Jim Allister
MP for North Antrim · Traditional Unionist Voice · United Kingdom
“Once more a Committee—and therefore this Parliament—has been asked to approve a regulation that has the effect of departing Northern Ireland from the UK legal framework governing the subject matter.”
“In fact, batteries made to United Kingdom standards will become illegal in a part of this United Kingdom, to the extent that a criminal sanction of imprisonment could be imposed for using a battery that meets UK standards.”
“It requires that in developing any regulations, these draft regulations included, the Government should have special regard to “the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the…internal market”. They are not maintaining an integral place if they are applying different rules—foreign rules—to a part of the United Kingdom.”
“Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office talk rather glibly about these matters, but the lived reality of the supply chain is very different: a full international customs border that is now inflicting damage on the import of steel; tightening import control system 2 checks; a parcels border; a plants border; and £192 million spent on bu…”
“I certainly recognise that, once again, Northern Ireland is being used in the reset as a cover to realign the whole United Kingdom with the EU. That, of course, is the gameplan of this Government, and this is but a small example of how they are going to deploy it.”
“You subject yourself to a similar disenfranchisement of your own electorate so that they do not elect the people who make the laws that govern them.’” That will be the ultimate outcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Jim Allister, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“In getting to this point, the Government have made much of their adherence to international standards and bodies, yet in the last 15 minutes the Minister has been asked three times to respond to the United Nations’ findings, which call for a suspension of the treaty, and criticise the denial of the right to self-determination and the right to return. Why is the Minister now so timid when it comes to dealing with those international findings?”
“That is neither fair nor right, and it is but the latest manifestation of the Windsor framework and our continuing subjection to foreign laws. These are not laws that we make here. EU state aid rules are not set here; they are set in a foreign Parliament that no one in this United Kingdom elects by a combination of Ministers from 27 other countries who have no accountability to anyone in my constituency or any constituency in this Parliament—and yet those rules are traducing and impeding business in Northern Ireland.”
“That undermines the UK internal market, because under those clauses companies in Great Britain will rightly be able to maximise state aid so that they can maximise their trading power, but an alike company in Northern Ireland has the benefit it can obtain from those scaling-up opportunities capped by EU state aid rules. That means they are not on a level playing field when it comes to competitiveness in respect of the capabilities in the Finance Bill. That causes me to challenge the declaration that the Bill has no effect on GB-Northern Ireland trade. It most patently does if some companies in GB can scale up using these enhanced benefits from investment and venture capital unfettered by any state aid rules, while the same type of company in my constituency has the benefit it can draw fettered by the imposition of EU state aid rules.”
“Yet when I come to this Finance Bill, particularly clauses 13 to 15, I discover to my dismay that businesses in Northern Ireland are not to have the same advantages when it comes to the capacity to scale up, as is provided for in clauses 13 to 15 regarding enterprise investment schemes, venture capital projects and enterprise management incentives. That is because the hideous tentacles of the Windsor framework have reached right into this Bill. Because of the Windsor framework’s imposition on Northern Ireland business of EU state rules, we find in clauses 13 to 15 the exemption of Northern Ireland companies from the advantages to be given to others under those clauses. That removes the fiscal level playing field that should operate in any UK internal market.”
“Having lost that argument—and so patently lost it—they need to face up to that. Just as the Prime Minister lost the argument yesterday in the Liaison Committee, so the Government need to face up to that point on this issue as well. I want to make some comments about the Bill that are particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland. In any fiscal landscape, critical to being a part of a United Kingdom is the reasonable expectation that there will be the same fiscal ground rules across that United Kingdom—that if business is given advantage in one part, it will equally have that advantage in another.”
“I want to begin by endorsing and agreeing with the very articulate and passionate contributions from Members right across the House. It is encouraging that there have been speeches from those on the Labour Benches attacking the cruel death tax on family farms—that is the only way to describe it. It is cruel, no matter what way you look at it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) laid it out very clearly, as indeed he did yesterday in the Liaison Committee when he put the Prime Minister on the spot and the Prime Minister had no answer. A Prime Minister with no answer needs to change course. The Government have lost the argument on this issue. It is no answer to simply say, “We have the numbers to drive it through”. This needs to be done on the basis of equity and what is right.”
