Official Secrets Act

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

We are not doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests we are. What we are seeking to do is ensure that we have all the right tools to guard against the nature of the threats that we face. We take that incredibly seriously. He knows our policy with regard to FIRS, which this Government introduced on 1 July, but no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Is the alarming takeaway from this, both for this House and for any potential spy, that we are being asked to believe that the espionage in which Messrs Cash and Berry engaged is not a criminal offence? Is that where our defence of national security has got to?

[Dan Jarvis]

The takeaway is that the CPS made an independent decision this morning, and that this Government will do everything we can to keep the country safe. That is the takeaway.

Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I will call Jim Allister to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make speeches only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Windsor Framework Internal Market Guarantee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In bringing this matter to the House again, the intention is to retain a focus on the egregious and anti-business situation that continues to prevail in respect of internal trade to Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.

However one dresses this matter up—the Government excel in their attempts in that regard—the fundamental reality is this: courtesy of the post-Brexit arrangements that were first enunciated in the protocol and then, by change of name, in the Windsor framework, we have the absurd situation whereby a part of this United Kingdom is governed by the trade laws of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU. The very essence of being part of the United Kingdom should surely be the unfettered nature of trade: the fact that people can trade as freely from Cardiff to Carlisle or from Gloucester to Glasgow as they should be able to trade from Birmingham to Belfast. That is the essence of being in a United Kingdom, where unfettered trade lies at the heart of that economic union. Of course, that is already specified in article 6 of our Act of Union.

The current arrangements are based on the fact that when Brexit occurred, Northern Ireland, instead of getting Brexit, was left behind under the EU’s customs code. That means that Northern Ireland is treated for these purposes as EU territory, and that GB is treated in that context as a third, or foreign, country. Hence, under the purview of the EU customs code, there is a need for the Irish sea border—an Irish sea border that is not established directly under United Kingdom law but that is provided for by various EU provisions.

We have the most astounding position that the regulation of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland comes under EU legislation. EU regulations 2023/1128 and 2023/1231 specify the “customs formalities” for trade from GB to Northern Ireland and the

“rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of…goods”.

Even in the title of that EU legislation we see how wrong and absurd it is that trade within this United Kingdom, which is supposed to be a free internal market, is governed by laws that we do not make anywhere in this United Kingdom—laws that we cannot change anywhere within this United Kingdom, but that are made by 27 other countries. That is not just an economic outrage but a democratic outrage.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it astounding not only that the laws on the border were made by the European Union, but that when it comes to those laws being applied, EU officials are actually directing officials from Northern Ireland as to which lorry should be searched, which goods should be looked for and which actions should be taken? We have foreign laws and foreign officials dictating the terms of trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

It invariably amounts to Northern Ireland being treated as an EU colony, and it has all those characteristics. Into this comes some of these magical phrases, such as the internal market guarantee—that sounds very reassuring. Listening to that terminology, we would think that the protection of our internal trade is guaranteed. It is then further ensconced by the deceptive language of the UK internal market system. It is nothing of the sort; it is not a UK internal market system.

The genesis of this is very interesting. We had the protocol, and we then had the Windsor framework. That change of name introduced this concept of a UK internal market system, which is really the green lane, as it was previously called. We then had the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, which was supposed to bring in groundbreaking innovations, but its only innovation was giving cover to the DUP to get back into government with Sinn Féin, and to help implement the protocol. Within that Command Paper, we then had the internal market guarantee, but let us look at this UK internal market system.

It is not a system that allows free and unfettered trade from GB to Northern Ireland; it is a system that brings the operation of the international customs border down one peg. We have the red lane—a full-blown international customs border enforced by the EU—that partitions the United Kingdom with a border down the Irish sea. With this deceptive language, we then have the so-called UK internal market system, or the green lane. However, it still requires customs declarations, an export number and a percentage of checks, so it is anything but a free internal market. It is the encapsulation of the enforcement of EU requirements on our internal trade within the United Kingdom—under their control, not UK control. The depths of attempts to find deceptive language only compounds the insult involved.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing this debate. Of course, the issue goes further than that; it has escalated for businesses and delivery services in my constituency of Strangford and further afield in Northern Ireland because of so-called changes in the internal market, as there always is a cost factor now. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Minister and the Government must do what they promised years ago and sort out the mess? Further, does he agree that they must initiate their withdrawal from the agreement that has been put forward?

