Jim Allister
MP for North Antrim · Traditional Unionist Voice · United Kingdom
“There is a certain irony in the title of this debate: domestic farming. In one part of the United Kingdom, we are governed not by domestic laws but by foreign EU laws. Does the hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What should I say to my constituent, a stage 4 cancer patient, who applied for his civil service pension in April and has heard nothing? What should I say to him about the fact that, as his Member of Parliament, I wrote about his case to the Cabinet Office on 26 August—two months ago today—and have equally had no reply and heard nothing?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How does the Secretary of State think victims of the Provisional IRA felt when they heard the Police Service of Northern Ireland confirm that the provos still exist and that the Chief Constable, and perhaps the Secretary of State, were influenced on Drumcree by the feelings of the Provisional IRA?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
985 held · 663 searchable for Jim Allister. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“There is a certain irony in the title of this debate: domestic farming. In one part of the United Kingdom, we are governed not by domestic laws but by foreign EU laws. Does the hon. Member agree about the folly of a reset that would subject the whole United Kingdom to that same disenfranchisement of being governed by laws we do not make and cannot change? Does she note that the Government are yet to tell us how much the reset on farming would cost in the EU’s demands for contributions to its budget?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What should I say to my constituent, a stage 4 cancer patient, who applied for his civil service pension in April and has heard nothing? What should I say to him about the fact that, as his Member of Parliament, I wrote about his case to the Cabinet Office on 26 August—two months ago today—and have equally had no reply and heard nothing?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How does the Secretary of State think victims of the Provisional IRA felt when they heard the Police Service of Northern Ireland confirm that the provos still exist and that the Chief Constable, and perhaps the Secretary of State, were influenced on Drumcree by the feelings of the Provisional IRA? What does that even mean—taking account of the feelings of the Provisional IRA?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Good grace. [ Laughter. ] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.””
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches. Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community. There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests. On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes. Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State refers to new clause 32, which introduces certain protections in respect of the security forces in regard to the legacy commission and to inquests. For example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account, the orders that they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, and so on. All of that is good, so why do the same provisions not extend to cover any trial of such a person, should that occur? If it is right for the legacy commission and coroners to take those matters into account, why is it not right for a Diplock court also to take them into account, if it were investigating a criminal trial?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government on how they were going to co-operate in the Omagh inquiry, yet we find they were sitting on information and when 50-plus questions were sent to them, they answered two.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists. There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that “The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”. Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution? We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the one that records the fact that we “must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.” It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s “conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including” the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that “any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”, whether it appeared that the “immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”, and the extent to which they “acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.” Good.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past. I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed: “Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time: “This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.” Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism. It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can the Minister tell the Committee where in the Murphy review it recommends the removal of section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? Where in the Murphy review is that? I cannot find it.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not an attitude for any legislator to take. Members of the Committee need to pause, think and put it in this context: would you do this to your constituents? If not, do not do it to mine.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, there are lots of technical changes here, changing words to insert the words “Windsor framework” and so on, but that is not the substance of this. The substance is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that exists under section 15C. Why do the Government want to remove that? We have had no explanation. The explanatory memorandum does not give an explanation. The Minister tried to tell us that it is because of the Murphy review; I stand on the ground that it is not. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect, so why are we doing this, other than the convenience of not having to bother considering, in any sensible way, legislation that might apply to my constituents, and of just rubber-stamping and passing it all through, because who cares whether it is good law or bad law?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that, rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said: “We recommend that the Government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK-EU bodies of the Windsor Framework. This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings.” Now they are going to remove the substance of the joint meetings—the ministerial involvement in them—and allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords Committee is quite right to say that the opposite direction of travel should be pursued. I say to the Committee that this is not just some technical change.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No one on this Committee would accept that for their constituents, so why should this Committee ask me to accept it for my constituents? The very least of safeguards is to be removed. Many decisions will slip through unnoticed. At least when the Joint Committee meets, there is a publication. Even though it meets in private, there is a publication of what it does and what it approves, so we can at least, by a very tortured route, try to follow what it is doing. Take that away from the meetings of the Joint Committee, and we will be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the EU. That, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is it: once it gives those laws the go-ahead, they are on the statute book. Constitutionally, that is utterly absurd in itself, but to then, in those circumstances, withdraw the one safeguard there is—namely, the assurance that a Minister has at least considered them and not just ticked a box in some written exercise—adds great insult to the injury already done by the process that exists. Would any member of this Committee contemplate, for one moment, lawmaking of that sort for their constituents? I respectfully suggest that none of them would be so dismissive of the rights and interests of their constituents as to say that it is okay to apply law by means of a written procedure, where no one ever debates that law, no one can ever amend it and we did not make it ourselves, but where we just colonially implement it from the EU.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is not a word in that review about this—not one word. So why is it in regulations supposedly implementing the Murphy review? Let me say this about the Murphy review: the Government promised there would be a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy review. There has never been such a debate. But they come to this debate and try to slip in this fundamental change. It is no accident that this statutory instrument is specified as dealing with constitutional law. So it does; it fundamentally affects constitutional law. Remember what my constituents are subject to in more than 300 areas of law: EU law that they do not make. They do not elect anyone there and cannot change those laws, which have their entry point on to the Northern Ireland statute book through the Joint Committee.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what the Joint Committee does, among other things, although that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides whether that falls within the Windsor framework and therefore whether it should automatically—without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it and without the right to even debate it—apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom. That is such a fundamental issue that it was properly written into section 15C as a safeguard that the matter would be considered seriously by a Minister. It would be done in person, and there would be some semblance of accountability. What the Government want to do today is to remove that safeguard and to do it on the false premise that it falls out of the Murphy review.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee.” That was the fundamental reason for ensuring that the Minister made the decision in person, and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability. Why does this matter? What does the Joint Committee do? It has some very fundamental functions, one of which is to evaluate all new EU laws that might be relevant and to decide whether they are within the scope of the Windsor framework—in other words, to decide whether they should apply without further ado to a part of this United Kingdom.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Tucked within these regulations—it does not have its genesis in the Murphy review, and the Committee will have noted that the Minister was unable to verify that it did—is regulation 2(6), which will omit section 15C of the 2018 Act, which stated: “The United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee may not consent to the Joint Committee using the written procedure”. Why might it have said that? We get the answer to that when we look at the reasoning of the then Government for inserting that section through section 35 of the 2020 Act. What did the explanatory memorandum say about why section 15C was being inserted? It stated: “No use of written procedure in the Joint Committee…The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown, as the UK’s co-chair, using the written procedure…to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why I say to this Committee, as I have said on multiple occasions, that unless and until this United Kingdom takes back control over all the laws of the United Kingdom, we will be put in the pitiful, absurd situation of coming to a Committee Room such as the one we sit in to discuss something that we cannot change, in blind obedience to a foreign legislator. That should offend us all, and it certainly offends me and my constituents.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it something that other Members would accept for their constituents that they cannot change the laws that are imposed and handed down from colonial masters and they simply have the obligation, upon criminal sanction, to implement them? We are creating in these regulations a scenario where railways will be governed in a part of this United Kingdom not by an agency of this United Kingdom but by the EU’s railway agency. When we look at regulations 28 to 30, we discover that, for a supplier in GB to supply any railway equipment to Northern Ireland, they must have an EU declaration of conformity. They must apply and obtain a declaration of conformity that they are complying with the handed-down laws of a foreign Parliament for the item that they wish to supply.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet, that is the import and effect of these regulations. It is because we are impotent to change one word of the foreign Parliament’s legislation that there has been no consultation. Nowhere else do we legislate without at least the façade of consultation, but when it comes to the colonial rule of the EU in Northern Ireland, we do not even consult, as the Minister effectively said, because there is no point. He is obligated under the folly of the protocol to implement these regulations. Whether he, I, or any elected Member of this House thinks it is a good idea, we are effectively told we have no choice. What sort of a way is that to rule any part of this United Kingdom?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Sir Desmond, for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee. Here we are today with a 40-page document of 54 regulations, and these 30 minutes, if even that, will be the only scrutiny to which they will be subjected in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Yet, these regulations will introduce a divergence in law and authority in respect of a part of this United Kingdom at the behest of laws not made in this Parliament. They will introduce and give effect to a law made in a foreign Parliament that will be imposed on my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland. The lack of opportunity to even debate them—never mind change them—makes this absurd, and it is also constitutionally absurd that a part of this country should be ruled by laws we do not make and we cannot change.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Prime Minister view himself as the Prime Minister of Britain, or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? I ask because the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that he seeks to negotiate with the EU is exclusively a GB-EU SPS deal, which means that Northern Ireland remains under the colonial rule of the EU on all SPS matters, whereas if it were a UK-EU deal, the UK could take back control in Northern Ireland of EU laws in which we currently have no say whatsoever.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My question is this: how can the rule of law recover when the Secretary of State undermines it so spectacularly?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I begin by paying tribute to Portadown district, which abided by the law to the letter and yet had the response of being kicked in the teeth while those who broke the law were rewarded. I also commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who represents the district of Portadown, on her stand, her leadership and her courage. I utterly condemn the shocking demonisation and abuse to which she has been subjected. As for the Secretary of State, it is sad to say it, but his shameful surrender to mob rule and the threat of violence has trampled the rule of law into the gutter in Northern Ireland. Tonight, we still have not only a First Minister of lawlessness—because of the inaction of the DUP—but a Secretary of State who chose to back the lawbreakers. What a travesty.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To impose upon such an integrated economy an international customs border was inevitably going to grossly and disadvantageously affect trade, and so it did.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That happened because the Windsor framework treats Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom as subject to the EU’s customs union. As a consequence, the EU’s customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated and regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that flows the iniquitous Irish sea border—a full international customs, sanitary and phytosanitary and trade border—which is truncating and partitioning this United Kingdom. In consequence of the Irish sea border, we have checks and customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—a part of this United Kingdom whose economy was historically very integrated with Great Britain, which is where our raw materials came from, and to where we sold most of our goods.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered goods trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Trade within any nation should be so simple and uncomplicated that it ought not to be a focus of much debate. And so it was within this United Kingdom until some time ago. One of the founding principles of this United Kingdom, as set forth in the Acts of Union, is that all parts of the United Kingdom should be on an equal footing when it comes to trade. That, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade among and within all parts of the United Kingdom. But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, which upended that equilibrium.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have to undergo checks on 5% to 8% of all goods passing through, and in some circumstances, they have to pay duties—truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade as it should operate within any national internal market.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All our constituents in Northern Ireland who are in the business of trading goods have had many very daunting experiences in that regard. Of course, the Minister will probably tell us, “Oh, but the Windsor framework established the UK internal market system.” What a fraudulent name. An internal market is customs-free, yet under the UK internal market, previously called the green lane, customs declarations still have to be made. People make customs declarations when they are travelling from one single market to another. They have to be in a trusted trader scheme, to which they have to pay to belong.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This week, I received figures from the Department for Transport that I find quite astounding, and they make the point with great clarity of what it means to have had trade diversion. According to the Department for Transport, in 2022, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles—in other words, GB haulage companies bringing goods into Northern Ireland. Last year, that figure fell to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In just four years, there has been a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB-registered vehicles.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