Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Nov 2024 · Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard today that more than 19,000 illegals have come in on small boats since the Government came into office. Does the Minister have any figures on the influx in the United Kingdom of illegals and others from the Republic of Ireland, where there are no checks? On the question of hotels, how can my constituents judge her party’s manifesto pledge to reduce the number of hotels? To help them do that, will she undertake to publish, on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, the number of hotels in use in each constituency and the number of illegals accommodated in them?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Windsor framework. When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was the original protocol by another name, because it made no substantive changes to the original text. It was portrayed, sold and packaged as a tremendous opportunity for Northern Ireland. Some time later, we even had the President of the United States, President Biden, talk extravagantly about $6 billion of awaiting investment in Northern Ireland. We had acolytes of the Government talk about Northern Ireland becoming the Singapore of the western hemisphere, and it seemed that no boast was too large to make. The reality is very different, however, and matters rather came down to earth with a bump just a couple of weeks ago, when Invest Northern Ireland representatives appeared before a Stormont Committee. Remember that the Windsor framework was supposed to unleash an avalanche of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland because—we were told—our access to the single market of the European Union was the panacea for all things economic. The witness from Invest NI had to confess that there would be no uptake in foreign direct investment, and the framework was not producing the results that were claimed. There is a very simple reason for that: the counterbalance to accessing the European single market is the fettering of our links to our GB supply market. In order to have that access to the foreign single market of the EU, we had to subject ourselves to EU law. Its customs code says that, with GB not being in the EU but Northern Ireland being treated as an EU territory, GB has to be regarded as a foreign country, hence the erection of the obnoxious border in the Irish sea for the bringing of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. The counterbalance to that alleged wonderful access to the EU single market was the building of a border to fetter trade from GB, and that is why the framework has not produced that magical foreign investment. Anyone looking at investing thinks about not just where they will sell their goods, but where they will get their raw materials from. If the raw material supply line is fettered by an international customs border governed by foreign law—and that is what it is—they are going to think twice about that, and obviously they have thought twice. All the proposals and packaging largely turned out to be insubstantial spin.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  It has infected every sector, and none more so than the farming sector, which is topical today. Northern Ireland’s veterinary medicines are now under the regime of the EU, and we are facing a cliff edge in that regard—there could be a cut-off of supply from our primary market of veterinary medicines very shortly.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I referred specifically to access from GB to Northern Ireland—the supply chain—because our manufacturing businesses depend on raw materials from GB. That has been fettered, and that is what caused the Supreme Court to say that article 6 is in suspension.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  That is a model that I am more than familiar with. It has manys an application, and one such fitting application is here. Let me return to the issue of the 300 laws. Those are not incidental laws, but laws that shape and frame much of our economy: how we manufacture, package, sell and trade our goods, and much besides. Of particular political significance is the fact that those economic laws are now identical to those that prevail in the Irish Republic. Under the framework, a situation has evolved whereby Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are governed by identical economic laws in those 300 areas. Of course, that is about building the stepping stone to an all-Ireland economic area, which was always the intent of the protocol. That gives it an added offensive political dimension. The very concept that 300 areas of EU law—not our law—should be imposed on us, as if we are a colony—because that is what it is like—is offensive in the extreme. Of course, it is said, “Ah, but wasn’t the Windsor framework about protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?” The Windsor framework has driven a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement. The fundamental modus operandi of the Belfast agreement was that, because of Northern Ireland’s divided past, any big or constitutional issues would have to be decided on a cross-community vote—in other words, a majority of both nationalists and Unionists. That is in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, in respect of the Windsor framework, that was expunged. In a couple of weeks, we will have an astounding situation in which the Northern Ireland Assembly, which elects MLAs—Members of our Legislative Assembly—will be asked to disavow their power to legislate for Northern Ireland in these 300 areas. They were never asked in the first place, but they are now going to be asked, for the next four years or more, to disavow their ability on behalf of their constituents to make laws in those 300 areas and surrender that sovereignty and right to a foreign Parliament and foreign politicians. The laws have not even been dreamt up yet, because in the next four years who knows what the EU will decide is good for itself—and, coincidentally, for us? Democratically elected Assembly Members are meant to vote to sign away their democratic rights, on behalf of their constituents, and endorse whatever comes down the track. Never mind what it is; we are just going to accept it like colonial patsies, which we now are under the protocol.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with that. Of course, the protocol contains an EU cap on the amount of funding that can be given to farming. All the things that the hon. Member says are correct. All that flows out of one fundamental point: the protocol and Windsor framework mean that, in 300 areas of law, Northern Ireland is now subject to laws made not in this place or in Stormont, but in a foreign Parliament by foreign parliamentarians—the parliamentarians of the EU. That is such an assault on the enfranchisement of our constituents—it is, rather, their disenfranchisement —and on basic constitutional and democratic accountability. It is something, I would suggest, that no Member of this House would contemplate for one moment for their constituents, and yet those of us who represent Northern Ireland, as well as our constituents, are expected to accept that we should be impotent when it comes to making the laws that govern much of our economy.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The magical thinking originated within the European Commission. It was those in the European Commission who first postulated the idea of mutual enforcement, only to be shot down by an agenda from Dublin and the other European countries. The very genesis of it came because it was seen as a viable proposition—and why is it not a viable proposition to mutually enforce the requirements on trade going either way?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  Yes; for the first time in over 50 years, we are going to have a majoritarian vote on a key issue, which, of course, has immense constitutional significance. That is why the Supreme Court of this land had to rule that the effect of the protocol was to put into suspension article VI of the Acts of Union, which is supposed to guarantee us all within this kingdom the same unfettered trade rights. Obviously, if we build a border that partitions and fetters trade, it cannot be said that there are the same constitutional and trading rights. Yet on that fundamental issue, we are going to have a majoritarian vote. The message to Unionism—it is a very chilling message—is that cross-community votes were only ever about protecting nationalism; they were never about protecting Unionism. Unionists are just meant to suck it up, because this is the way forward. That is unacceptable. On behalf of those who sent me here believing that I was being sent here as a legislator, and sent Members to the Northern Ireland Assembly believing they were being sent there as legislators, I abhor and protest against the fact that in the next few weeks, we will have that obnoxious, obscene vote to remove from the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives the right to have a say in over 300 areas of law that govern them. There has never been a greater act of disenfranchisement of voters anywhere within this United Kingdom. It is wholly incompatible with the basic tenets of democracy. People say, “How then do we handle the border?” Yes, there is a challenge in an interfacing border between EU and non-EU members, but the way to handle it is not through this constitutional Union-dismantling monstrosity; it is to return to the basic elements that govern much of world trade. We should mutually respect the laws, requirements and trading demands of those with whom we are trading. We should mutually enforce, from one country to another, the standards and requirements of the country to which we are exporting. If we do that, we do not need the Irish sea border, or a border on the island of Ireland. It should be backed up with criminal sanction so that, if someone does trade in breach of the requirements of the recipient country, they face a penalty. That is how it should be done, but it was not done, simply because the EU saw an opportunity to make Northern Ireland the price of Brexit. We continue to pay that intolerable price. In a couple of weeks, we will be debating my private Member’s Bill, which will address those very issues, and mutual enforcement will be at the heart of it, because that is the way for the Government. I know they inherited all this—maybe with some enthusiasm—but they can now fix it. If they do not, they are saying to my constituents, “You are some sort of second-class democrat. You are not entitled to elect those who make your laws. You must be a subservient rule-taker from politicians who make the laws for you in a foreign jurisdiction.” How insulting is that? Yet that is the essence of what the Windsor framework puts upon us.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  We should be doing anything that we can to diminish the opportunities for voter fraud. Why would we not? I do not understand the reticence.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  We are protecting voters when we prevent voter fraud, which is precisely what voter ID does. It is the ordinary citizen who is being protected—the citizen who wants to play by the rules, who wants to vote properly, and who does not want to cheat or personate others. That is the person we are protecting by introducing voter ID.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  I respectfully suggest that there is probably an unknown hidden degree of personation. If a certain number of people are prosecuted, it does not mean that only that number of people are personating others. The way to rule out personation and present hurdles to it is to have voter ID. I really do not understand why anyone who wants a clean election, with only legitimate voters voting and only legitimate votes counted, would say, “We don’t want any protections to ensure that there’s no voter cheating.” Surely we should all want to be on the side of preventing cheating in elections. This really is the question: are we on the side of making it more difficult to cheat in an election, or on the side of making it easier? Surely we should all be on the side of making it more difficult. I therefore strongly defend voter ID. Returning to the core subject matter, it is fitting that in the week of Remembrance Day we