Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Travel with Pets · Hansard source

  More

  When the grip of EU law controls even the movement of our pets within the United Kingdom, is it not clear that we have gone far too far in regarding Northern Ireland as EU territory? For that is the reason for this absurd regulation, which, at the behest of the EU, imposes pet passports if a person wants to bring their pet from GB to Northern Ireland. There is no point the Secretary of State saying that it could have been worse; they should not exist at all. When will this Government get the EU off our backs and liberate the people of Northern Ireland and our pets from EU diktat?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Windsor Framework: Travel with Pets · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024 on people travelling with pets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Surely the greatest deficiency is the fact that there is no statutory basis for the Veterans Commissioner? If we are going to secure the long-term future of the essential provision that a Veterans Commissioner can offer, surely we need to have it on a statutory basis, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Is that not the most important step that the Government could take moving forward?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is there no etiquette in the House about somebody who has sat through the entirety of the debate being gazumped in the calling list by somebody who has recently arrived?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have had a lively debate and some wonderful maiden speeches. I noted some telling and impressive phrases—phrases that I think very few in this House could disagree with. Yet the House, in its actions, implements that which it disagrees with. What were those phrases? One Member talked about the need to move to “a more democratic form of government”. Good. Someone else mentioned “strengthening democratic rights”. Good. Another Member talked about “advancing democratic control”. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said that “unelected lawmakers should not be a thing”. Good. However, the phrase that struck me most poignantly was about the principle of electing those who govern us. This House has spent an afternoon debating the rights and wrongs of having hereditary peers, but there is a part of the United Kingdom where the primary issue is not whether the legislature has the right make-up but why 300 areas of law are made by a foreign Parliament. Those laws are made not by this House or the other House, or by the legislative Assembly in Stormont, and that is the product of the protocol agreement made by the previous Government and continuing to be implemented by the current Government. Laws affecting fundamental issues, that govern most of our economy, that govern our entire agrifood industry and that control much of our environment are not made in this House—they are not made with the contribution of hereditary and non-hereditary peers—but by foreign politicians who no one in this nation elects. [ Interruption. ] Someone says, “Wrong debate”. It is not the wrong debate when we are talking about the fundamentals of what it means to have democratic legislatures. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that we should be governed by those we elect. The position of all the hereditary peers in the House of Lords may be indefensible—that is my own inclination —but at least they are United Kingdom citizens making laws for United Kingdom citizens. My constituents live under a regime in which many of the laws are made not by United Kingdom citizens and not by those elected by us, but by those elected in Hungary, Estonia or wherever. This comes down to practical illustrations. Just a few days ago, a statutory instrument about pet passports was laid in this House that imposes not a UK law, but an EU law. It means that any Member of this House or any citizen of Great Britain who wants, for example, to come and visit the wonderful Giant’s Causeway in my constituency and bring with them their best friend—their dog—must, subject to EU law, have a pet passport, have it inoculated according to EU demands, belong to a pet scheme set up under that law and have the documentation inspected. I am using this debate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, yes, it is right and necessary that we debate the apparent anachronism of hereditary peers, but there is a far more compelling issue that this House should be preparing to address. I will be bringing a private Member’s Bill to this House that will give it the opportunity to address those issues, and when I do, I hope that the same enthusiasm for basic democratic principles will be shown for the principle that we should be able to elect those who govern us.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said that the Spanish authorities had assured the Government that the aggressive actions taken at the border were not centrally approved. Do the Government accept that? Never mind the Chagos islands: when the Spanish authorities attempt to insert themselves into Gibraltar, might they not be drawing more succour from the fact that the British Government allowed the EU to insert itself into the United Kingdom, put a border in the Irish sea and pass the laws that govern much of the economy of part of the United Kingdom? Might the Spanish authorities not be concluding in consequence that the UK Government are a soft touch when it comes to sovereignty?