted “strictly in accordance with” the UK unilateral declaration of October 2019. That declaration required a public consultation. There has been no public consultation. Why is that, and why is the matter proceeding in the absence of it?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the news that the Government are to pursue an appeal in relation to the findings on article 2 of the Windsor framework in the Dillon judgment. I trust that it is not just an academic pursuit to find out which is the right interpretation, but a determination on the part of the Government to resist the imposition on Northern Ireland, through the Windsor framework, of laws, rights and expectations that do not apply anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State fails in his appeal to the Supreme Court, will he undertake to legislate to the effect that article 2 cannot have effect in domestic law in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State has said that he will be bringing to ICRIR the same disclosure rights that apply to statutory inquiries. Why, then, do we need the Finucane inquiry, if ICRIR will now have the same powers? He said that he would discuss the way forward with the Government of the Irish Republic. They are a Government who have been vigorous in demanding accountability from the British Government, but giving no accountability as to their own forces and a support for terrorism across the border for many years.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady says that 50% of those affected are people who invest in land not for farming; is not the answer to put 40% inheritance tax on them and 0% on the real farmers?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In Northern Ireland, land prices are in some cases twice as high as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The consequence of that is that the farm tax threshold will be reached more quickly and the burden will be even greater. But the real cruelty of the tax is this. In many cases, when one generation take over a farm, they naturally want to grow, expand and improve their productivity. Very often, during a lifetime, extra land will be bought. That extra land is bought with money on which tax has already been paid. So this is a double taxation: people buy land with profits they have made on which they have paid their tax, then when they die, the Government come looking again. That is so unfair, particularly when it is family farms being crucified by that tax. I understand that there are people exploiting the market who are interested not in farming, but in tax relief, and own land for that purpose. The Government should hit them with all the might they can with the 40% inheritance tax, but exempt the genuine farmers—those who have a farm business number; those who are in receipt of direct payments; those who are genuine, active farmers. If the Government exempted them and went harder after those exploiting the system, they would probably have the same return at the end of it. Would that not be far more equitable than what is being proposed?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to contribute on this matter. There are the practical considerations, and there is the ideology that lies behind these regulations. On the practical side, we are told that Northern Ireland qualifying goods—that is to say, those that originate only within Northern Ireland—will have free passage to GB. However, the very fact that we have to consider and discuss that within what is supposed to be one single country and one single internal market requires a commentary in itself. The Minister would concede that to implement these regulations, there will have to be spot checks on NI qualifying goods moving to GB. Without them, there will be no protection against infringement, breaches and upset of the very thing that is meant to be protected. I suspect that, whereas it is easy to say that Northern Ireland qualifying goods will move unfettered from Northern Ireland to GB, the reality will be very different in time. Spot checks will inevitably be carried out as a protection, and that will have the full- frontal effect of fettering trade from Northern Ireland to GB. The more fundamental point is that these regulations put the Government in something of a bind. They tell us, as their predecessor Government did, that trade from GB to Northern Ireland cannot be managed without an international customs border partitioning the United Kingdom down the Irish sea. Of course, that stems from the fact that the protocol surrendered customs control over Northern Ireland, because, under regulation (EU) 2017/625, Northern Ireland is deemed to be the entry point to the EU. We are deemed to be EU territory, so all the rules relating to its customs code and single market apply to us—rules we do not make and laws we cannot change. This Government and the previous one said, “That’s the only way to manage the border, because having checks away from the border, and SPS facilities at factories and recipient points just wouldn’t work.” Yet that is precisely what these regulations are proffering, in terms of goods from the Republic of Ireland coming into Northern Ireland and going onward. If the destination of the goods is Northern Ireland, there will be no checks whatever because Northern Ireland is deemed to be EU territory with regard to customs arrangements. If the goods are going onwards, they are to be subject to SPS checks, which can be carried out away from the border. If SPS checks can be carried out away from the border in a west-east transition, why on earth can they not be carried out away from the border in an east-west transition or a north-south transition? That is the fundamental bind that the Government are putting themselves in. They are saying, on an unsustainable basis, “You must have an Irish