Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 General Committees

[Mr Falconer]

The decision to change followed the independent review conducted by Lord Murphy, which I referred to. It is intended to keep the governance arrangements working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step under the new and beneficial arrangements we are seeking with the EU.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit more progress.

[Mr Falconer]

I think I have to take turns, so I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Jim Allister]

Can the Minister tell the Committee where in the Murphy review it recommends the removal of section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? Where in the Murphy review is that? I cannot find it.

[Mr Falconer]

I do not have the full Murphy review to hand, but I am happy to respond in detail. I have tried to set out to the Committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements in place, and why it is a reasonable change to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through.

Let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. First, it is in response to recommendations made by the independent review. I hear the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to see exactly where in the review those recommendations are made. I hope he will excuse me for not having the papers to hand, but I am happy to write to him in further detail, with quotes, if he would like.

We are committed as a Government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. We judge that the committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland, and its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of the Government, just as they inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. The changes to schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within the two-month window following the publication of a relevant EU Act, if it wishes to use it.

A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone—Members of the Legislative Assembly, businesses and civil society—is clear about how the process works and the impacts of those enactments. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins on the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal.

The instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days, and it moves the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. Those changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries it conducts into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them.

Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that are also fit for the future. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, that future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on 20 November, spanning agrifood trade, linking emissions trading systems and energy co-operation.

This change, to support the governance of the withdrawal agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU, is made by omitting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings. This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently happen because of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically meets only twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time-sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot.

The change will also allow the Government to ensure that, where relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain under future agreements, Northern Ireland can keep pace. That will be an important factor both for the implementation of relevant rules and for allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the Government take forward future agreements with the EU on agrifood, emissions trading and electricity. For instance, on electricity, the proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Tucked within these regulations—it does not have its genesis in the Murphy review, and the Committee will have noted that the Minister was unable to verify that it did—is regulation 2(6), which will omit section 15C of the 2018 Act, which stated:

“The United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee may not consent to the Joint Committee using the written procedure”.

Why might it have said that? We get the answer to that when we look at the reasoning of the then Government for inserting that section through section 35 of the 2020 Act. What did the explanatory memorandum say about why section 15C was being inserted? It stated:

“No use of written procedure in the Joint Committee…The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown, as the UK’s co-chair, using the written procedure…to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee.”

That was the fundamental reason for ensuring that the Minister made the decision in person, and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability.

Why does this matter? What does the Joint Committee do? It has some very fundamental functions, one of which is to evaluate all new EU laws that might be relevant and to decide whether they are within the scope of the Windsor framework—in other words, to decide whether they should apply without further ado to a part of this United Kingdom. That is what the Joint Committee does, among other things, although that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides whether that falls within the Windsor framework and therefore whether it should automatically—without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it and without the right to even debate it—apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom. That is such a fundamental issue that it was properly written into section 15C as a safeguard that the matter would be considered seriously by a Minister. It would be done in person, and there would be some semblance of accountability.

What the Government want to do today is to remove that safeguard and to do it on the false premise that it falls out of the Murphy review. There is not a word in that review about this—not one word. So why is it in regulations supposedly implementing the Murphy review? Let me say this about the Murphy review: the Government promised there would be a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy review. There has never been such a debate. But they come to this debate and try to slip in this fundamental change.

It is no accident that this statutory instrument is specified as dealing with constitutional law. So it does; it fundamentally affects constitutional law. Remember what my constituents are subject to in more than 300 areas of law: EU law that they do not make. They do not elect anyone there and cannot change those laws, which have their entry point on to the Northern Ireland statute book through the Joint Committee. That is it: once it gives those laws the go-ahead, they are on the statute book. Constitutionally, that is utterly absurd in itself, but to then, in those circumstances, withdraw the one safeguard there is—namely, the assurance that a Minister has at least considered them and not just ticked a box in some written exercise—adds great insult to the injury already done by the process that exists.

Would any member of this Committee contemplate, for one moment, lawmaking of that sort for their constituents? I respectfully suggest that none of them would be so dismissive of the rights and interests of their constituents as to say that it is okay to apply law by means of a written procedure, where no one ever debates that law, no one can ever amend it and we did not make it ourselves, but where we just colonially implement it from the EU. No one on this Committee would accept that for their constituents, so why should this Committee ask me to accept it for my constituents?

The very least of safeguards is to be removed. Many decisions will slip through unnoticed. At least when the Joint Committee meets, there is a publication. Even though it meets in private, there is a publication of what it does and what it approves, so we can at least, by a very tortured route, try to follow what it is doing. Take that away from the meetings of the Joint Committee, and we will be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the EU.

That, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it. The first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that, rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said:

“We recommend that the Government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK-EU bodies of the Windsor Framework. This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings.”

