Jim Allister MP: speeches

550 published records · newest first.

Speeches

3 Dec 2025 · Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland · Hansard source
More
Is it not a fact that one of the most appalling aspects of this is that our Government have been so shy and so much in deference to the EU that they refuse to stand up for Northern Ireland farmers and pet owners and are allowing the EU belligerently to enforce its laws as a demonstration of just how superior it is in controlling Northern Ireland? There is no logic in it. Our EU veterinary medicines in most cases come from the EU, but under these regulations they are no longer allowed to pass through GB to come to Northern Ireland. Therein is a diversion of trade, which is supposed to be prevented by article 16 of the Windsor framework but which this Government are absolutely blind and tone-deaf to.
3 Dec 2025 · Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland · Hansard source
More
Sadly, we live under EU law, and the EU law that governs these matters says that only where there is exceptional breakdown can there be alternative arrangements. Have the Government obtained permission from their EU masters for the two schemes to which the Minister refers? According to the Government, they are going to be routine, rather than for exceptional breakdowns.
3 Dec 2025 · Official Secrets Act and Espionage · Hansard source
More
Today, the Minister has again said that the reason the case collapsed was the inadequacy of the 1911 Act. That raises this obvious question: how come these two gentlemen were ever charged in the first place? The evidential test at the moment they were charged is exactly the same as the evidential test when the case was dropped, so how did they come to be charged under this Act if it was inadequate? Is it not quite clear that the Act was more than adequate to charge them and more than adequate to convict them?
2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source
More
Madam Deputy Speaker, sitting here for three hours for a three-minute speech is a bit like the Budget—there is not much in it for working people. Of course, the Budget is fundamentally controversial because it increases income for benefit families but increases taxation for working families. That is the summary of this Budget. It is a Budget born in controversy because the abiding and yet unanswered question is: since the Chancellor knew that tax receipts were up, why did she continue to conceal that in her Downing Street doom loop speech? There has not been an answer to that. There is much in this Budget to disappoint. For hard-working family farmers, there is a big disappointment. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) laid out very clearly the disappointment of many of us at the fact that the death tax will continue for family farms. Every Member has an opportunity tonight, on resolution 50, to take a stand on that issue and I trust that many will. On devolution, yes, there are Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland of £370 million. The problem is that the money is already spent, because Stormont so mismanages its funds that it has already overspent by £400 million. The money is gone. We have the tragic situation of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland saying this week: “devolution has simply not worked for policing in Northern Ireland…We have lost out as a result of devolution.” That is the sad commentary, and that means that people in my constituency are less safe than they should be. Instead of having 7,500 police personnel as promised, we are down to 6,200 because of Stormont’s mismanagement, by and large, of the money it gets. There will probably come a point, I suggest to the Treasury, when it will have to put the Stormont Executive into special measures so that they can understand how to balance their books and account for matters as they should. This Budget talks about four AI growth zones for the whole country, but there is none in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us whether that is because Northern Ireland is going to be subject not to UK law but to the EU’s AI law? Is that why we are being excluded from those growth zones? Are we going to have another Irish sea border, this time in AI?
2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source
More
Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done?
26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source
More
Indeed, is that not the ultimate insult? Those who lost their lives had given indescribable service to this nation and were a huge loss to our intelligence community, but what has happened since has been a series of events of obfuscation and probably cover-ups. That is compounded by the fact that documents have been sealed for 100 years, causing families to question what on earth there is to hide. Only if that question is answered will there be any rest for those people or a final, acceptable conclusion.
25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor?
19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source
More
Yesterday in the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would not appoint any paramilitaries to the victims and survivors group. In light of that undertaking, will he now underwrite it by indicating that he will accept an amendment to put into statutory form that there cannot be any paramilitary serving on that group? If his undertaking is good, let us make it even better by putting it in statute.
19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
The Governments of France, Germany and the United States have all extracted compensation from Libya for their citizens who were affected by Gaddafi-led terrorism across the world. Why are the British Government continuing to fail citizens of the United Kingdom who suffered to a huge extent through the importation of arms, and, in particular, the tonnes of Semtex that Gaddafi supplied to the IRA, giving rise to Enniskillen, Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and multiple other incidents? Why is no compensation being extracted from Libya for our citizens when it can be done for others? Will the Prime Minister at least meet representatives of the almost forgotten, but still campaigning, families of those affected by Gaddafi’s terrorism?
18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.
18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Member give way?
18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source
More
Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?
18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source
More
May I take the Minister back to devolved issues? In the case of Northern Ireland, international trade, quite rightly, is a reserved matter, yet last Wednesday in Belfast, the Chinese Government, no less, hosted a major investment conference in collaboration with the local Department for the Economy, with 120 Chinese companies, including Huawei, ZTE and BYD. At the conclusion of it, they signed a strategic co-operation framework agreement with Invest NI. How is that possible when international trade is a reserved matter? Will this Government finally closely examine the operation of the Stormont Executive and their collaborations with China?
17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source
More
The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework?
12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source
More