are adding the veteran card to the ID list. I look forward to that happening in Northern Ireland as well, but I want to raise a point that a serving soldier sent me a message about, which also touches on voting. He wrote: “I just want to highlight a further issue that serving members of the Armed Forces when serving abroad can’t exercise their ability to vote due to the inefficiency of the now contracted British Forces Post Office. The length of time to request a postal vote”, which is how most service people vote, “and then to send your vote means you miss the deadline” often. He then cited all the countries where servicemen are. Some can be as far away as the Falklands, Germany, Poland or Africa. He asked why we cannot have more efficiency in getting postal votes out to service people and back. That seems a legitimate question. He went on: “Many other countries provide polling booths in their military bases or…in their embassies”. Why do we not do that, Minister? Why do we not go further for our service personnel serving abroad, to ensure that they participate in the democratic process, as they are entitled to? Those are important questions that need to be answered, and a matter to which this House should give some attention.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome this proposal. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, where, as has been referenced, we have had voter ID for over 20 years. It works very well, and is something that the rest of the United Kingdom could build upon and learn from. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said that we have a voter ID card. Yes, we do. If a person does not have a passport, driving licence, bus pass or whatever else is on the list, they can apply to the Electoral Office, supply a photograph, and complete a form that a councillor, MP or doctor can verify. The person is then issued, for free, a voter ID card that carries their photograph and name. As the hon. Member suggested, it is valuable in other regards as well, so I would certainly recommend that as a way to go in these matters. The draft regulations will add the veteran card to the list of usable identification. While the regulations apply only to Great Britain, upon seeing them I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I was very pleased with his answer. He indicated that he proposes to add the veteran card to the list of acceptable documents in Northern Ireland before we have further elections. That is good because it not only enhances the parity that should exist but eases the situation of veterans when it comes to voting. I very much welcome that. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I do not understand their aversion to voter ID. In Northern Ireland, we have had it for more than 20 years because of industrial-scale voter fraud, organised in the main of course by Sinn Féin, which literally had an army at its back to steal votes. Faced with that, it is right to have a system of voter ID. No party that is not engaged in cheating or wanting to cheat has anything to fear from it.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Of itself, of course, there is nothing controversial about the type of USB charger that one might use, but there is something very controversial in Northern Ireland, quite appropriately, about the source of this legislation. Here we are in this Parliament of the United Kingdom and all it can do is to nod through someone else’s laws. The decision that in Northern Ireland a person must have the EU-style USB charger flows from a decision by parliamentarians in a foreign power. It was the parliamentarians of 27 other countries who decided that this would be the common charger to be used. And, of course, it was the protocol now called the Windsor framework—which did not change one word of the protocol—that decreed that Northern Ireland, in 300 areas of law, of which this is one, would not be subject to the laws made in this place, or in its devolved Assembly.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I said that what type of USB is used is not particularly controversial. But how it is made and imposed could not be more controversial, because it is imposed through the avenue of disenfranchising the people of Northern Ireland and saying, “You will have no say over whether it is a good or bad law. It is someone else’s law, and it will be imposed upon you.” That is the mischief that I am addressing. In that mischief lies the reason why this Parliament should not be a nodding dog to someone else’s regulation. The Minister tells us that the Government will probably bring the same requirements into GB. That is well and good, but it should have been the Government—not a foreign jurisdiction—that were bringing the prescription for the type of USBs into the whole of the United Kingdom. They should not have surrendered control over that to a foreign power.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The Brexit referendum was a national vote, and it asked a simple question: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” It did not ask the question, “Do you want GB to leave, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” That is what we got, in that this United Kingdom surrendered control over those 300 areas of law to that foreign Parliament. The hon. Member may be comfortable with the fact that my constituents are disenfranchised in the making of the laws that govern them. I wonder whether he would he be so comfortable with that fact if it was his constituents who were disenfranchised in the making of laws, in those 300 areas, that govern them—I suspect not. All I ask is that my constituents have the same rights —the same enfranchising rights—as everyone else’s constituents in Great Britain. Is that too much to ask? And yet, in the making of this regulation, this Parliament is answering that question: it is too much to ask, because Northern Ireland, we are told, must be subject to foreign colonial rule. That is what it is. When we say to an area, “You will be governed by laws, not that you make, or that your Parliament makes, but that a foreign Parliament makes,” that is the very essence of colonial rule, and that is what we are subjected to. The degree to which the Government—of course, this was done under the previous Government—have abandoned sovereignty over Northern Ireland is illustrated by the explanatory document that accompanies these regulations. It says that there will be limited impact, but that the Government did not conduct an impact assessment. Why not? Well, paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory document tells us: “A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared…because measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of assessment.” So laws that will affect my constituents are “out of scope” of assessment by this Parliament, and this Government, because the right to make those laws was given away to the European Parliament. This is not about whether, in itself, the type of USB is controversial or not. It is about the constitutional point that Northern Ireland has been disenfranchised—robbed of the right to have its laws made in its own country, and robbed of the right, now, to even have an impact assessment, because those 300 areas of law are beyond the scope of assessment. That is why, for this proposal, there is only an EU impact assessment—no UK impact assessment. That, in a way, says it all.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Strengthening the Union · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Secretary of State explain how it is possible to strengthen the Union while maintaining a partitioning border in the Irish sea at the behest of a foreign jurisdiction and under its laws?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I urge the Committee to reject these regulations. I take issue with the Minister saying that this is an improvement. The original propositions of the protocol were never implemented. The grace periods remain the current position, which is that no pet passports, no documentation and no requirement to be part of a pet scheme is needed to bring your pet from GB to the other part of the United Kingdom. What these regulations do is impose a pet passport scheme. People must belong to a pet scheme and submit their dog, cat or ferret to documentary and identity checks on getting on the boat and on leaving the boat—all that is within the one country. All that is because, for the first time since Brexit, the EU has legislated for the United Kingdom. I want that to sink in. What these regulations do is impose EU regulation 2023/1231. Let me read the title of that measure, which is a regulation of the European Parliament, not of this Parliament, and of the Council: “Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”. These regulations impose that foreign-made regulation, made not for the EU—it is not applicable to the EU—but for this United Kingdom. How is it that we have got to the point that this Committee is expected merely to nod to legislation made not by this House, for this United Kingdom? It is not that it is imposing obligations unique to Northern Ireland; it is imposing obligations on GB citizens, who want to bring their pet to visit family, the Giant’s Causeway or the many tourist attractions in Northern Ireland. Now, courtesy of the demands of this foreign EU legislation, they must belong to a pet scheme, apply for and obtain a pet passport, subject their pet to document and identity checks, and then—and only then—can they move their pet internally within the United Kingdom. That is an astounding situation, and an astounding imposition on citizens of Great Britain. As I read the regulations, that imposition extends even to guide dogs. Think about it. If someone who needs a guide dog comes from GB to visit a relative in my constituency or elsewhere, or the Giant’s Causeway in my constituency, they must have a pet passport. Why? Not because of regulations made by this House, but because legislation passed by the EU says that he or she must have one. Many guide dogs are reared in Northern Ireland for GB use. They are trained in Northern Ireland, and every one of them will be subject to this unnecessary regulation. We are told that it is all to protect the EU market. We are told that we cannot have an SPS border where it should be—where the actual border is—but we must have it in the Irish sea. The farce of these regulations is that if someone brings their dog from GB to Northern Ireland, and wants to visit Donegal or Dublin across the border, then they must subject themselves to a full SPS border where we were told it cannot be—at the actual border. How farcical is that? We cannot have an SPS border where it should be. We must therefore impose restrictions on animals coming from GB to Northern Ireland, but if we take a dog onwards to the Republic, then yes, we are subject to full SPS checks. Where? Where we are told we cannot even have an SPS border. The other dimension of the regulations, and the subservience that we are invited to submit ourselves to, is that if the EU is dissatisfied with the United Kingdom’s implementation of them, then under EU regulation, it can suspend them or take whatever steps it wishes. What this Parliament has been asked to do, on behalf of its citizens—primarily its GB citizens—is put them at the mercy of the EU’s regulations, not United Kingdom registration, which could allow their animal to be put into quarantine. Indeed, under the regulations, if an animal fails the document or identify check, it has to go into SPS custody. I assume that means it goes into quarantine, in its own country. Little wonder the other place debated these regulations. I have initiated an early-day motion for this House to debate them. I suspect it will not, but it certainly should, because they are a fundamental assault on basic freedoms. The other point to stress is that most other things governed by the Irish sea border are governed under the pretext that they are commercial. This is the extension of the Irish sea border to the non-commercial movement of pets. Why should that be? We are told that this improves the present situation, but I have already explained why it does not: the present situation is free movement. At present, cats and ferrets do not need to be microchipped—yes, dogs need to be microchipped, but not cats or ferrets. Under these regulations, cats, ferrets