Jim Allister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is one of those parts of the United Kingdom that, far in excess of elsewhere, depends on maritime transport for its economic survival. The Scottish islands is another, and there arises the first glaring unfairness of this proposal. As ferries are their critical economic infrastructure, the Scottish islands will rightly be exempt, but Northern Ireland, which equally relies on its ferries as its essential economic infrastructure, will not be exempt. Where is the fairness? Where is the justification for that? I respectfully suggest that there is not and cannot be any. When one puts upon the essential economic infra- structure —namely, maritime transport—this additional tax burden, the inevitable result is that Northern Ireland consumers will pay for this carbon tax. My constituents will have this extra levy passed on to them via their goods, which have already been made more expensive by the iniquity of the Irish sea border and the costs of checks. On top of that, they now have this maritime carbon tax. That point cries out so forcefully about the patent and inherent unfairness of the measure that, if the Government cared about the whole United Kingdom, they would not just listen to it, but act on it. Sadly, I fear they will not, as they took the convenient approach of slipping the ETS into the Finance Bill. Instead of separate legislation that we could have debated and drilled into in the House, we get an unamendable regulation slipped through this Committee. It is part of the Government’s indifference to what they are doing to a part of their own United Kingdom. Let us never forget that maritime transport is already the most carbon-efficient mode of mass freight transport. Our domestic maritime emissions are 1% of total UK emissions, and yet we will selectively—in particular in respect of Northern Ireland—put this extra cost on the consumers of Northern Ireland. We will also do that in a context where the maritime operators have no alternative: “Six months, get your house in order”—how do they do it? Net zero fuel is four to five times more expensive. Shoreside electricity infrastructure just does not exist, and will not exist within six months. There is no support whatever for the transition. The coffers of Government will be expanded by this carbon tax, but will they spend that money by putting it back into the sector? No, they will greedily hold on to it, and force the sector and thus the consumers to pay for the carbon tax, with all that it means. I mentioned the Scottish islands. I represent a constituency that also includes an inhabited island, Rathlin island. As for the Isle of Wight East, there is no concession for Rathlin island. Why are my constituents who live in Rathlin island less important to this Government than those who live in the Scottish islands?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  No votes—probably. That is probably the same answer in respect of the whole of Northern Ireland. When the Minister gets a chance to listen, I say to him: I do not accept lesser service for my constituents than he obtains for his or any other Member of this House. If we are a United Kingdom, then we need to be a United Kingdom of equals, not with those who are taxed while others are not, and not with consumers who pay more while others do not—but that is the product of what this Government are doing to Northern Ireland and the Rathlin islanders as well. It is not enough for the impact assessment to recognise that consumers in Northern Ireland are more exposed—but if they are, what will the Government do about it? The impact assessment recognises that Northern Ireland consumers are more exposed, but the Government turn their face away and will not do anything about it. That is neither tenable nor tolerable. Furthermore, the Government say, “You must do this in six months.” What planet of unreality are they living on? They like to ape so much of what the EU does, but even the EU with its ETS has a three-year transition. Indeed, the EU is also reviewing what it is doing. Impossibly, however, we are saying to the maritime sector in the United Kingdom, “You have five months to get this sorted out, and then your consumers start to pay for our indulgence and for our self-congratulation that we are dealing with carbon emissions.” That is not an acceptable way to go. Because there is no investment and no transition, it is inescapable that this is but a tax, a carbon tax on my constituents, on the people of Northern Ireland, on the people of Rathlin island and on all those who have not been given the equality of treatment of exemption that has been accorded to others.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is telling the Committee that parity with the Republic of Ireland is more important to him than parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Really?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point for not just this nation but the United States of America, and that it too should have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands have been under the control of a nuclear power with a navy, and that this treaty would hand them over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy. Does that not create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? Should the Americans in particular not be very wary of that?