When the right hon. Lady speaks about “our country”, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, we are subject to EU regulations, which on 1 January will introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism; so in addition to the iniquitous Irish sea border, there will be a carbon border. Her party brought that about. What does she intend to do about it in the future?
11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source
More
There is little more important than for a nation to remember, with poignancy and much reflection, those who won the freedoms that we enjoy today and to look back on our heroes, many of whom laid down their lives so that we might live as we do. Many Members of this House have referred to family members, and it is a common feature that many of us had family members who served. In my case, it was a great-uncle, Sergeant William Mullen of the 9th Battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, who laid down his life on that most awful of days, 1 July 1916, in the battle of the Somme, where thousands of young men—many from the 36th (Ulster) Division and from Irish regiments—were slaughtered. We have much to think about and be grateful for. In my constituency of North Antrim, one of our war heroes is Robert Quigg, who was awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation for his VC says: “For most conspicuous bravery. He advanced to the assault with his platoon three times. Early next morning, hearing a rumour that his platoon officer was lying out wounded, he went out seven times to look for him under heavy shell and machine gun fire, each time bringing back a wounded man. The last man he dragged in on a waterproof sheet from within a few yards of the enemy’s wire. He was seven hours engaged in this most gallant work, and finally was so exhausted that he had to give up.” That was the spirit of unquestioning sacrifice that previous generations brought to this nation. Of course, in Northern Ireland on Remembrance Day, we also remember the many, many victims of wicked terrorism and are thankful for the service of so many. We think of the more than 700 young soldiers from this side of the Irish sea who gave their lives in Northern Ireland. We think of an equal number of local servicemen and policemen who were butchered by the wicked IRA. Of course, the whole poignancy of that is brought into focus by the fact that it was at a remembrance service that one of the most wicked acts of the IRA ever took place: the Poppy Day massacre in 1987, when 11 people were butchered as they stood to remember those who brought the freedom that we all enjoy. We can never forget.
11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
It is only in Northern Ireland, however, that without any consent or consultation, additional laws under the 2022 legislation are going to be enforced. The basic premise of this House and of a democratic society is that people get a say in the laws that govern them. That is not so for my constituents. These are laws being imposed courtesy of the Windsor framework, which simply decrees that the United Kingdom has abandoned all claim to make laws in over 300 areas, and has subjected itself to imposing whatever laws are made in those areas by a foreign Parliament and a collection of foreign Ministers. That is the absurdity of how my constituents are governed in those 300 areas of law, of which the draft regulations represent but one. The draft regulations apply to everyday items: the baby alarm in the bedroom down to the living room— [ Interruption. ]
11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Here we have another egregious example of how my constituents are disenfranchised when it comes to making laws that govern aspects of their lives. All of us in the United Kingdom were subject to the EU regulations on radio equipment through the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark wish to intervene?
11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
The scope of the regulations includes baby alarms, the alarms that hang around an elderly person’s neck, and the smartphones in our pockets—any internet-dependent radio device. That is a vast array of things. The upshot is that laws that do not apply in the United Kingdom, and that have not been instigated or approved either by the devolved institutions or by this sovereign Parliament, are to be imposed upon my constituents. Would any Member of this House sit silent if it were their constituents who would be affected? I suggest that they would not; they would think that they were sent here to make the laws that govern them. That is the essence of the matter. Indeed, this has illustrated just how much in subjection we are. In paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that they did not carry out a consultation. They did not carry out a consultation because a consultation could make no difference. They have signed up to enforcing whatever Brussels wants, not what those they might consult—the people affected—want. The absurdity is illustrated by the Government saying in the explanatory memorandum that they have “not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework”. In other words, “We have to do it. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. It doesn’t matter whether those to whom it will be applied like it or not. Just lump it, because we have to do it, courtesy of the Windsor framework.” That is why I began my remarks by talking about the disenfranchising of my constituents, of which this is but another example. Neither this Government nor the last, who put this upon us, ever want to face up to that. The Government admit that the measure will affect small business. In paragraph 9.3 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that the instrument “does impact small or micro businesses”, and add in paragraph 9.4 that “we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses.” What are the Government saying? “We can’t help you. Yes, it’s going to have a negative effect on micro and small businesses, but we can’t do anything to help you. Suck it up.” That is no way for a sovereign Government to treat any part of their own country, yet that is the tragedy of how my constituents are being treated. The Government try to dress it up by saying, “Oh, but you have dual access.” Dual access is a joke. It has not produced one job in Northern Ireland. That has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials we need for anything we want to manufacture have to come through an international customs border, nullifying any effect of dual access. That is no excuse whatsoever, and it is another sorry commentary on any Government that they come before a Committee such as this and plaintively say, “We didn’t write this law. We can’t change this law. We’re just going to impose it on those who had no say whatsoever in it.” That is absurd and wrong.
11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
The Minister talks about implementing in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. How can it be in the interests of people to impose laws that they are not consulted about, that they did not make and cannot change? How can that be in anyone’s interest in a democratic society?
4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source
More
I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace?
3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source
More
I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom?
3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source
More
If the Minister wants to make an intervention, I am quite happy to take it.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →