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 9 of 13.
“That is how we reach a verdict in an inquest, whereas in a criminal prosecution we reach a verdict by proving beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet four SAS soldiers, according to the presiding judge, were meant to step forward and say to nine approaching fully armed IRA men, with a huge machine gun on the back of their lorry, “Hands up, please surrender”. According to the coroner, that is what they were supposed to do, even though those IRA men had just shot up a police station, returned celebrating their actions by firing over the house of a deceased terrorist who had been one of their own, and then arrived at a car park.”
“For the many who paid the ultimate sacrifice, we want to remember their service and sacrifice today. The route to the prosecution of our security services is now through the inquest process. It is the inquest process that is poisoning the well of justice in Northern Ireland. Remember this: an inquest, as has been said, is supposed to be about who died, where they died and how they died. Our Government have allowed inquests in Northern Ireland to become unfettered in their overreach, as illustrated most dramatically in the Clonoe inquest, where every outcome was explored to the point where the judge presiding over that inquest reached wholly prejudicial findings, which then resulted in him saying, “I am now referring this to the PPS.” Let us remember this: inquests operate on the balance of probabilities.”
“Thank you, Ms Lewell. I note the selective stricture following a speech that exceeded twice the limit that was allegedly set, but I will do my best. May I begin, as a Member from a Northern Ireland constituency, by placing on record the heartfelt thanks of the people of Northern Ireland for the service of our military within Northern Ireland during our darkest days—those who stood between us and the horrendous terrorist threat that we faced? I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and include the gallant local security services of the UDR and the RIR in that. All of us in this House who daily exercise freedoms need to be mindful that when those freedoms were under the most horrendous terrorist attack, it was our security forces who stood between us and their destruction.”
“For over 50 years in Northern Ireland, we have had judge-only trials in terrorist cases, probably for understandable reasons. All non-terrorist cases have been jury trials. In my professional life at both the junior and the senior Bar, I have practised before all those courts, and my experience firmly confirms to me that public confidence is most attainable when we have jury trials. Irrespective of how cautious and diligent a judge is, they can get case-hardened, and that is the source of why public confidence rests most in the jury system. Does the Minister agree that the key determinant in retaining jury trial is whether an offence is indictable or not? If it is an indictable offence, the first port of call must be a jury trial.”
“I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the House. He mentions Julie Hambleton. I have met Julie many times over the years. I salute her courage and tenacity, and that of her fellow campaigners. I hope we can reach the point that they want to reach. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the House. He made an exception for the Finucane family and created a hierarchy of victims. Surely the largest, most devastating terrorist act in our nation’s history is deserving of equal treatment, and a public inquiry should be given. Of course, there is one organisation that knows who carried out the bombing—the IRA. But though it demands transparency of others, it holds to itself its wicked secrets.”
“May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, at the outset of these proceedings about the passing of Lord Tebbit? Lord Tebbit was a great friend of Northern Ireland, particularly of the many fellow victims of IRA terrorism. May I return the Lord Chancellor to the subject of the backlogs in our Crown courts? In Northern Ireland, we have the worst of all records; it takes an average of 551 days to conclude a Crown court case. Murder trials have been stalled since last September with no new start date. We have a Minister of Justice locally who talks the talk but never walks the walk, and particularly does not walk the walk in settling the ongoing remuneration issue that is holding things up. Would the Lord Chancellor bring some pressure to bear on the local Justice Minister to sort this matter out?”
“We in Northern Ireland had a salutary experience recently when a major road project on our A5 was struck down by the High Court because of a failure to comply with net zero expectations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Given that the legislation is very similar in Great Britain, is the Secretary of State satisfied that all these new road projects will not also fall foul of the net zero campaign?”
“If the reset deal is supposed to bring an end to the SPS checks, when will the customs posts, which are there for the purpose of carrying out those checks, be demolished? Instead, the Secretary of State willingly presides over the ever-tightening EU noose on our economy, with agricultural machinery being the latest that has to kowtow to EU diktats. Meanwhile, trade diversion is rampant and the Secretary of State looks the other way. When will he stop acting as the Secretary of State for the EU and start acting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?”
“The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people?”
“In the first lines of her statement, the Secretary of State affirmed that this Government believe in equality. Where is the equality in evaluating one person’s eligibility for the daily living component of PIP on the practical consequences of their disability, and evaluating another on the date of their application?”
“What we saw was an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast on our national broadcaster. Those who chant “kill the IDF” are endorsing those who kill them—and those who kill them are Hamas. It was an endorsement of the terrorism of Hamas, yet the BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast. Therefore, perhaps it is time for the Government to consider cutting the licence fee.”
“In this strategy, I read a number of encouraging promises. I quote two of them: “controlling our borders” and “controls on immigration”. How will applying those two promises work out at the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which allows unfettered immigrant passage into the United Kingdom? If we are going to control our borders and control immigration, when are we going to start controlling that border?”
“For weeks, some questions on China have been deflected on the basis that we should wait for the audit, so it is rather disappointing that the insight we get today is very opaque. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he reveals that China is the UK’s second largest research collaborator. Has he done an audit of the nature of that research? Are there economic and intelligence risks from that research, and are the Government minded to take any steps either to monitor or to control the extent of that research?”
“If this Government want an answer to the Irish sea border, it lies in the very simple but workable proposition of mutual enforcement: we send goods to a recipient country, meeting its standards, and vice versa. We do not need any of this crazy, trade-reducing paraphernalia. We certainly do not need to add extra cost to business, which is what these regulations will foolishly do, all for the purpose of the Prime Minister being able to say, “I’m a faithful implementer of the Windsor framework,” even though the Windsor framework is tearing apart this Union and is literally divorcing Northern Ireland from its natural market, which is so impeded by regulation, to which this legislation is adding.”
“So, in my constituency, artisan cheese people who might buy from a small supplier in Wiltshire, or dear knows where, will no longer simply be supplied, with no penalty upon the provider, because small companies are exempt. This will also enforce the requirement on GB producers to label their goods, even though their goods will never come to Northern Ireland. That is what Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom should realise. The draft regulations, if the Government act upon them, will require producers in GB, supplying only to GB, to put on their produce, “not for EU”. These regulations are ill-considered and will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the distortion and upset to the UK internal market that has flowed from the Windsor framework and the protocol, which were identical in this regard.”
“Now, on top of that, they must label their goods as “not for EU”, even though there is no purpose, other than that which is farcical, in doing that. I say to this Committee: surely, out of respect for your own GB businesses, you should not be rushing into approving a regulation such as this, because it will add burdens, and it will cause companies to de-list. Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum recognises what some of us have always been saying: that creating an Irish sea border—creating barriers within our own supposed internal market—will discourage trade. That is why the Government say they are bringing these regulations—to protect against discouraging trade—but will it? First of all, any “small company”, which is a company with fewer than 50 employees, is not affected: it can de-list Northern Ireland with no consequence.”
“Yet we have this ludicrous situation whereby we are now going to impose an even wider duty on British manufacturers. For what purpose? For the purpose only of showing how compliant doormats we are for the EU, for no practical purpose whatever. That is the reality of the situation. I therefore say to the Committee that it should not approve a regulation of this genesis and this nature. Of course, it is going to burden on industry in Great Britain, and it is not as if there were not already burdens. Even under the internal market scheme, if someone is sending produce to Northern Ireland, they must fill in a customs declaration, which is an expense in itself, and must belong to a trusted trader scheme, which is a further expense.”
“So we put on GB suppliers a costly obligation to engage in labelling of goods that they might be sending to Northern Ireland, but, within Northern Ireland, anyone from the Republic of Ireland can come and buy those goods and can do whatever they want with them. This is supposedly about protecting the EU single market. How can it be that we have this ludicrous situation that goods are labelled as “not for EU” but can be brought into the EU with no consequence, all under an EU regulation that puts a burden on the United Kingdom but no burden on its own citizens? I guarantee that if anyone went now, at this very moment, to any of the supermarkets in Northern Ireland around the border, in Enniskillen, Londonderry or Newry, they would see people filling up their car boot with goods labelled as “not for EU”, because they are cheaper.”
“As the Minister has alluded to, we come today to the final third step, which is to be introduced in just a few days, on 1 July. Building on the previous two steps, it decrees that goods that are moving from Great Britain, allegedly within the UK internal market, must, by EU law, carry a “not for EU” label. That, of course, has cost implications for those who are sending them, which is why, as a result of the requirements already imposed, a number of companies have simply opted out of supplying to Northern Ireland. Here is the most ludicrous aspect of this SPS regulation: it creates no prohibition on any EU citizen—most particularly in the Republic of Ireland—purchasing any of these “not for EU” goods.”
“It is important for the Committee to understand the genesis—how we got to this point. It all arises from an SPS regulation, EU regulation 2023/1231. This is a regulation that was made by a foreign political organisation—the EU—and the most astounding thing about it is that it makes rules that exclusively apply to non-EU territory. It makes regulations that apply not to itself, but to this United Kingdom. This is the first time since Brexit that the EU has asserted legislative power over the United Kingdom. It tells this United Kingdom that, in a series of three steps, there shall be introduced by this United Kingdom “not for EU” labelling on goods moving within this United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is the diktat of the EU: the three steps in Regulation 2023/1231.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Desmond. As a Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the draft regulations. They come in a context in which there has already been an indisputable, substantial and worrying diversion of trade in terms of the supply of goods and produce to Northern Ireland. The most recent figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency indicate just how significant that is, yet within the Windsor framework there is supposedly a mechanism under article 16 to enable the Government to take action should there be a diversion of trade. However, this Government, like the last, are blind to that issue and do not want to take on the EU on any of these matters.”
“That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?”
“Why should the House of Commons, and those in the country that we represent, not be entitled to know whether their Government support or regret the American action? Does not equivocation on that issue bring succour to those who we say must be robbed, quite properly, of their nuclear potential?”
“Can the hon. Lady advise us whether there is any other area of law governing the taking of life in which the guardrails of the criminal law have been removed? That is what new clause 1 proposes when it comes to the voiceless child. Is there no thought of protection for them?”
“The hon. Lady refers to Northern Ireland. It was courtesy of her intervention back in 2019 that we had foisted upon Northern Ireland the most extreme abortion laws of any place in this United Kingdom—laws that totally disregard the rights of the unborn and treat them as a commodity to be disposed of at will and at whim. In consequence, we have seen a huge, unregulated increase in the destruction of human life through the destruction of the unborn in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is an example that anyone should want to follow in any part of this United Kingdom.”
“The Home Secretary refers to this inquiry as a national inquiry, but it is not, is it? The inquiry’s terms of reference and scope will exclude concern about grooming and organised sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland, whether by foreign nationals, paramilitary groups or others. Is that less important to this Government? Will the legislative change increasing the statutory rape age to 16 apply across the whole United Kingdom?”
“Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored?”
“That has been a contributor—particularly in respect of Romas, it would seem—to the concentration and the resulting problems. None of that excuses violence, but it is a matter of concern to many. How can I obtain a statement from the Government on how they intend to address that gap in our ability to control who comes and goes from our own country?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The whole House will be appalled, as I am, by the grotesque and wanton violence that has afflicted Ballymena in my constituency, and appalled by the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. There can be no excuse for the resulting violence. However, the Government must be aware of the underlying tensions produced by uncontrolled, and often undocumented, immigration. In that regard, would it be in order to ask that the Government make a statement to the House on what they will do to constrain the flow of migrants who legitimately travel under freedom of movement from one EU country to another—in this case, into the Republic of Ireland—and then pass unchecked from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?”