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I support Martyn’s law without reservation. It is important that we salute the campaigning and the courage of Martyn’s family, and it is appropriate that colloquially the Bill is named Martyn’s law. What happened in Manchester was shocking and chills us all to the core. It is reflective of so many brutal, wicked acts of terrorism that have been experienced right across this nation, not least in my own part of the United Kingdom. Here we are today properly debating, under the rules of due process and doing things in order, rules and laws to help us deal with terrorism. But we are conscious that terrorists play by no rules: they do not live within the confines of regulation, restraint or anything that would meet the standards of human rights—quite the reverse. To that extent, society as a whole struggles on occasion to deal with the excesses of terrorism, because of its determination to live within the rule of law. That is all the more reason why we need to do everything we can, even in the small things. In the main, this Bill is about the small things of dealing with terrorism, to try to put ourselves in the best possible position to deal with the potential threat of terrorism that, sadly, exists across this nation. In doing that, we have to be realistic that dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s is good and necessary, but fundamentally terrorism will be defeated across this nation only when there is no room for it; when it meets the full rigour of the law and that puts it out of business. That is the fundamental reality. I want to make a few comments about some of the particulars of the Bill. I have some concerns about its potential overreach. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) touched on some of them. Small schools and churches will now be subject to further regulatory requirements. I chair the board of governors of a small country school. We already have to have policies on fire safety, health and safety, and dealing with emergencies. That is all good and necessary, but I would like the Minister to explain what practical additions will be put upon small rural schools and their boards of governors. What will they have to provide that they are not already providing in their emergency, fire safety, and health and safety policies? Boards of governors in particular will want to know that, because they operate within very constrained budgets. In the school that I am involved with, every penny is accounted for and needed for fundamental provision. I am concerned that, in its global approach, the Bill might put unbearable bureaucratic and financial burdens on very small users. The impact assessment says that the majority of the cost will fall upon the businesses that have to operate within it. That also means small schools, churches, community organisations and all the rest of it. That concerns me. Earlier an hon. Member asked what the Bill will do to deal with previously planted devices, which are often deployed by terrorists. It is hard to see the impact, without counter-terrorist measures such as x-raying. I make that point mindful that just this weekend we marked the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton, where one of the most audacious terrorist attacks, which aimed to kill the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, was perfected by the planting of a bomb in that hotel weeks before. We need to consider what would help to deal with that kind of situation. That is why I am a little bit concerned that the Home Secretary said there would be no measures in the Bill to require physical steps to be taken. If a hotel, leisure centre or large arena has a deficiency in its CCTV coverage that is observable by the SIA or whoever else—as there was in Manchester, where the terrorists were cute enough to pick out the CCTV blind spots—is it not sensible, if we are going to put in place protective measures, that physical measures could and should be included, such as identifying gaps in CCTV coverage, so that in the event of an outrage there is at least a better prospect of bringing the perpetrators to justice? That might also act as a deterrent. In fighting terrorism, deterrence is very often as important as anything else. It is our duty to ensure that that is so. I will just touch on a couple of other points in the Bill. I note that clause 31, on civil liability, states: “nothing in this Part confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of any contravention of a requirement imposed on any person by or under this Part.” That causes me to question. Most or all our buildings are covered by the occupiers’ liability legislation, which is premised on the duty of care of the occupier to their visitors. How can we say, in clause 31, that if we are going to impose obligations in respect of taking steps to protect against the potential of terrorist attack and those steps are not taken, that will not create the basis for civil action? Surely that is an indicator and a contributor to the question of whether or not the duty of care was fulfilled to the visitor. It puzzles me why clause 31 is in those terms. The final thing I wanted to say relates to the SIA. We are giving a lot of powers to an organisation which, frankly, has not always covered itself in glory. I speak of my own part of the United Kingdom, where the SIA has issued licences to some dubious characters. It is not beyond the wit of terrorists—some of us have seen this—to set themselves up as so-called security firms and apply for licences. Do not ever fall into the trap of thinking that terrorists act by the rules we act by and that they would not do that. Yes, they would. The SIA has been found wanting. In Northern Ireland, we recently had a case of gross overreach by the SIA, where it brought a prosecution that the judge said had to be stopped and should never have been brought. The SIA spent £200,000 and the case involved illegal searches of property, so it is not a body that is a ready recipient for extra powers. I worry that we will overburden it, if it is to do the job in the way that it needs to be done. I therefore say to the Minister that maybe the SIA is not the right regulatory body, because it already has a huge burden of work and it has not always been successful in what it does. We want to that we—the elected representatives of this House who want to protect our constituents from the most hideous things, namely terrorist attacks—do all we reasonably can, and that means getting this legislation right.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Northern Ireland City Deals · Hansard source

  More

  Could I suggest that the Causeway deal was particularly well thought out and balanced in its proposition? It is therefore very disappointing to see it paused, particularly for the small but vital village of Bushmills, which services the vast number of visitors who come to the Giant’s Causeway. For years, there has been a neglect of infrastructure there. Roads have been clogged with cars because there is not adequate parking in and about Bushmills. This project was going to address that, as well as community rejuvenation in the village. Therefore, there is an immense sense of disappointment in Bushmills in my constituency at the lost opportunity. Will the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the strategic significance of Bushmills to the advancement of the great Giant’s Causeway project, make a particular case for the reinstatement of the Causeway project?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Prime Minister have any sense of unease that, although he is Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are more than 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland in which legislation is made in a foreign Parliament? Has he any ambition to recover UK sovereignty over those 300 areas of law, thereby restoring the equal citizenship of my constituents and ending their disen-franchising in respect of making laws that govern much of their economy?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  While the Secretary of State explains to the House what he is doing and what he will do, will he spare a thought for the farmers of Northern Ireland? Our agrifood industry is shaped and controlled not by the laws that this House makes, not by the laws that the devolved Parliament makes, but by the laws made by a foreign Parliament, namely the European Parliament. In more than 300 areas of law, 120 of which affect our agrifood industry, that is how our laws are made. How is that even approaching being democratic and how is agrifood in Northern Ireland meant to be shaped to meet its needs if its own representatives cannot even make or change the laws that govern it?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the most pernicious impacts of the protocol is that in a few months, the European Union will stop the veterinary medicines that are so vital to the health of animals in Northern Ireland coming over from Great Britain, because the EU insists that its veterinary agency should control these matters?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  If we in this House, at this distance, can feel the pain of that dastardly attack a year ago, we can but imagine its indelible imprint on the people of Israel and on Jewish folk across the world. What is the Prime Minister’s view of the fact that our national broadcaster, the BBC, refuses to call those who perpetrated this heinous terrorist attack “terrorists”, and likewise now with Hezbollah? What is the Government’s position on that and what representations have they made?

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Patrick Finucane Murder · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by apologising to the Secretary of State and the House for being absent at the beginning of the statement? Secretary of State, has there ever been a family given more preferential handling by Government than the Finucane family? They have had a prime ministerial apology, multiple investigations, inquiries and now an uncapped public inquiry, after the family rejected previous Government offers of inquiries. Is not the tragic takeaway from the statement that the ICRIR is good enough for innocent victims of the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and others, but not good enough for the Finucane family? Why is the Secretary of State perpetuating that odious hierarchy of victims?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Post Office Horizon: Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and look forward to things proceeding to the necessary conclusion. Redress is about righting wrongs, but there was more than one wrongdoer—there was also Fujitsu. Last week, the Prime Minister told us that firms that had fallen short in relation to Grenfell would be removed from Government contracts. Bearing in mind Fujitsu’s actions and that there was at least one suicide, will it be treated in the same way? Will there be redress against its unlawful actions as well?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Sheep Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister says that no part of the United Kingdom should be subject to EU rules, but the reality is that Northern Ireland is subject to them. That is the problem: we were never delivered from them. His Government failed to deliver us from them. That is why we have the mess we have.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Sheep Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for bringing this important matter to the Floor. As has been clear from the contributions from Northern Ireland, sheep farming is a significant but, sadly, poor relation of farming because the lowest farm incomes in the farming sector arise among sheep farmers. That is an indication of an indisputable fact: what is needed in Northern Ireland, and particularly in a constituency such as mine, which has a lot of sheep farmers, is a sheep support scheme. In Northern Ireland, we do have a beef support scheme —it is called the beef carbon reduction scheme—and we have a separate cow scheme. Those contribute to environmental enhancements on what used to be the single farm payment, now the direct payment. But there is no scheme for sheep farmers, and that is a lamentable failure on the part of the local Department. It has been sitting on a taskforce recommendation since early last year and has failed to move on that matter. Not only is that failure to move doing nothing to increase incomes, but it is going to decrease them. From 2025, sheep farmers farming only sheep are set to lose 17% of their basic payment unless they change to include protein crops and cattle. For many, that is just not possible, so there is an urgent need for action.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Sheep Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it is actually worse than that. Yes, we can look across the border and see the advantage, but the problem is that, courtesy of the Windsor framework and the protocol, Northern Ireland farmers are subject to the same rules and regulations but none of the benefits. Members should never forget that the laws concerning farming in Northern Ireland are not made in this place or in Stormont; they are made in a foreign Parliament to which we elect no one. That is the ultimate constitutional absurdity of the Windsor framework: we have created a situation where, in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are foreign-imposed—colony-like—on Northern Ireland. The laws concerning the whole agrifood industry are made in Brussels, and that is an appalling constitutional and economic affront. Because we are subject to the European veterinary regime, we now have a looming crisis: come 2025, our veterinary medicines, which are produced in Great Britain, will not be permitted to enter Northern Ireland, and up to 50% of our medicines will be excluded from Northern Ireland. That is a serious challenge, which the last Government did nothing about and which I trust this Government will do something about. This Government will need to stand up with vigour against the European Commission and insist that every part of this country must be entitled to have the same veterinary medicines as the rest of the country. It is time that we shook off our shackles and insisted on that. Of course, it gets even worse. As has been alluded to, movements of livestock from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to every EU rule that applies. We therefore have quarantine periods of six months for those wanting to bring in livestock, and of 30 days for the host farm it is coming from. Why? Because that is what EU rules, which we have been left subject to—serf-like—insist on. To take sheep farming, farmers need to constantly improve the genetic line; they need to bring in new rams, but bringing one in from Scotland or Wales, which would be our traditional sources, is now nigh impossible because of these quarantine rules. That needs to be addressed. There are other dimensions. Reference has been made to the fact that hundreds of cattle and other livestock have been stranded on this side of the Irish sea since last year and cannot be moved to Northern Ireland, due to EU rules about bluetongue. We have the ludicrous situation that someone who buys rams in France or cattle in Sweden or elsewhere can bring them straight through GB to Northern Ireland, but if they buy them in GB, they cannot bring them to Northern Ireland, because GB is said to be a bluetongue zone. Even though the livestock is, in many cases, being bought from Scotland, which has no bluetongue difficulties, it still cannot be brought to Northern Ireland. Why? Again, because of the absurdity that we are subject to EU rules. This House, far outside the framework of farming issues, needs to get hold of the fact that unless we deal with the constitutional imperative of restoring Northern Ireland to the rules of this House and this country, and not of a foreign jurisdiction, we will have these problems, which manifest themselves in our farming industry in the way I have described. It is not just a multifaceted problem, but a multifaceted problem with many deep issues that need to be addressed. The last Government had no appetite to address them—in fact, they deepened the problems with their Windsor framework. I trust that this Government, who have inherited the ludicrous situation of Northern Ireland being a condominium ruled in part by laws made in the United Kingdom and in part by foreign laws in a foreign jurisdiction, will address this issue. We cannot go on like this. Neither our sheep farmers, nor any other farmers, nor our citizens should be living in a colony-like situation where we are ruled by laws we do not make and cannot change.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I join in the condemnation of the thuggery and violence that we all saw and deplored, but can I take the Home Secretary back to the point to which the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) alluded? Is she comfortable with the fact that under the Windsor framework, any immigration policy that she devises must pass through the filter of EU law, and be subject to its requirements? As long as that prevails, how can a Home Secretary implement a national policy? Will she act with this Government to set aside what they inherited from the Tory Government: the loss of sovereignty over immigration—and so many other matters, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Casement Park: Redevelopment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State explain to the 356,000 citizens of Northern Ireland who await out-patient appointments and to the 94,000 who await in-patient admissions why, in the Government’s view, it seems to be a priority to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into a GAA sports stadium instead of fixing our health service? If the Government commit money and the Euros do not come to Belfast, will the Government not be in a position in which the rugby stadium and the football stadium did not get a penny of Treasury or Northern Ireland Office money, but the GAA did? How could that be fair and how could that be proportionate?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Casement Park: Redevelopment · Hansard source

  More

  11. How much funding he plans to make available for the redevelopment of Casement Park.

• 18 Jul 2024 · Foreign Affairs and Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The other new Members who have spoken today have set a very high bar with their maiden speeches, and I commend them on their delivery and the very cogent construction of their speeches. I come to this place representing the constituency of North Antrim. Therefore, my first privilege is to thank the electors of North Antrim for placing their confidence in me—and, of course, I commend their wisdom. The North Antrim constituency is a magnificent blend of urban and rural. We have the county town of Ballymena; we have other main towns, such as Ballymoney and Ballycastle; and we have a great patchwork of villages and small towns, including Bushmills, whose famous products some in this House may be familiar with. Others in that patchwork of villages have excelled in national competitions—Britain in Bloom and all of that—such as Broughshane, Ahoghill and Cullybackey. It is a wonderful place to represent; it is also a place of fantastic scenery, because we have the world-famous north coast. The crowning glory of that, of course, is the Giant’s Causeway, as well as Carrick-a-Rede bridge and all those magnificent places. We also have iconic inland tourist attractions such as the Dark Hedges, so I say to Members of this House, “If you’ve never been to North Antrim, it’s time to put that right. What’s been keeping you?” What was keeping me from representing North Antrim in this House was a 54-year dynasty of family and party. From June 1970, North Antrim was represented in this House by Ian Paisley, father and son. Today, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor for the considerable work that he did for his constituents in North Antrim, but it is a new era—it is a new start—and I am here with a very distinctive and particular message in regard to the future of Northern Ireland. There was not much in the King’s Speech about Northern Ireland, apart from a couple of fleeting references. It was a disappointment to me that there was nothing to address the disenfranchising of the people of Northern Ireland. Let me explain. Those Members who come from England, Scotland or Wales come to this House as a Parliament that, in tandem with devolved institutions—if they have them—can collectively legislate for all the laws that govern their constituents. Sadly, we cannot say that about my constituents or any constituent in Northern Ireland, because in 300 areas of law, sovereignty over making those laws has been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. We are now subject to the last Government’s protocol and Windsor framework arrangements—subject to laws governing our trade, our agrifood industry, much of our economy and much of our environment that this House cannot make and that Stormont cannot make. Those laws are made in a foreign Parliament and then, colony-like, are imposed on Northern Ireland. The Labour movement has a very proud history of opposition to colonialism, but this Government inherit a position whereby they are presiding over a colonial situation of a foreign jurisdiction administering laws, and decreeing and legislating laws, in part of this kingdom. That is something that this Government need to address, and I am not talking about trifling incidental laws. I am talking about many laws that cut to the very heart of what it means to be a United Kingdom and to be a part of that United Kingdom. I refer to just one, but Members will find the 300 listed, if they are interested, in annex 2 to the protocol that was foisted upon us. I refer to only one, which is the subjection of Northern Ireland to the EU’s customs code. What that means in practice is that when Great Britain sends goods—and it is our main source of supply—to our manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland, it is sending them, according to the EU customs code, from a foreign country, because Northern Ireland is decreed to be EU territory. That is an unbearable constitutional and economic affront, and that is something I say to this Government. The Secretary of State talked today about democracy, and the Foreign Secretary will go around the world advancing the cause of democracy, yet in Northern Ireland we have a situation where there are laws governing so many vital aspects that we cannot make and cannot change. That has to change, and it has to be changed by this House. That is the fundamental message that I bring from my constituents, and that is why I am here—because my constituents will not, cannot, should not put up with it, just as the constituents of any Member of this House would not put up with it.

• 9 Jul 2024 · Election of Speaker · Hansard source

  More

  I join in the congratulations and best wishes expressed to you, Mr Speaker-Elect. I have observed your speakership from a distance, and now I will have the benefit of observing it rather more close up. With me on my best behaviour, and with you at your tolerant best, I trust that we will have a mutually cordial relationship. I will certainly draw on your guidance and the experience that you bring to this House. I come to this House on behalf of my constituents in Northern Ireland with a very clear message: Northern Ireland’s place within this United Kingdom must be restored. We must end the partitioning of our kingdom by a foreign border, and we must end a situation in which 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland are controlled not by this House, and not by Stormont, but by a foreign Parliament. That is an appalling constitutional affront, and my focus in this House will be on playing my part in seeking to redress that gross inequity.