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This week marks two years from the attempted great deception on the part of the former Government and the Democratic Unionist party that the Irish sea border was gone. “No checks, no paperwork” was the strapline. Yet within the first few months of this new year alone, we have seen the imposition of a veterinary medicine border and a ban on new GB cars being sold in Northern Ireland. Now the European Union says that it plans to impose a €3 charge on small parcels coming into Northern Ireland from July onwards. What sort of Government allows a foreign power to impose a tax on parcels coming into its own territory?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some general points and then ask a Northern Ireland-specific question of the Minister. I really am amazed that in a debate where the starting point is that free allowances are to be removed, there is any serious dispute about the contention that an inevitable consequence of that is a rise in cost. One inevitably follows the other. If we take away something that is free to business and impose a charge, inevitably there will be something to pass on, which will be passed on to consumers. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) referred to paragraph 18.8 of the impact assessment, trying to make something out of the fact that the word “can” is used in the context of price increases, but he did not read on, because it continues— “enabling substantial price pass-through.” To whom? To the consumers. What is abundantly clear is that, in liquidating the free allowances, the Government are saying—although it is sure to be hidden in verbosity, the impenetrable wording of this document—is that, de facto, the costs are going to be passed to the consumer. We all know, as has been said already in this debate, that means that businesses will not be able to continue in many cases, or in some cases might move abroad—all the consequences that could flow from that. It is retrograde, not progressive in any sense. My next point is that within the draft order, it seems to me—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the ultimate destination is to attach ourselves to the EU benchmark without knowing what the EU benchmark will be, without ever being able to have an influence on what it should be. We are signing a blank cheque in pursuit of realignment with the EU, whereby it is the EU benchmark that will in future dictate what the levels are. That seems to me to be the height of madness. I come now to my Northern Ireland-specific question. I assume I am right in thinking that emissions trading applies generally and therefore obviously includes electricity. If that is right, considering that Northern Ireland is, sadly, in a different emissions trading scheme in regard to electricity, how will the regulations apply, if at all, to electricity in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister please explain that? What are the consequences if the draft order does not apply, or if it does apply to a region whose electricity production is under a different ET scheme? That is a practical question. I would like to get a clear answer from the Minister, because frankly nothing is clear about the 104 pages of impenetrable prose that goes with the attempt to push this order on the British people.

• 27 Jan 2026 · UK Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, and the Chancellor is on record as saying that “where things are made, and who makes them, matters.” —[ Official Report , 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.] That is correct, and the Government need to get that message embedded in their soul. I want to speak directly to the mayor of this great city—our capital city. In recent times, 479 Chinese buses have been put on our streets, with another 160 to follow—that is China, with the kill switches. I ask the mayor and TfL: where is the national pride in our capital city if we arrive and discover that the bus we are likely to get on was made in China rather than the United Kingdom? Other mayors seem to have had the vision and the desire to promote British-made products. That desire needs to catch flame here in the capital city, and I trust that it will. Our procurement must be assertive and bold. There are the social value tools to make our procurement effective in assisting the production of home-made buses. We should be unashamed to do as other countries do when it comes to productivity. I hope that one outcome of this debate will be that those in a position to order buses reflect on where they order them from, and that we will see an interest in and accentuation of orders from within our United Kingdom. We have the means. We have the product. Let us build on it and make it even greater. Finally, I want to raise a particular problem with production and exports in Northern Ireland. Sadly, under the Brexit arrangement, we are still under EU state aid rules. We see that in clauses 13 to 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which increase the level available for enterprise management incentives, enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts in Great Britain, but hold it down for companies in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of EU state aid rules. We also see it in the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, which again caps us under the EU state aid limits. How can we have a level playing field for UK production if, quite outrageously, one part of the United Kingdom is subject to a cap under EU state aid rules, which would not be there at all, of course, if we were properly part of the United Kingdom and had properly achieved Brexit? For Wrightbus, the workers in my constituency and the commonality of this United Kingdom, we must have that level playing field. That will then unleash opportunities for this great industry. It is time for the Government to liberate the bus building industry so that it can grow, including in Northern Ireland.