Now they are going to remove the substance of the joint meetings—the ministerial involvement in them—and allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords Committee is quite right to say that the opposite direction of travel should be pursued.

I say to the Committee that this is not just some technical change. Yes, there are lots of technical changes here, changing words to insert the words “Windsor framework” and so on, but that is not the substance of this. The substance is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that exists under section 15C. Why do the Government want to remove that? We have had no explanation. The explanatory memorandum does not give an explanation. The Minister tried to tell us that it is because of the Murphy review; I stand on the ground that it is not. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect, so why are we doing this, other than the convenience of not having to bother considering, in any sensible way, legislation that might apply to my constituents, and of just rubber-stamping and passing it all through, because who cares whether it is good law or bad law? That is not an attitude for any legislator to take. Members of the Committee need to pause, think and put it in this context: would you do this to your constituents? If not, do not do it to mine.

International Update

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is not on the table, and it is not up for discussion. I am sorry that that does not suit the hon. Gentleman’s political purpose.

May I clarify something, Mr Speaker? The National Farmers Union is waiting to see the terms of any deal, so it is neutral at the moment. I thought that I had better correct the record before the end of this statement.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Prime Minister view himself as the Prime Minister of Britain, or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? I ask because the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that he seeks to negotiate with the EU is exclusively a GB-EU SPS deal, which means that Northern Ireland remains under the colonial rule of the EU on all SPS matters, whereas if it were a UK-EU deal, the UK could take back control in Northern Ireland of EU laws in which we currently have no say whatsoever.

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will also have the effect of reducing checks in the Irish sea, which will bring a benefit for his constituents. Of course, the bigger benefits for Northern Ireland are in relation to energy, and I think that is something that his constituents would want me to pursue.

Direction of Government

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will absolutely give my hon. Friend the commitment that I will ask the relevant Minister to meet them, and would he do me the favour of passing on my sympathies to Max’s family? That is devastating news. There is so much more we need to do on brain cancer. You can be sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will always do that in the name of my good friend Tessa Jowell, whose family still work on these issues. There is so much more that we can do. I know that these issues have been in the media recently. There is encouraging research being done. We need to see a breakthrough. I will keep a close eye on that meeting, and I am happy to work with him further on this issue.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Today the Prime Minister has spoken with great passion about empowering local people and allowing them to make decisions that affect their own lives. On that theme, could I ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its people to Northern Ireland when it comes to making the laws? Currently, laws in 300 areas are made by a foreign Parliament, not by this United Kingdom. These are laws we do not make and cannot change. Indeed, the Prime Minister inadvertently put a focus on this issue when he referred to the cut in VAT on electricity bills—a cut that could not apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to foreign EU law that no one has voted for. In his crusade to empower local people, will the Prime Minister set about the fundamental task of restoring UK sovereignty—people’s sovereignty—to my constituency? Speaking of my constituency, he mentioned Wrightbus. May I invite him to visit it at the earliest opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I always love visiting Northern Ireland, so who knows? On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s main point, I will probably disappoint him. Obviously, the arrangements put in place are about supporting the economy of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland can get the benefits of access to both markets. It is important that he sees the benefits of the arrangement that the Windsor framework brought as well.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he provides me with the opportunity to make a point that I know he will agree with: Belfast is a truly great city. It is a place with incredible history and extraordinary character, and I believe it is a place of great potential and possibilities with a bright future ahead. That is why it is so tragic to see the kind of criminal disorder that all of us hoped had been consigned to the past. I understand the passion with which he speaks, but I hope he will also understand this Government’s commitment to dealing with what he describes as the fundamental underlying problems. He is right to raise them. Nobody is remotely blind to them, and we completely understand the anger. That is why we are working in the Home Office, and with colleagues right across law enforcement and Government, to ensure that we are making progress on the areas that he references.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

All that the perpetrators of last night’s dreadful violence did was terrorise the innocent, inflict harm on their own communities, and distract from the awfulness of the north Belfast attack—and, indeed, distract from the many peaceful protests that took place in my constituency and elsewhere. On all these issues, the law must take its full course against all illegality, wheresoever it comes from.

However, the deadly impact of the continuing open border with the Republic of Ireland for illegal migrants still stands. This Government preside over a situation in which it is illegal to bring a garden plant from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, yet we have an open border with the Irish Republic, which gentlemen like this Sudanese man—an illegal immigrant—can cross unhindered into the United Kingdom. Does the Minister not see the problem?

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the framing of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, and with the point that he made about peaceful protest. I know he will understand that my remarks referred only to those engaging in criminal disorder. I have heard the points that he made about what he describes as an open border, and he will have heard the comments that I have made previously, including the point about the very close co-operation that takes place between the Irish police, the PSNI and other police services to ensure that there is the most joined-up and effective response. However, I accept the challenge he has issued, and I accept that this is something that the Government will need to continue to look at.