“If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?”
“I greatly welcome this overdue U-turn, but if £35,000 is the correct cap, why did the Government impose misery on millions of pensioners last winter? Is not a basic part of getting something wrong saying sorry? It is not enough to say, “Look at all the things the Conservative party did.” That is not the point. The point is that this Government think they are better than everyone else. Why will they not say sorry?”
“I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.”
“I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk. However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways.”
“I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.”
“That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.”
“I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that “a product requirement is to be treated as met” if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill. This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny.”
“The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.”
“I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7). If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.”
“Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important. Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action.”
“In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone?”
“Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?”
“Given the essential lead-in time required for organising and protecting the Prime Minister’s visit to Glasgow, where he spoke extensively about these issues, is it not clear to the House that the Government made a deliberate decision to pre-empt the statement to the House and show contempt for the processes of the House?”
“The strapline on the front cover of the review says, “Making Britain Safer”. I trust the Secretary of State means “making the United Kingdom safer”. On page 87, it says that “The connection between the UK Armed Forces and wider society is the longstanding and necessary foundation for the defence of the country.” In the light of that, will this review reverse the rundown in armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland, where today, according to answers given in this House, there are five Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel stationed? Of all the services—all three together—there are only 1,305 personnel in Northern Ireland, yet we supply a huge number of personnel to those services. Will the review reverse that rundown and make sure that every part of this United Kingdom shares in the provision of the armed services?”
“There is an opportunity, and I trust that the opportunity will be grasped and that it will be underscored by the need to prioritise local United Kingdom build when replenishing our bus services and our buses across the United Kingdom.”
“Given that in England, so many of these matters are devolved to mayoral areas or local councils, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to embrace metro mayors being able to pursue joint procurement not just for their own area, but working with others so that they can have the delivery that comes from larger orders. That would benefit all concerned. I say to the Government that they have an opportunity not just to help the regions that the Bill will directly affect, but to bring benefit to the whole United Kingdom. Of course, it is not just Northern Ireland that is the primary bus manufacturer; there are also large suppliers in Scotland.”
“I say to the Government that we have had many experiences in this United Kingdom of missed opportunities for our own industries, not least in the bus sector and the electric sector where we have seen Chinese supply. If the Government are serious about this, let us build in a prioritisation for British built buses as a prerequisite to the refurbishment of the industry. The second thing I want to say to the Government is that with so many diesel buses across this nation, and with the expense of replacing old with new, the middle option of refurbishing diesel buses as electric buses needs to be grasped and explored. Again, Wrightbus is a leader in reimaging and resupplying electric into diesel, and that is a necessary step forward.”
“This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so some might wonder why I would bother to speak in the debate. The reason is very simple: the ramifications could be positive for the whole of the United Kingdom because of the Government’s vision within the Bill for decarbonising bus travel. There are presently 36,000 fossil fuel buses on our roads in the United Kingdom. If the vision of the Government and of this Bill is secured, there is a lot of conversion and replacement to be done. If that is to happen, then I represent in my constituency the primary company that can help the Government towards that goal. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which of course has Wrightbus at its very heart. Not only is it involved in electric buses; it is a leader in hydrogen buses and can still produce diesel buses when needed.”
“In referring to the deal with the EU, what the Secretary of State ignores, of course, is that Northern Ireland continues to be under a foreign customs code, which means that there are still customs checks on all goods, including agriculture goods, moving within the United Kingdom. Ideologically and personally, is he committed to the Union? I am not asking if he is committed to the consent principle; any separatist can accept that. Is he personally and ideologically a Unionist?”
“The Government assure us that Northern Ireland is still in the United Kingdom’s customs union. If so, how is it that British steel can be sold to the United States tariff-free, but that same British steel if sold into Northern Ireland is subject to EU tariffs? Why on Monday did the Prime Minister not even try to take back control over the trade laws that govern Northern Ireland?”
“I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.”