• 27 Jan 2026 · UK Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG for British buses. As the representative for North Antrim, I have the privilege of having Wrightbus as the key manufacturing company in my constituency. It is remarkable that, having started in a domestic garage just after the second world war, Wrightbus is now one of the world leaders in technology, skills and innovation. Ballymena in my constituency will forever be grateful to Sir William Wright for his innovative foresight, which led to where we are today. It was not always an easy road. Just a few years ago, after substantial problems, Wrightbus rose like a phoenix from the ashes under new ownership, generating 2,300 jobs and producing many, many hundreds of buses, with the ambition to produce more than 3,000. I recently visited the site again, and saw the most modern of the company’s buses, which thankfully take care of all the accessibility needs one could think of. I was encouraged by the enthusiasm of the new chief executive, who certainly has ambitious plans for the site. It is important that we as a nation grab hold of the opportunity here. The industrial strategy talks about advanced manufacturing as a strategic growth sector. If we mean that—I certainly believe that the sector has that potential—we must twin it with the approach we take on procurement. There is no point saying that advanced manufacturing is a strategic growth sector if our procurement policy is letting it down.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hold in my hand the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. There are extensive sections on historical background and legal background. Nowhere within those sections is there any reference to the 1966 treaty. Why is that? I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the 1966 treaty—or notes, as he calls it—is extant? Secondly, is it capable of being altered unilaterally?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of several hon. Members in repudiating the outrageous slur on our armed forces by the President of the United States in respect of service in Afghanistan. Our soldiers were not shirkers, they were heroes. One of them was young Private Phillip Gillespie from Galgorm in my constituency, who for his service lost a leg and is permanently disabled as a result. He typifies many who gave so much in that regard. Most of my remarks will relate to the armed forces covenant. I have heard it said more than once in this debate that the Labour party’s manifesto pledged that the armed forces covenant would be applied to every area of government. It is a good pledge, but sadly the Bill does not deliver it. Within the Bill, there is a notable and deliberate exception, which is the 11 local councils in Northern Ireland. Clause 2 sets forth what a “local authority” means. For England it is county councils, district councils, boroughs and so on. For Wales it is “the council of a county or county borough”, and for Scotland it is “a council constituted under…the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.” For Northern Ireland the Bill states: “In relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.” Where are the 11 district councils of Northern Ireland, and why are they excluded from the ambit of the Bill? Why is the armed forces covenant not to be applied to them? Is it because some of those councils, unhappily, are dominated by Sinn Féin? Are the Government running scared of offending Sinn Féin with the armed forces covenant, remembering of course, that Sinn Féin is the party of the IRA and those who took out so many of our gallant citizens and servicemen in Northern Ireland?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not all councils, happily, are controlled by Sinn Féin. There are 11 councils, many of which are not. Perhaps through the First Minister’s office—I do not know, but perhaps at its behest—the councils have been excluded. I am disappointed that the Government’s manifesto has been disapplied when it comes to Northern Ireland, where the covenant has been abysmally implemented. I turn to the “Armed Forces Covenant annual report 2025” and go to almost any page. I read: “Healthcare services for veterans in England” or “in Wales” or “in Scotland”, but nothing for Northern Ireland. I go to education and read about the “service pupil premium in England” or the Welsh Government education service for children. But there is nothing for Northern Ireland. I turn to homelessness, and there is a section on “Homelessness in Wales”, and “Homelessness in Scotland”, but nothing on Northern Ireland. There is “Resettlement in Scotland” —all that is there, underscoring that the armed forces covenant has not been adequately applied in my part of the United Kingdom. And now the Government are exempting the whole level of local government from the implementation of the covenant. That is not just disturbing—it is quite appalling. Why should a veteran who lives in my constituency not have the same protections, opportunities and guarantees as a veteran who lives in the constituency of any Member from Great Britain? There can be no justification for that, and yet that is the import of the Bill. I trust that the Government will make good that default and will ensure that that loophole is closed. We are in a bizarre situation in Northern Ireland because of the implication of EU regulations, including those concerning ozone-depleting substances. Believe it or not, that means that Chinook, Dakota and Merlin helicopters, and many more, might land in Northern Ireland, but they cannot be based in Northern Ireland because it offends an obscure EU law—that is what happens when you hand away the sovereignty over part of your own territory. I say to the Secretary of State that it is time that was rectified as well. Maybe that is why our military presence is fast diminishing. A recent answer to me showed that there were five Royal Navy personnel, 70 RAF personnel and only 1,230 Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland. Why? We were meant to go back to peacetime levels under the Belfast agreement, but we have not. Are this Government running down military presence in Northern Ireland?