Debate on the Address

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Gracious Speech of His Majesty, and the radical agenda of this Labour Government that will tear down the status quo that has failed working people and build a stronger, fairer Britain?

In the light of the abhorrent attacks in Golders Green two weeks ago, let me start by briefly addressing that directly. It was the latest in a series of appalling antisemitic attacks; a normalisation of hatred that leads terrorists with warped Islamist ideologies to attack people they have never even met, simply because they are Jewish; a hatred that leads some to march calling for the murder of British Jews, and not to think that there might be something wrong about that.

I have fought that hatred in my own political party, and I have sat with others as they describe what it means for them—the fear, the sense that maybe they should not wear something or do something that might reveal their Jewish identity, just in case. It is time for the silent majority in this country to speak up, to stand with British Jews and to defeat this hatred once and for all, just as we will take on any form of hatred, from left or right, that seeks to divide us. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we will

“defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference under our common flag”.

That is also why, when far-right agitators try to come here this Saturday to spread their poison of hatred, this Labour Government will block them, this time and every time.

The Humble Address was brilliantly proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). Members across the House will have read her remarkable new book, and her list of endorsements is truly impressive, reaching well over 100 Members—at last, a list that we can all get behind. [Laughter.] It is not the first time that she has shown her ability to bring people together. She united her city and many in this House when she sent George Galloway packing.

The House will know that my hon. Friend is passionate about the measures that this Government are taking to lift half a million children out of poverty, as we all are on this side of the House—it is the pride of these Benches—but the House might not know about her remarkable effort to get Marcus Rashford to champion free school meals and speak to pupils in her constituency. Most of us would have attempted this via the complex world of agents and managers, but my hon. Friend had a different idea. She spoke, as you do, to the sister of Cristiano Ronaldo. I can imagine that the Ronaldo household is used to fielding some pretty big offers—multimillion-pound transfers, billions in brand sponsorships, Piers Morgan calling for the eighth time that day—but I cannot imagine the confusion in the Ronaldo family when they heard my hon. Friend say not, “Is Cristiano Ronaldo available?”, but, “Can you give me the number of Marcus Rashford? I want to invite him to a primary school in Allerton to have some porridge in our free breakfast club.”

On a much more serious note, I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s extraordinary courage, together with her mother, brother and sister. Their story is utterly harrowing, and their strength to survive and deep-rooted determination to fight for change are an inspiration for all of us, and the very best of who we are. My hon. Friend brings a lived experience to our politics—an empathy, a compassion, a humanity, and an understanding of how easy it is to slip from a stable and secure life into one gripped by terrible deprivation.

As my hon. Friend writes in her book:

“Behind every word we utter must lie the foundation of real human experience”.

In that spirit, I am sure she will welcome the measures in this King’s Speech, which will deliver change grounded in that lived experience and the work of the tireless campaigners who have fought for justice, whether that is remediation for those living in homes with unsafe cladding, banning abusive conversion practices, our mission to halve violence against women and girls, or the Hillsborough law, which will bring justice for all. As she says so powerfully,

“equality, fairness and justice must belong to all of us.”

That is the driving purpose of our party, and her speech was in the finest traditions of this House.

The Humble Address was also brilliantly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We are all proud to represent our constituencies, but few of us so relentlessly name our constituency as those who represent Harlow. Members from previous Parliaments will remember my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Robert Halfon, who seemed to get Harlow into pretty well all of his contributions. Well, my hon. Friend will not be outdone. He has inherited the great Harlow shoehorn, and he is already recognised across this House as a one-man tourist board. I have to thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who is caught in Hansard referring to my hon. Friend as the “Trade envoy to Harlow”—a rare example of a good idea from the Opposition.

No matter the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will find the local connection, whether it is championing the role of Harlow college in dealing with climate change, praising the invention of fibre-optic cables in Harlow, or telling us how Harlow doubled for Paris during an episode of “The Crown”. I remember clearly my hon. Friend saying to me that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, and he is quite right.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing fundraising at this year’s London marathon, as has been mentioned.

I understand his disappointment at being overtaken by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). All I can say is that there is no shame in losing to someone whose training was so extensive that it involved running all the way from North West Durham to Billericay.

It is perhaps no surprise that, as a secondary school maths teacher for 15 years, my hon. Friend has an eye for detail, boundless energy and an ability to handle those on these Benches who are occasionally unruly, but he also has a real passion for young people, a deep and personal understanding of the invaluable role that young carers play, and total conviction in the power of education to change our country, so I know he will welcome the education Bill in the Gracious Speech. When the next series of “Educating Essex” is made, he will rightly be the star, and I thank him for yet another fantastic speech today.