“It has to end. It is discrimination at the behest of a foreign power. It is Brussels saying, “You must impose state aid rules on Northern Ireland.” The product of that in these clauses is a foreign Parliament dictating to this Parliament what we can and cannot give to our own businesses in this United Kingdom. That is so fundamentally offensive to our constitutional integrity that it goes to the very heart of what it means, or what it should mean, to be part of a United Kingdom.”
“The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.”
“In view of the fact that Northern Ireland, alas, remains subject to much European Union law, including legislation on ozone-depleting substances, it seems that from 1 January the MOD’s fleet of Dakotas, Chinooks, Wildcats, Shadows and C-17 Globemasters, among others, may be unable to operate in Northern Ireland because their on-board fire extinguishers use halon, which will be banned in the EU from that date. What steps have been taken to deal with this ridiculous situation?”
“It is always good to hear about a rise in the availability of financial assistance to industry. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Minister has referred to the Windsor framework. One of its drawbacks is that Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. In my constituency, I have a large bus manufacturer that sells buses to Germany. Can I seek an assurance from the Minister that that company, for example, will not be disadvantaged by the cap in state aid rules in comparison with a competitor bus manufacturer in another part of the United Kingdom where there is not a state aid limitation?”
“On a day like today, it is important to remind ourselves that our security and intelligence forces saved hundreds of lives in the face of murderous terrorism. Terrorists, of course, kept no records to be pored over years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scappaticci was, first and foremost, a ruthless IRA murderer? Does he agree that the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whatever the renegade actions of a very tiny number of members, some of whom have rightly faced justice—were organisations of immense integrity, whose members’ service and bravery preserved many lives? Does he agree that the Denton report finally lays to rest the republican myth that the security forces were implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?”
“I am listening with interest to the Minister, but as a Member of this House, I would like to know whether the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) are correct or incorrect. Surely the House is entitled to know that.”
“It would be a different matter if the Government were coming to this House to say, “We are going to provide a facility whereby, if you wish, you can have the convenience of this: if you want to take the risk of being hacked, we will provide the facility,” but when they say to the citizen, “You must,” or, “We will impose,” they have crossed a line that no self-respecting Government should cross and that no self-respecting people should tolerate. That, for me, is the critical component: this is a Government who think they know better and who will impose it, and we will be left with no choice as citizens. That is so illiberal, so fundamentally an assault on our personal freedoms, that no one in this House should be entertaining it, least of all the Government.”
“The scale of the response to this petition—almost 3 million people—should cause us all to pause. This rash proposal has clearly touched a deep-seated opposition among our constituents to anyone interfering with their personal data and personal details. Almost 5,000 of my constituents are among that number, and I well understand and support their opposition. Yes, digital ID might be convenient and it might be expedient for some people to have all their data in one location that they can share, but the key issue here is that the Government are choosing—without a mandate—to make it mandatory.”
“That is a question that I obviously cannot answer, and it is one that I doubt the Minister will answer, but it is well posed. Why, oh why, if the Government were going to impinge on the personal liberties of their citizens, would they not, in asking for their votes, tell them that that was their agenda?”
“As I represent North Antrim, I know of many parts of my constituency where people cannot get the digital connections that are supposedly promised, and I know what digital exclusion is in that regard as well. This proposition is flawed no matter which way we look at it, but most fundamentally flawed in the compulsion that it brings. The final point that I want to make to the Minister is this: whatever happens on this subject—I trust the idea will be ditched in its entirety—and whatever the ultimate outcome is, it has to be a nationwide outcome. Too often, I have seen differences of treatment in my part of the United Kingdom that add to the already obnoxious situation in which we are partitioned by an Irish sea border. We do not want to be partitioned by a digital border as well.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted?”
“We discover in the Bill that the only criminal sanction applies to those who do not show candour, transparency and frankness to a public inquiry or a public investigation. In many such cases, there would already be the threat of perjury, so where is the commitment to ensure that there is candour at all times?”
“In welcoming this Bill, I am very mindful of the tenacity and courage of the campaigners who got us to this point, both outside and inside this House. They can take some comfort from this Bill today. I trust that it is a Bill that will live up to its promise. As I mentioned in my intervention on the Prime Minister, I trust that it will bring justice to the Chinook families, for example, who have been treated to serial cover-ups in respect of that appalling incident. However, there are issues with the Bill that I want to probe. It declares in its very first clause that: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…(a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest”. But will it be at all times?”
“The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent?”
“The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by “imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”, by “imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”, and by “making provision about parity at inquiries” about legal aid. The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland.”
“It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by “imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”. That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever.”