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just on devolved issues, will the Secretary of State explain why the armed forces covenant is being extended to local authorities everywhere except Northern Ireland? Why are the councils in Northern Ireland not also included in the Bill? Why are they excluded?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary has been reasonably clear today that the National Police Service would be UK-wide, dealing with counter-terrorism, organised crime and fraud, but she then said that there could be an opt-out—or maybe it is an opt-in—in respect of regions like Northern Ireland. Will she explain that? Who would exercise that opt-out? Would it be the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Would it be the Northern Ireland Executive? Where would that leave us in respect of the National Crime Agency, which is ultimately to be absorbed into this National Police Service? Could it continue to exist in Northern Ireland if there was not the opt-in, which would be essential?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says: “Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”, because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years since that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there —he was not. Last Sunday there was another commemoration, to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane. The common denominator of victims and families such as those is that they not just feel but know that they are the forgotten ones. They know that they are not the priority of this Government, and they know that it is the country that gives shelter to the murderers of their loved ones that is the priority of this Government. Dress it up as he will, the Secretary of State’s remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only: appeasing the Government of the Irish Republic, who want to drag this United Kingdom before the Bar of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what this remedial order is about. This remedial order is not about ceasing to implement laws with which the Government disagree, because those aspects of the legacy Act have already been removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the remedial order: “Although the provisions declared incompatible with the ECHR by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied”— they are gone!— “the Government considers it important to remove all these provisions from the statute book swiftly.” Why? The answer is the one that I have given: to appease the Dublin Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when the remedial order goes through, it is his view that there would be no basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland’s action. That is the problem. We have a Secretary of State who is genuflecting to the Dublin Government. That is the feeling of innocent victims in our country. They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a Government that are interested primarily in facilitating those who give shelter to their killers. There is no legal justification for this. It is quite clear under section 10 of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It is the issue of whether article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I demonstrated in my interventions, was used by the court to require the provisions to be disapplied, was a valid basis for disapplication. That is a live issue, therefore there is no legal justification—quite the reverse—for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the reason that I have said.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage. The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes. The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”. Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place. The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always “defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”, it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says “including the Falklands and Gibraltar”, but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the plain truth that this was a predetermined political decision from the moment that the political decision was taken to call it in, when the Government were faced with due process because the council had refused the planning application? After all that has gone on, does this not simply bring the whole planning process into disrepute? London’s Labour group has condemned the decision, so is not one of its members right when he says: “wrong embassy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Why are this Government so evidently in awe of the Chinese Government and their requirements? Is one of those requirements that this mega-embassy be approved before the Prime Minister visits Beijing?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member very piously tells us what would offend her, but of course it did not offend her in December 2024 to be a cheerleader for the Secretary of State railroading through a protocol that treats Northern Ireland as a colony of the EU, and to continue support without cross-community consent on a basis of majoritarianism. There is quite a gaping void between what she is saying today and what her party did in December 2024.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has talked several times about consensus. Can he therefore explain why, when given the opportunity to live by the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement and cross-community consent, his party eschewed and dismantled that when it came to this question: should people in Northern Ireland, for the next four years, be subject to laws in 300 areas that they do not make and cannot change, and which are imposed on them by the EU treating Northern Ireland as a colony? Why did consensus not matter then?