sea border. You can’t have the checks at the international border, because you can’t do them away from the border at the factories from which they come or the places to which they are going.” But that is exactly what is on offer here for goods coming from the Republic of Ireland: they can be checked at SPS facilities away from the border. If that is good enough for goods that are going from the Republic through Northern Ireland to GB, why is it not good enough for goods going from the United Kingdom through Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? That is the fundamental question. If it fits for one, why does it not fit for the other? Patently it would and it should, but it only could if the Government recover sovereignty over Northern Ireland by discontinuing our treatment as an EU territory. Then there can be SPS checks, not at the border if we do not want them there, but at any facility, so that the goods travelling from GB to the EU through Northern Ireland are treated exactly as the goods coming from the EU through Northern Ireland to GB. I would love the Minister to explain to us why it could not and should not be a two-way process, because without it we will end up with a two-way border in the Irish sea.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was accompanied by the boast that access to the EU single market would result in a huge increase in investment in Northern Ireland. Is the Chancellor aware that Invest NI has reported that there has been no upturn, and is that not because of the barrier presented by the Irish sea border to the bringing of raw materials into Northern Ireland from Great Britain?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the matter not very clear? Clause 15(5) states: “In this section “proxy” means— (a) a person who has known the person making the declaration personally for at least 2 years, or (b) a person who is of good standing in the community.” So there is no protection such as that which is pretended by the supporters of the Bill.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is not an easy subject, nor should it be, because this is a matter of the taking of human life—the taking of human life, sanctioned by the state. Our nation, through many wonderful charities and through Government, reaches out compassionately to those who are threatening suicide. They are urged to use the services of the Samaritans and to get all the help they can. I cannot square the circle where the state would then move to itself sanction suicide—indeed, to facilitate and, in fact, to promote suicide. And to do that in respect of those who are intrinsically the most vulnerable in our society. Anyone who gets a diagnosis of terminal illness is, by reason of that, obviously vulnerable. Many, in consequence, suffer depression and other difficulties, so they are among the most vulnerable in our society. Being vulnerable, they are among those most liable to fall under the foul influence of coercion. Coercion comes in many forms. Anyone who has listened to domestic abuse cases will know that it can be very insidious, invasive and persuasive, because the coercer has the constant ear of those they wish to coerce. Add into that mix the fact that that person might feel a burden. We have all heard old people say, “I am a burden on society. I am a burden on my family.” Even when they are told, “No, caring for you is not a chore, but a privilege,” they still think they are a burden. If in that background—that matrix—there is still the pernicious influence of coercion, then the thought that people reach a reasoned, considered, independent opinion is a fallacy. It is those people that this House should be protecting above all, but this Bill does not protect people in that situation. Oh, we are told, “two doctors and a judge”. The judge does not have to, but he might decide to hold Zoom call with the applicant, but he is not to know if sitting in the corner of the room, out of camera shot, is the coercer. Where is the protection in that? I say to the House that this issue cuts to the very quick of our fundamental duty to be the protectors of the most vulnerable. There is no part of the state’s function to be promoting or assisting the end of life for people who could be in that condition, and we will never know how many are in that condition, so I cannot and will not vote for the Bill.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Church-owned Hospices: Assisted Dying · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Church Commissioner agree that hospices are about comforting the dying and surrounding them with care? Is that not the very antithesis of the state involving itself in sanctioning and assisting suicide?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Pakistan: Freedom of Religion · Hansard source

  More

  We are familiar with interventions from bodies such as Amnesty International and the United Nations even in our own country. Obviously there is a far more acute need for their attention in places such as Pakistan. Does that seem to be articulated and driven home adequately, and is it having an impact, especially on such appalling matters as forced marriages and honour killings?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Supporting Innovation · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the condolences to the widow and family of the late Ken Reid? The family are constituents of mine in North Antrim, and Ken was such a part of the political architecture. On innovation, there is no greater trailblazer in Northern Ireland than Wrightbus in my constituency, which has really set the pace on hydrogen. How far have the Government invested in advancing that, and in ensuring that public funds, when they are needed, are there to build the hydrogen infrastructure that is so key to advancing that matter?

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the White Paper is called “Get Britain Working”, not “Get the United Kingdom Working”. I appreciate there are devolution issues, but when I listened to the Secretary of State’s statement, I found it very England-orientated. There are references to national partnerships, but how does the White Paper fit with getting the United Kingdom working? Will there be Barnett consequentials? And will things be left up to the sometimes failing devolved institutions?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will vote for this Bill. I admit that I am sceptical about the enforceability of the age escalator, but fundamentally the legislation addresses a huge problem in our society. There can be no doubt that smoking is a killer, so it is our responsibility to seek to diminish the death toll. Vaping is a totally unregulated sector, and I fear that it is a gateway to smoking for many young people. Therefore, it is right that it, too, comes within the ambit of the Bill. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that this is a “four-nations Bill”. I welcome that, and I trust that it is right. That is the point I want to test in my contribution, and I will seek reassurance from the Minister about it. The reason I want to test it is that Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone, is still subject to the EU’s tobacco directive. We are subject to the EU’s tobacco directive because it is one of the 289 EU laws listed in annex 2 of the protocol—or the Windsor framework, as it is now called—that remain in force in a part of this United Kingdom. Article 24 of the tobacco directive says: “Member States may not…prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”. Does this Bill, by its necessary steps, restrict the placing on the market of tobacco? If it does, it will fall foul of the tobacco directive and will therefore be unenforceable in Northern Ireland, because of our ridiculous subjection to foreign laws that we do not make and cannot change. We have an illustration of what might happen, because in 2022 Denmark sought to introduce almost identical legislation. It had to withdraw it, and in withdrawing it, the Health Minister told the Danish Parliament on 6 April 2022: “The ministry…therefore considers that a ban on the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to people born in 2010 or later would require an amendment to the European Tobacco Products Directive”. On that basis, they withdrew it. Earlier this year, the Irish Republic was minded to introduce legislation like this, but it did not proceed for the same reason. If we are in a situation where a part of this United Kingdom quite absurdly cannot be governed by laws that this Parliament wishes to make, we are in a very sad situation indeed. It is my fear that, like in Denmark, the imprimatur would not be forthcoming from the tobacco directive and we could therefore have a situation where laws that we want to make and apply throughout the United Kingdom cannot be applied because of our subservience to foreign jurisdiction. If that is so, it will be an appalling situation. The House will have an opportunity to do something about this when my private Member’s Bill comes before it on 6 December, and I trust that Members will take that opportunity to liberate Northern Ireland from the bind of foreign jurisdiction and foreign law. There are vested interests who will try to challenge the Bill’s applicability in Northern Ireland because of the tobacco directive, and I am fearful of the line that the courts might take, because we have had some examples. This House passed—for better or for worse—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It also passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. I am not commenting on their merits; I am making it clear that when they went to the High Court in Belfast, both were declared inoperable in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the supremacy of EU law. If that were to happen with this Bill, it would be an absolute scandal. We would not be able to afford the people of Northern Ireland the same health protections that the Bill will afford to everyone else in the United Kingdom. And why not? Because we are subject to a foreign jurisdiction. It is the lifting of that jurisdiction that will bring us liberty to be governed as this House would wish us to be governed, and I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that those fears are unfounded, that the Danes were wrong to withdraw their Act, and that our courts will—

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government told this House—and Government lawyers probably said the same—that the Rwanda Act would apply to Northern Ireland and that the legacy Act was unchallengeable, yet it turned out that both fell under the supremacy of EU law. On the face of it, the tobacco directive suppresses this Bill and still has legal force in Northern Ireland. If that is how it turns out, I would like to hear a commitment from the Minister that the Government will override any suppression of this law in Northern Ireland and stand up for UK sovereignty in my part of the United Kingdom.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It gives me no assurance if the Government’s commitment is to ensure compliance with the Windsor framework, because it is the Windsor framework that imposes EU law on Northern Ireland. Because the tobacco directive is one of the laws listed in annex 2 that continue to apply to Northern Ireland, it could trump this Bill. There is no point in the Government saying to this House, or to my constituents, that they will abide by the Windsor framework, because the Windsor framework binds us to EU law. It is only by setting it aside that we can have liberty.