and dogs must all be microchipped to move within this United Kingdom. Frankly, that is a step far too far. The Committee should take a stand and say, “We cannot—we will not—put this upon our citizens.” Why should we, if all someone is doing is bringing their best friend—their dog—with them within the United Kingdom? That is why I invite the Committee not to approve the regulations. I raise considerable concern that there was no impact assessment on the regulations on the fatuous grounds that they were less severe than they might have been— that is no comfort; there should have been an impact assessment—and because, equally fatuously, there is no impact on business. Of course there is not—the movements are non-commercial. It is all the worse that we have now got to the point where non-commercial movements are being dictated to us under regulations. As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham said, there was no public consultation. Why not? These regulations affect every dog, cat and ferret owner in Great Britain. Should there not have been a public consultation, particularly as they affect every guide dog owner? That is where it really cuts to the quick. I say to the Committee that the case is not made for these regulations and they should be taken back, because to go down this road is to take a step far too far in being subservient to a foreign Parliament telling us what people in this country can do with their dogs, cats and ferrets.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Police Funding · Hansard source

  More

  There is no doubt that policing is in pretty dire straits in Northern Ireland, but it would be a mistake simply to say that it is all the fault of Westminster. Policing has been devolved in Northern Ireland since 2010, and comparing the policing situation today with 2010, it is woefully below the level it was then, in terms of police on the beat and the provision of basic services. We lament the lack of funding, but we must face the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive have not prioritised police funding. As we have heard, when policing was devolved, the budget was £903 million. However, 12 years later it was £892 million—a massive real-terms reduction. That is because the priorities of the Northern Ireland Executive were not issues of policing but other things. I think it is fair and important to recognise that the failings are not all on this side of the United Kingdom. Yes, there is a deficiency in funding. Yes, it is appalling that in the recent Budget allocation, there was nothing of the £142 million required for the data breach that the PSNI now has to face, and nothing for other special needs in that regard. But we need to keep the perspective right. There is a responsibility on the Northern Ireland Executive to put their priorities in order, and policing should be a priority. I have a large, essentially rural constituency. In the towns of Ballymoney and Ballycastle and all the villages around it, on any given night we are lucky if there is one patrol car. We are lucky if, on any given day, there are two or perhaps three community officers, covering a vast area. There is a huge deficiency and need in that regard. Let me say this to the Government. They found for the Northern Ireland Office extra money that essentially—in large measure—will be going to the Finucane inquiry. Once again, we are going to pour tens of millions of pounds into an insatiable inquiry for a family which has never been capable of being satisfied and which previously rejected the very inquiry that it is now getting. It would be a far more prudent and appropriate use of funding to put the money where it is needed—and where it is needed is in the coffers of the PSNI. When we had the Patten report way back in 1999, there was great hype, and hope and expectation that policing was going to be wonderfully transformed. I think most people in Northern Ireland today would gladly go back to the real, effective policing of the RUC, rather than having the depleted policing of the PSNI. We were promised a 7,500 complement of police officers; we are 1,200 and more below that today. Patten has not been a success. It has not been delivered as promised, and policing in Northern Ireland has effectively gone from bad to worse. We now have a situation in which a hapless Chief Constable has to, almost cap in hand, come to the Prime Minister and say, “Can you help us?” For that, of course, he is criticised by the local Minister who has failed the police in getting the funding that is needed—namely, the Justice Minister. I am anxious to promote in this House the genuine needs of policing within the context of recognising that there also has to be responsibility with the Northern Ireland Executive. Perhaps the priorities of the Northern Ireland Executive are not uninfluenced by the fact that we have the bizarre situation in which the PSNI is accountable to a Northern Ireland Policing Board upon which sits a convicted terrorist from an organisation that murdered and butchered policemen for years. That convicted terrorist of course is Gerry Kelly, who came to this city and bombed the Old Bailey. He sits in lordship and control over the PSNI. That is not a healthy situation, and it is not a healthy control situation in terms of the PSNI, so when Patten and Westminster produced that, they did not do policing any favours. It is important, now, to get adequate funding into policing and to ensure, if and when adequate funding is supplied, that the Stormont Executive spend it. We have had so many occasions when, under the Barnett consequentials, money has been given, for example for childcare and other things, and spent on something else. There needs to be the proper spend of the money for the purposes for which it is given.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Flight Cancellations · Hansard source

  More

