Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  When the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) introduced the debate, he said that it was not about the assisted dying Bill; he proceeded for the next 25 minutes to talk about little else. It is quite clear that many of that Bill’s supporters, out of a sense of churlish resentment of the House of Lords daring to do its job, have come today to give vent to that view. Of course, for some of them, it dovetails with their aversion to the very existence of the House of Lords in the first place. In the most compelling and effective speech that we have heard, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) pointed out that when we talk about parliamentary democracy, we do not have the luxury of just talking about the House of Commons. Ours is a bicameral situation—we have an elected House of Commons and a House of Lords, and both have an essential and irrefutable function in passing the laws of our land. That is a fundamental component of our parliamentary democracy. It might cause some to resent the existence of the other House, but it is the reality. Just as we, as Members of this House, are entitled to have our say and to vote as we please, Members of the House of Lords, so long as they exist, have the same right to express themselves, and to move, speak to, and ultimately, if they ever get to the end of the process, vote on amendments. That is how that place works, for better or for worse. I suspect that if we had a Reform or a Conservative Government in two or three years’ time who decided to extract the United Kingdom from the European convention on human rights, the very people complaining the loudest today about the functioning of the House of Lords would be cheering it on as it attempted to filibuster that. We need to dissect their argument and discover that it is not quite as altruistic as some would have us believe; there is a lot more self-interest at play. The complaint amounts to a desire to have an unsafe Bill forced into law—that is the real complaint. Of course, it is the function of the House of Lords to apply rigour and scrutiny. I salute the Lords for the rigour that it supplies, and the many notable peers with expertise on these issues far beyond that of anyone in this Chamber. [ Interruption. ]

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the rebuff in the Dillon judgment for the article 2 expansionist demands of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State accept that rights in Northern Ireland must evolve according to United Kingdom law, not European Union law? Thus, on the gender issue, does he accept that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the supremacy of biological sex must prevail?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment to bring the Greater London Authority within scope of the covenant duty focuses my mind on the fact that this Bill applies the covenant to all local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom, except the district councils in Northern Ireland. Why is it that the only councils excluded from the ambit of the covenant are in Northern Ireland? Why has the Minister not tabled an amendment—I have previously raised this with him—to include those councils?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly am not going to object to consumers—my constituents—having a £30 bill reduction per annum, though I recognise that that is within the context of Northern Ireland electricity consumers paying excessively more than is paid in Great Britain, because we are held within the single electricity market governed by the EU, not by UK provisions. I do not think the question that I asked in my intervention has been answered, although it was reiterated by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine: why is there a nexus in the original Act, carried forward in these regulations, between the availability of the power and the holding of office by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister? Surely we are not saying that if there is not a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the people of Northern Ireland should be punished by virtue of the absence of this power, so are we saying that, in the absence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the powers would be exercised here by this Department? Is that what this means? What exactly does it mean? On the face of it, it looks pretty incongruous and unexplained to me, and I would like to understand it, as I am sure my constituents would.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Apart from the fact that, because we are in effect under the EU-controlled single electricity market, our prices are so much higher than those in GB, I am particularly intrigued to understand the thinking behind a point made in the explanatory notes. It indicates that the extensions apply only so long as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are in office. What is the correlation and why is that correlation there?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I suggest to the Minister that the very clear Supreme Court judgment and the resulting guidance render the Gender Recognition Act 2004 irrational. That Act persists with the fiction that by filling out a few forms, someone can change their sex on official documents. The Supreme Court was clear that gender recognition certificates are of no effect in changing one’s legal sex. Is it not time that we stop pretending under any guise that one can change one’s sex or change biological reality?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Chinook disaster, when we lost so many of our high-ranking anti-terror and security experts. Yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. We had a saga, with the Department claiming for years that it was pilot error, only to have then to reverse that decision, and we still do not have the truth. There are still documents locked away for 100 years, and families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour, but why are the Government continuing to cover up on this issue, particularly on the question of mechanical unfitness?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is strikingly surreal to be debating a King’s Speech from a Government who are patently on their last legs. This is the King’s Speech of a Prime Minister who is working out his notice in Downing Street. It is equally surreal that after the biggest electoral trouncing that any Government have ever had, particularly in red wall seats, and in areas that voted strongly pro-Brexit, the Prime Minister thinks that the answer is more Europe. Dear help his wit, if that is his solution. Of course, that is also the solution of the wannabe Prime Ministers who are queuing up, bristling with European credentials—although I notice that Andy Burnham is feverishly trying to cover his Europhile tracks, because he thinks they might not go down too well in Makerfield. It is the height of folly for any Government who have been so trounced in an election in those areas to think that the answer is more Europe, but we are told that that answer will come in the European partnership Bill. I suspect that it will be a mere shell of a Bill, loaded with Henry VIII powers, so that as we increasingly align with the EU, this House will not even have the right to scrutinise those measures. What does “dynamic alignment” mean? I can tell the House what it means, because I represent a part of the United Kingdom that, sadly, has continued to be dynamically aligned with the EU. It means that we become a supplicant rule taker. It means that we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It means that laws of absolute folly impose costs on our constituents. Let me give but one example. Northern Ireland is subject to the European vehicle type regulations. What does that mean? It means that buying a new car in Northern Ireland costs £4,000 more than it does in Great Britain, because it can be imported to and used in Northern Ireland only if it meets EU standards. That is what it is to be a supplicant rule taker in the United Kingdom.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister is truly interested in sweeping away some of the barriers of the Irish sea border, in circumstances where sanitary and phytosanitary rules are being aligned, would the natural and proper constitutional move not be to take back control of the SPS system in Northern Ireland, instead of leaving it under the jurisdiction of the EU? If we are going to do a deal, let it be for the whole United Kingdom, so that the whole United Kingdom aligns, if that is what the Government think, instead of leaving Northern Ireland exclusively subject to the laws that the EU makes.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry the hon. Member is so ill informed. Let us take the SPS deal. The Government are seeking an SPS deal not between the United Kingdom and the EU, but for GB and the EU. Why? Because, shamefully, in all SPS measures, the Government are going to leave Northern Ireland subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the EU. It would not be so bad if they were saying that they will have an SPS deal to take back sovereignty over SPS matters in Northern Ireland, but they do not even have the courage to say to the EU, “If we’re going to align, we’re going to make the laws for the whole United Kingdom.” They are prepared to continue to make Northern Ireland subject to the foreign jurisdiction of the EU. What does that mean, and what will dynamic alignment mean for Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland? It will mean huge disfranchisement of the people of this United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, there are over 300 areas of law in which we do not make and cannot change the laws; they are made by a foreign Parliament. This Government are going to mirror that for the whole United Kingdom. That means that the people we represent cannot elect anyone to make those laws; they are disfranchised. Disfranchising is the very antithesis of democracy, yet it is the democratic price of dynamic alignment. What about the financial price? How much are this Government going to pay the EU to be a supplicant rule taker? It will be tens of millions of pounds, I am quite sure, but the Government have not wanted to tell us. That is the challenge: let them tell us how much it is going to cost financially. I want to comment on one other Bill. The energy independence Bill will wilfully shut down our oil and gas industry. Only the deluded would want to produce a plan that will make us weaker, poorer and more dependent on others to meet our energy needs. Here we have a Government saying, “Let’s choose to leave billions in value under the sea, so we can squeeze our taxpayers for the money that is required to buy oil and gas from a foreign Government.” Where is the logic in that? It is the ultimate delusion, and it is because of such delusions that this Government are heading for the exit.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Dunmurry Police Station Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Following two car bomb attacks in one month, what my constituents want to know is what will be done to snuff out this terrorist threat before it develops further—and that must include dealing with the underfunding and the understaffing of the PSNI. Today the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland called out some Northern Ireland political parties for their failure to give unconditional support to the PSNI, which means that many young PSNI officers cannot live in nationalist areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that those parties need to do more, and that, in particular, Sinn Féin must match its pious words with actions of unconditional support for the PSNI and cease lauding its former car bombers, which only gives support to the current generation of car bombers?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Is there an expectation that the procurement principles enunciated today will be followed through with local authorities? If so, can we expect to see an end to the scandal of bodies such as Transport for London buying Chinese buses, rather than British-made buses? Are we going to do anything about that?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the focus of many Members was to ask the Prime Minister why he never thought to ask whether Mandelson had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered that there was no such reticence in No. 10 when it came to trying to meddle in this process. We heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning that the message was very clear from No. 10: the Prime Minister wants this done “at pace”. The Prime Minister did not tell us that yesterday. He said it was nothing to do with him; this was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign Office, “This must be done at pace.” We heard from Sir Olly this morning that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 and that throughout January there was “constant pressure” to get it done, some of it laced with expletives. Sir Olly told us that it would have been “very difficult” not to approve Mandelson. That is in the context of the meddling, the pressure and the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and in a context where even the Cabinet Office, he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it! This is a man who was twice dismissed and had a litany of black marks against him as a public official, and the Cabinet Office—at the heart of this Government—protested that there was no need to vet Mandelson. The appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, and that is corroborated by what was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle at the very same time. In the early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through Mandelson’s approval, was also secretly, behind the backs of not just this Parliament but his Foreign Secretary, saying, “Could Matthew Doyle be found an ambassadorial post? But don’t tell the Foreign Secretary.” That is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister’s No.10, yet he comes to this House and tells us, “Nothing to do with me, guv. People didn’t tell me. I’m innocent because I didn’t know.” As a lawyer he should know that ignorance is no defence; as a lawyer, his training and instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up. Sadly, what we have had in this case is a monumental failure not just of process, but of character, of judgment, and of leadership—and he should go.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  This House and the country are being asked to believe that, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister, and provoked a raging controversy while making the United Kingdom’s most critical diplomatic appointment, he never asked if his nominee had been security vetted. Is that not staggering and incredible? What was the role of our National Security Adviser? What does he know? Could the House be told that?