[Jim Allister]

Of course, it was the last Government who, in their folly, brought this upon us. However, this Government, with maybe greater enthusiasm, are implementing the partitioning and dividing of the United Kingdom. The economic consequence of that is the diversion of trade; most of our raw materials come from GB, and we had a very integrated UK economy in which Northern Ireland was heavily dependent on its trade to and from GB. However, we are saying to a business supplier in GB, “If you want to send goods to Northern Ireland, or even if you want to send a parcel to Northern Ireland, you must have an export number and fill in a customs declaration, and we will carry out a percentage of checks on the goods.” That is on the supposed internal market system, never mind the red lane.

The Government are deliberately and consciously closing their eyes to this, but its natural consequence is diversion of trade, which has been self-evident in recent years. The Government do not want to observe it or take account of it, because they should be under a duty to act under article 16 of the protocol. But this is a Government that have so kowtowed to the EU that they are never going to act on the issues that they should do.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate and for continuing to raise what is an important issue. He mentioned the manufacturers, but would he also agree about the impact on the Road Haulage Association? We have seen not only the implementation of additional bureaucracy and costs but the recent introduction of the import control system 2—ICS2—which the Government said would go live in September. They then told hauliers that it would be live in December of this year, but they actually put the system live in August without engagement or interaction with the Road Haulage Association and hauliers in Northern Ireland, increasing bureaucracy and costs.

[Jim Allister]

Yes, and when it comes to spending money on partitioning the United Kingdom, this Government have no qualms. We have seen expenditure of £190 million to build border posts. Where are there border posts other than at an international border? That is the reality of the United Kingdom today; it is partitioned by an international customs border. When someone goes from GB to Northern Ireland, they are effectively leaving one customs territory, governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and entering a customs territory governed by the laws of the EU—laws, I say again, that we do not make and cannot change. It is such a fundamental assault on not just our constitutional position but our businesses and trade, that it is causing increasing difficulties.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Northern Ireland remains subject to over 300 areas of EU law, meaning that our businesses face checks, paperwork and ongoing diversions that no other firms or businesses in England, Scotland or Wales have to contend with. Even recently, there have been numerous lorries turned back at the ports for transporting food, which we were told was sorted out. Is this not a clear breach of the principles of unfettered access, and a fundamental weakening of our place within the Union?

[Jim Allister]

Of course it is, but that is the intent of the protocol. No one should be under any illusion: the Windsor framework is designed to set the scene to usher Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom by the mechanism of creating an all-Ireland economy. That mechanism works in this way: it makes it increasingly difficult to trade from GB, therefore forcing business to look elsewhere for supplies; it then maximises the north-south dimension and builds an all-Ireland economy—that is the purpose of the protocol—as a stepping stone of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the very clear, iniquitous political purpose of the protocol. It is that that this Government and the last were facilitating with some enthusiasm.

Now, the Government told us, “Oh, we are going to take all sorts of steps to make sure that trade is not diverted. We even passed the Internal Market Act—that must be good. Section 46—doesn’t that guarantee you all sorts of wonderful things?” The Government then said, “We are going to set aside a lot of money. We are going to introduce the mutual assistance scheme.” Let me talk about the mutual assistance scheme: it was brought in to assist businesses that were having difficulties with the costs imposed at the border. It was extended, but finally ran out on 30 June this year. This Government did not extend it. What does that mean? I will tell you, Dr Allin-Khan.

I have a potato wholesale business in my constituency that relies on bringing potatoes from GB to Northern Ireland. Since 30 June, the cost of a veterinary inspection for those potatoes has been £127.60, and the cost of the phytosanitary certificate has been £25.52. That was previously covered by the movement assistance scheme, but now it is put upon the supplier in GB. And what does he do? Surprise, surprise, he puts it upon the recipient in Northern Ireland. If that is not guaranteed to dissuade trade and force trade diversion, I cannot imagine what is.

Here is the question for the Government: in the plethora of assurances that they gave when they said that they were not trying to drive Northern Ireland trade and business out of the United Kingdom, why did they not renew the movement assistance scheme? I trust that the Minister, who knows more about these things than anyone else in this Government, will explain why they did not renew it.

Will the same thing happen with the Trader Support Service? Will it run out, too? Will our businesses increasingly be left marooned and alone to bear unconscionable financial burdens? The Government need to answer those questions, but the fundamental thing they need to address is this: when will they recover their dignity and pride—they are supposedly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—by controlling the borders of the United Kingdom and expelling the internal, partitionist international trade border that has been imposed on Northern Ireland? Unless and until they do that, this issue is not and cannot be settled. They cannot go on brushing it under the carpet and increasing the pressure by abandoning issues such as the movement assistance scheme.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government, in their own words in the framework document, have accepted that without smooth trading there will be economic and constitutional impacts? They not only owe it to the economy of Northern Ireland to sort out these issues; if they do not, they are accepting that they are happy enough to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland affected.

[Jim Allister]

Sadly, the only conclusion one can make is that they are happy enough about that.

What is this internal market guarantee guaranteeing? That 80% of goods from Northern Ireland, instead of passing through the full-blown international customs border, will pass through the international customs border that we misname the “internal market system”, but they will still require a customs number, customs declarations and checks. The guarantee is 80%. You cannot be 80% pregnant, and you cannot be 80% part of the United Kingdom. We need to be completely part of the United Kingdom, and that requires the restoration of where this United Kingdom started, under article 6 of the Acts of Union: free and unfettered trade, equal for all parts of this kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.

The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.

An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.

More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.

There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has

“the best of both worlds.”

Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it

“a huge potential customer basis”

and enabling it to

“fulfil orders quicker than competitors.”

Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.

[Jim Allister]

The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.

I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.

Question put and agreed to.

National Security Strategy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

As I said a few moments ago, this Government have lifted the cost, delay and bureaucracy burdens on our food producers by reaching an SPS veterinary agreement with the European Union that the Conservatives would never have reached because of their ideological objection to doing so. The agreement is good for our farmers and food producers, and it is something that this Government have done.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there has been a common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom for many years, which the previous Government and this Government were determined to keep. That is why there is an open border between the two countries, as he says. I refer him to the immigration White Paper published just a few weeks ago, which set out reforms to the legal immigration system. Immigration makes an immense contribution to UK society, but we know that people want a proper set of rules around it, and that is what the immigration White Paper provides.

UK-EU Summit

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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.

[The Prime Minister]

Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.

UK-EU Summit

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over.

It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Member is right to say that there must be no further surrender to EU law, but, in the same vein, is there not a need to recover the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? I represent a part of the United Kingdom where in 300 areas of law it is not this House but a foreign Parliament that makes the laws. Should the starting point of a reset not be recovering the integrity of this Parliament in the territory of this United Kingdom?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time.

On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO.

[Jim Allister]

Is not the hon. Member’s point put beyond all doubt by the wording of article 42 of the treaty of the EU, which expressly says that the purpose of co-operation is to arrive at common defence? Is it not therefore perfectly clear that the EU is setting itself up to have its own sovereign defence capability?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes, and when we look at the European Defence Agency and all the mechanisms that have been created, we can see that the European Defence Agency is an embryo European Ministry of Defence. That is what is intended.

Let us just suppose that, in the ideal world that Labour and the Liberal Democrats live in, this defence capability comes about. The fundamental problem is that the European Union was never originally conceived as a defence and foreign policy organisation. There are many countries in it with very different—[Interruption.] No, it was functionalism that drove the foundation of the European Communities. It was about trade and creating a single market. Defence was never in the minds of the early founders of the European Union, and it is very ill suited to the task of getting defence capability, because the institutions were not designed for that purpose. It is not in the culture of those institutions. To rely on them for our defence and security is extremely unwise. On the other hand, NATO is already very well suited to the task and does not need to be duplicated.

To put it mildly, given the political disunity in the European Union, particularly towards Trump—okay, that afflicts NATO as well—this is not an instant solution to the political problems in NATO, if those are what the European Union is seeking to resolve. We should dispense with the idea that making a defence pact with the European Union is somehow the great panacea for all the problems we face on our continent because of President Putin. On the contrary, I think it is likely to make things worse—more complicated and more bureaucratic—and it would probably make our defence industries less competitive, because they would be cocooned inside this fund, instead of competing on the on the global stage with the Americans. Incidentally, our defence procurement co-operation with the Americans remains essential. They have the lion’s share of the technology; they are way ahead of the European Union when it comes to technology.

So, why are the Government doing this? I think they have always been religiously committed to the idea of EU defence—they introduced it in the first place, in the St Malo declaration—but why are they so devoted to doing this now? Of course, it is what the European Union really wants. We are the supplicant in these negotiations. We are asking the EU for concessions, and the one thing that would really make it feel good is drawing the United Kingdom into the defence arena of the European Union.

Meanwhile, what concessions are we getting from the EU? I do not see any. It will be interesting to find out. It will not instantly reduce all trade barriers, because we are not in the single market and will not be in the single market. It will still apply all the checks, including the antiquated wet stamps that are applied to forms certifying the fitness of shellfish. Wet stamps are so last century, but the EU is still using them on customs forms. That is how backward it is. There are electronic frontiers between African countries where there are no barriers. Incidentally, that is the answer to the Northern Ireland problem.

I fully support the Opposition’s proposals, which are to question everything that the EU will demand of us and which the Government might pursue, and to reserve our ability to tear up those agreements if they are not in the national interest. The Government do not have a monopoly on the national interest. “National interest” is a subjective term—the national interest might be different in the mind of one person and in the mind of another. As far as I am concerned, we left the European Union in the national interest, because we wanted to remain a sovereign democracy, in charge of our own laws, and to be like most other countries that are not in the European Union; they get on fine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) pointed out, the economy is still growing, or was growing until the Government hit it with their Budget. We have every opportunity at our feet.

One of the reasons we left the European Union—sorry to relitigate all these arguments—and left that slow-growth, high-unemployment, high-regulation, high-tax trade bloc was so that we could make deals with the high-growth, low-regulation, high-employment parts of the world, which in the end will provide us with far more business than we get from the EU. Actually, the vast majority of our trade, particularly our services trade, is outside the EU—people forget that. By being obsessed with trade with the EU, we drive our economy into a straitjacket; we are well out of that.

The Government should take away from this debate a warning. They know that they are being attacked by Reform. Those voters would probably never vote Conservative, or are less likely to vote Conservative than Labour, but they are going to Reform because they can sense the backsliding going on in this Government. If there were ever to be another referendum, I would hazard a guess that the vote would be against rejoining the European Union, so there can be no rejoining by stealth, which seems to be the Government’s policy. We will stand by the British people, and will dishonour any agreement that the Government make with the European Union that is not in our interests.

Indeed, there are parts of the withdrawal agreement that we may need to revisit—for example, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The technology has moved on, and we can move to an electronic frontier across the north-south border, without the need for checks on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the founding principles of the Act of Union was that there should be frontier-free trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. If the continuing development of the Northern Ireland protocol continues to impose those checks, those checks are not in the national interest, and we should reserve the right to jettison the protocol and replace it with something better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

No one representing Northern Ireland wishes more than I do for a proper reset of the relationship with Europe. To be a proper reset, however, it must acknowledge and respect the fundamental concept of international agreements: that the agreeing parties respect the territorial integrity of each other. That is the fundamental flaw and failing of the present arrangements.

There is not, and there was not under the last Government, a requirement for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom to be respected. That is how and why it came to be that, in my part of the United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law we are subject not to the laws of this House but to those of a foreign Parliament. The EU insisted, and alas the British Government accepted, that Northern Ireland should be under its customs code, which treats GB as a foreign country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, and that we should be in its single market and subject to all its laws. In that, we had the most dramatic refusal and repudiation of that fundamental concept of mutual acknowledgment of territorial integrity. Unless and until that is addressed in a reset, we will never have a fair deal with Europe, and that is what I would dearly like to see.

When I hear talk about dynamic alignment, it is not academic for me; we experience it every day of the week. We experience the indignity of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are subject to the indignity of the other part of this United Kingdom being described as a foreign country whose goods must be checked coming through an international EU customs border.

If the Government are going to do an SPS deal with Europe, it inevitably falls, as it has in Northern Ireland, that we submit to the yoke of dynamic alignment with EU rules. That is the price that the EU extracted for Northern Ireland. It is the price it will extract for an SPS deal with Great Britain. Therefore, that is not the way forward. The way forward is to retrieve sovereignty over all of this country and to retrieve respect for territorial integrity.

Trade Negotiations

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

We have spoken today of the importance of the Indian market, but it is also right to recognise that the Indian market presently sits behind some of the world’s highest barriers to trade, notwithstanding the fact that it was the UK’s 12th largest trading partner. The fact that we are tearing down so many of those tariff levels as part of this agreement will be a very practical and pragmatic offering for the kind of excellence in manufacturing that he has in his constituency and that is represented across our country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Government make a trade deal for the whole of the United Kingdom if they do not control the trade laws for the whole of the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland is still under the control of EU trade laws. To give a practical illustration of the problem, under the UK-India trade deal any imports to Northern Ireland from India—I speak of imports, not exports—will be subject not to any agreed UK tariff but to whatever prevailing EU tariff there is on those goods, and the EU does not have a trade deal with India. Is this not another illustration of how Northern Ireland has been left behind by a protocol that has left us still in the EU?

[Mr Alexander]

The Northern Ireland’s trading relationships and its status within the United Kingdom are not altered as a consequence of the Indian free trade agreement that was reached today. The established position is exactly as the right hon. Member describes and recognises the distinctive history and significance of the Good Friday agreement—not just in the protocol but the Windsor framework. A huge amount of work has been put in by both sides of the House to try to maintain a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland, and that is not compromised by today’s agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Driving down NHS waiting lists is a shared priority for both the UK and the Welsh Labour Governments. As she says, waiting list have fallen for three consecutive months as a result of our two Governments working together. Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against an extra £600 million for the Welsh NHS, and Reform would sell off the NHS to the highest bidder.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Secretary of State think that the imposition from tomorrow of a parcels border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will strengthen the Union, given that parcels, business to business, from Wales or any other part of the UK to Northern Ireland, will now be subject to EU customs declarations and checks? How does that strengthen the Union?

[Jo Stevens]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his question. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we want to make sure that trading is made easier and that we remove the red tape and barriers. Those are the discussions that we are having at the moment with the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I will find out exactly where we are with this matter and then write to the right hon. Member.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Under the Windsor framework, the Government, through the Cabinet Office, regularly supply data to the European Union about the number and type of checks conducted at the Irish sea border, but they refuse to provide that data to Members of this House. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the oversight of those checks lay with the local Department, I was able to acquire that, but now that it is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Members who ask those questions get a refusal of an answer. Why is that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am perfectly happy to look into the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises. On the UK-EU reset, I very much hope that if the Government are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that they will reduce the number of checks on the Irish sea.

European Union: UK Membership

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I am afraid my contribution will jar with the cosy consensus of the debate, if we should call it a debate, because has it not just been an echo chamber for the laments of two or three dozen Europhile MPs? It has not been a debate at all, but what brings us here are 130,000-odd signatures on a petition. Well, of course, what that immediately calls to mind is the contrast with the 17,410,742 British voters who made the most consequential decision in the greatest democratic decision ever made by the greatest number of people ever voting. That embarrasses them. That is why, almost two hours into this debate, this is the first time we have heard that figure, because those in this Chamber have their face set against that democratic decision.

This petition is notable in its arrogance. It does not even say, “Well, let’s have another referendum.” No—in its arrogance, it demands that we simply rejoin the EU, which the British people decided democratically to leave. I know that is an uncomfortable fact, but that is the core issue.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of uncomfortable facts. Has he been listening to the uncomfortable facts that have been shared in this debate?

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.

[Jim Allister]

Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [Laughter.] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question. My only regret is that in my part of the United Kingdom, we were not delivered the Brexit that was voted for.

Ukraine

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with all that, and I think the House agrees with it, too.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note with great appreciation the order for Thales in Belfast. With Europe collectively being a long way short of self-sufficiency in defence, and with Putin more than likely to seek to exploit that deficiency, do the security guarantees required from the US effectively equate to those that would arise under article 5 of NATO? Is that the order of what we are talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

NATO membership is a form of guarantee; article 5 is a form of guarantee. There are different ways in which the guarantee can be put in place, but what is important is that it is effective and that those in Europe who are leading on this do it in conjunction with the US, so that Putin knows the severe risk that he takes if he breaches any deal that may be arrived at.