  What conclusion does the Minister draw from the fact that dubious cancellations such as those we saw yesterday are far more prevalent where there is a commercial monopoly on the route, such as there is between Belfast City and London City airports, which was the route affected yesterday? If he draws the conclusion that connectivity is not helped by a monopoly, what action do the Government intend to take to encourage competition on such routes?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  When the Chancellor introduced her Budget, one thing she said was that change must be felt. This Budget will be felt, but, in many instances, not in a good way. My constituency is peppered with small businesses employing 10 or 12 people. They are the victims of this Budget, because they are now going to be soaked with additional tax on jobs, and that will not bring change that will be felt in a good way; it will diminish employment in my constituency. My constituency also has many family farms, and they too will not feel this Budget in a good way, because inheritance tax will put many of their futures in jeopardy. Family farms are asset rich, but more often than not they are cash poor, so how on earth will they ever meet the huge imposition that has been placed on them?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  That illustrates my point. It shows how impossible and unfair it is to say to family farms—and it does not take a lot of acreage to be worth £1 million—“You may have the assets, you do not have the income, but you must pay the inheritance tax to HMRC.” What do those farmers do? They sell off part of the farm, and what does that do? It diminishes the food production, and it diminishes the viability of the farm. That will be how this Budget will be felt in many family farms. Similarly, it will be felt in a negative way by new homebuyers because of the stamp duty threshold reductions: new purchasers will now pay significantly more in tax to buy a new home. As for the Budget allocation for Northern Ireland, back in 2012 the Government accepted a national barometer of need. Through Professor Holtham, it set out what was needed in each part of this nation. What £100 could buy in public services in England was then translated—because other areas were smaller—into what it would cost to buy the same amount in the rest of the United Kingdom: £105 in Scotland, £115 in Wales and £121 in Northern Ireland. Yes, according to the block grant transparency document this Budget provides for Wales £120 per £100 in England, but in Northern Ireland we continue to be just at need. Why is there that uplift for some parts of the United Kingdom and not for others? We in Northern Ireland also have no guarantee of meeting need beyond 2026-27. That is not assured in this Budget. I ask for my constituents what has been afforded to the constituents of Wales, an uplift on need so that they can see their public services provided properly.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024 have been laid before the House. They impose EU obligations on not just Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom. Could we have a debate in Government time on the back-door creep of EU regulations? The unelected House has already debated this matter; should not the elected House?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Economic Productivity · Hansard source

  More

  We in Northern Ireland were told that, as a result of having dual access to the EU market and the United Kingdom market, we would see an increase in inward investment and economic productivity. Recently, Invest NI has had to admit that there has been no uptick in investment, because access to the EU market is counteracted by barriers from the GB market—that is clear. Do the Government now recognise that that was a mis-sold proposition?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I join in the tributes to our gallant security forces who, through their sacrifice, have brought us all the liberty that we enjoy. When our soldiers fall in foreign fields, we feel it very deeply. When they fall on home ground, there is an added poignancy to it. As a Member for Northern Ireland, representing the constituency of North Antrim, tonight I want to place on record the appreciation of so many people in Northern Ireland for the willing sacrifice of our gallant security forces from across this United Kingdom who paid with their lives in defending Northern Ireland from the ravages of terrorism. That debt is much appreciated by many of us. In thinking of that debt, and of our affirmation that “We will remember them”, I wanted just to give an illustration. Today is 28 October, so let me share with the House the number and names of the soldiers who died on 28 October in various years on home soil in the United Kingdom. On 28 October 1972, Lance Sergeant Thomas McKay from Edinburgh, a married man with two children, was shot from behind in Londonderry. On 28 October 1973, Private Stephen Hall, 1st Light Infantry, from Bristol, was shot in Crossmaglen. In 1974, Private Michael Swanick and Private Alan Coughlan were both murdered by a bomb attack on the Sandes home where they stayed at Ballykinler camp. On 28 October 1976, off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment soldier—this reminds us that so many local soldiers also paid the price—Stanley Desmond Adams was shot doing his rounds as a postman. On 28 October 1979, Warrant Officer David Bellamy was shot in a Land Rover as he left a police station. Those are reminders of names we have all forgotten, but names of those to whom we in Northern Ireland and elsewhere owe so much. I place on record our appreciation tonight. I say one final thing to the Government: we have a veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland, but it has never been put on a statutory basis. That needs to be done to give it lasting effect.

• 28 Oct 2024 · Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  This statement speaks of giving the private sector the confidence to invest. Can the Minister explain to the small businesses in my constituency how it will give them confidence if the first act of this Government is to soak them with further national insurance increases? Will that not dent confidence, rather than increase it, along with sustained high interest rates? When he speaks about multi-year spending reviews, does that mean that he now expects the devolved Governments to produce multi-year budgets, which is something that the Stormont Government have been reluctant to do?