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  As I said earlier in the week, Northern Ireland’s geographical position means that it increasingly occupies a key geo-security location, particularly in the light of the threat to our transatlantic underground cables. In that context, will the strategic review deal with the situation that was revealed in a parliamentary answer: that there are only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland, and only 70 RAF personnel? Surely if we are to deal with threats that are increasingly evident, we need a proper distribution and balance of personnel across the United Kingdom. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, maybe he will bring news in that regard.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on raising this debate in a timely manner, as we approach the anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment that biological sex is the determinant in matters of the Equality Act. That very judgment is a commentary in itself on how our society had been hijacked to the point that common sense had been suborned by the suggestion that a person could be a woman without biologically being a woman. We had got to such a ridiculous position that it took our Supreme Court to tell us the most fundamental and obvious thing that we all should have known. I very much welcome that judgment. I join in the regret expressed for the sluggishness of the Government’s response to the judgment. Here we are, a year on, and we still await guidance. It seems to me that we are therefore still infected by an ideology that does not want to face up to that very simple and compelling finding of our Supreme Court. I say to the Government: it is time to get on with it. It is now abundantly, demonstrably, incontrovertibly the law, and it is time it is respected and adhered to across all elements of our society.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that was ever common sense, and if that is the depths to which the hon. Member has to stoop to try and find an argument, it is a very ineloquent commentary upon herself. I have concerns that we could arrive at a situation where the Supreme Court ruling, which is emphatic and clear, might in fact be disapplied in a part of this United Kingdom, because of the iniquitous Windsor framework. One would have thought that in a United Kingdom, a woman is a woman wherever they are. But in the United Kingdom, under the Windsor framework, we are told that Northern Ireland is subject to a different ambit of laws. We are told that under article 2 of the Windsor framework, we are subject to European law on matters that, some argue, extend to this very subject. We await—it is due shortly—the Dillon judgment from the Supreme Court as to the extent of article 2. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been so ideologically captured by the trans agenda that it is limbering up to bring a legal challenge to the Supreme Court ruling to say that it should not apply in Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework. If that is upheld, we face a dire situation because we already know what the European courts think on this subject. We know it definitively because last month the European Court of Justice ruled, in a case called Shipova, that biological sex can be trumped by gender self-selection. If, as a consequence, a part of this United Kingdom is subject to that jurisprudence, and not the jurisprudence of our own Supreme Court, we are staring into a situation where Northern Ireland would have a different definition of a woman and a different approach to equality laws, and a situation where that which applies everywhere else would be disapplied in Northern Ireland. That would be of immense constitutional significance. If that worst case scenario were to happen, and if we had a ruling to the effect that, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, the Supreme Court common-sense ruling does not apply to the whole United Kingdom, will the Government pledge, in the name of being the Government of a United Kingdom, to ensure a united definition and application of the law across the UK? I trust that necessity for that will not arise, but if it does it will be down to the Government to demonstrate whether or not we are a United Kingdom or whether, in addition to every other inequity, we could now have an Irish sea border on gender identity. That would be intolerable, and it would have repercussions far and wide—not least constitutional. I do hope that common sense will prevail, that we will not be found, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, to be in a different jurisprudence and that we will have the same benefits—benefits that I trust the Government will soon elaborate on. They have dragged their feet far too long already. Internationally, there has been some progress. The International Olympic Committee has rightly made a decision that someone has to be a biological female to compete in women’s games. That is right, sensible and necessary. It is really quite the commentary on our society that we have got to a point where nurses like the Darlington nurses have had to be dragged through the courts to establish the most fundamental principle—one that we have all known from when we could first speak, walk and toddle about—that there is a difference between a man and a woman. The Government must grasp this nettle. The Supreme Court has pointed the way. There is no escape route. Now is the time to embrace that and to ensure that we have the correct guidance right across this land. It is a matter of regret to me that, in Northern Ireland, the Stormont Assembly still has not grasped the nettle and still allows biological men to use women’s toilets. Thankfully, in this place, the right steps were taken last June, but a year on, it still has not been addressed in Stormont. It too needs to catch up with the world and face biological reality.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. Does he agree that defeating terrorism is about not just the physical defeat of terrorism but ensuring that, through its glorification, the narrative of terrorism is not allowed to radicalise other people? Does that not point to the inadequacy of the Terrorism Act 2006? Section 1 of that Act has contained a provision against the glorification of terrorism for the last 20 years. We have not had one prosecution under it in Northern Ireland, yet we have had endless glorification of terrorism. Does that not put the focus on why Lords amendment 357 is necessary—to make it easier to secure prosecution when faced with self-evident glorification of terrorism?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Given Northern Ireland’s geographical position, it occupies a geo-security location of increasing significance, particularly with regard to transatlantic undersea cables. I am disappointed, then, that there are still only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland. Last month, there was a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on providing sea and naval cover for the entire British Isles. That is particularly important to the Republic, given that its cyber-economy relies on those cables. It has been reported in the press that that cover is being provided free of charge to the Republic of Ireland. Is that correct? Surely not.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was asked a very precise question by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). That question was this: outside of any monetary obligations under the treaty, will a single penny be paid to Mauritius going forward? It is a very simple question. It is nothing to do with the treaty; the treaty is gone in that sense. Outside of any obligations under the treaty, will there be a single penny paid to Mauritius? Surely the Minister can answer that question, rather than continuing to dodge it.