Let me also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution. In difficult days, her input is always a ray of sunshine. I particularly like getting tips from her on how to win friends. This is from the party that had previously called us “orcs and goons”; I am a Gooner, so, as usual, she is less than half right. However, we do have one thing in common: both our parties had tough results in the local elections last week. The difference is that she has not noticed. There is another difference: we are in government, and they are no longer even the Opposition.

This King’s Speech is a strike against the status quo, which has failed working people. It is a King’s Speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands, and who work hard, want their talents to be recognised, and just want an opportunity in their community. It is a King’s Speech for the children who, under the Conservative party, had to go to school without breakfast, hungry, cold and tired, when they should be focused on their learning. It is a King’s Speech for the backbone of this country; for working people who worry about the cost of living and want their town centre to thrive, their public services to work, and their Government to be on their side—and we are, because at the heart of this programme is a plan to make Britain stronger and fairer.

Right now, across the country, people turn on their television and see bombs falling; they go to the petrol station and see prices rising; and they are worried sick about the consequences. We cannot stand here in the House and pretend that this is new. Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now—the 2008 financial crash, the austerity that followed it, Brexit, covid, and the war that still rages in Ukraine—and the response? Their response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to a status quo that failed working people, decimated their public services, and made them pay the price. Our response this time must and will be different—a complete break. We will not simply slump back to the old ways. This King’s Speech gives us the strength we need—the economic security, energy security and national security to control our future in a chaotic world. It is an agenda of radical reform across our major public services. This is an urgent, activist Labour Government who tilt power back to workers, renters and the less fortunate, and give a voice to the working class and to all those whom the status quo has repeatedly ignored and dismissed. We are in favour of a Britain where everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and effort take them, and where people have a pride in where they live and hope in what lies ahead. That is the change of a Labour Government, and this King’s Speech delivers it.

We will deliver on economic security, and let me be clear: as the conflict in Iran unfolds, we are in a better position because of the action that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took last year—getting inflation down, borrowing down and mortgage costs down. That is why we have been able to cap energy bills, raise the living wage, strengthen workers’ rights and end the shameful two-child benefit limit, lifting half a million children out of poverty.

Faced with challenges, we do not retreat from our Labour values; we use them as our compass—strength through fairness. We will keep supporting those who need it most, including by creating a new national programme to redistribute surplus food, so that no one in this country needs to go hungry because of the conflict overseas. We also need to strengthen our sovereign capabilities, because the days when this country turned its back on our critical industries are over. We have seen that with British Steel, and we will see it with new legislation to clean up our waterways. A failure in the water industry has been going on for decades. It is a disgrace, and this Labour Government will tackle it.

We will take that moral urgency to every part of our nation, with Bills to increase the pace of change in our NHS, in law enforcement, in controlling our borders and more. While immigration is down, we need to do more. While violent crime is down, it needs to be lower. While NHS waiting lists are down, we must go further, rewiring the state so that the working people of this country feel that it serves their interests. We will also build in this country sovereign power in the industries of the future, which will give us greater control in a world being reshaped by artificial intelligence. We will tear down the barriers to growth on planning, on faster infrastructure development and on business regulation, helping our great businesses, large and small.

We will, as a defining act of this Government, rebuild our relationship with Europe, putting Britain back at the heart of a stronger Europe. That is good for growth, and it will reduce the cost of living and strengthen our security. There is no good reason to oppose it, so for our economic security, and for our Labour values, this Government will act.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to not blame me for the problem. He should not say “you”.

Government Procurement Strategy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

Building on that previous point, it is really important that we do as much as we can to support British farming and have a national plan for food security. I am happy to take up the specifics and to work with my hon. Friend and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Is there an expectation that the procurement principles enunciated today will be followed through with local authorities? If so, can we expect to see an end to the scandal of bodies such as Transport for London buying Chinese buses, rather than British-made buses? Are we going to do anything about that?

[Chris Ward]

I would very much like to do so. I have spoken with the Department for Transport about this. This is a broader issue about how we work with regional authorities and within our system of devolution, because that is where the power lies for some of these decisions. I am working with the Department for Transport on this matter, and I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman updated on it.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Yesterday, the focus of many Members was to ask the Prime Minister why he never thought to ask whether Mandelson had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered that there was no such reticence in No. 10 when it came to trying to meddle in this process. We heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning that the message was very clear from No. 10: the Prime Minister wants this done “at pace”. The Prime Minister did not tell us that yesterday. He said it was nothing to do with him; this was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign Office, “This must be done at pace.”

We heard from Sir Olly this morning that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 and that throughout January there was “constant pressure” to get it done, some of it laced with expletives. Sir Olly told us that it would have been “very difficult” not to approve Mandelson. That is in the context of the meddling, the pressure and the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and in a context where even the Cabinet Office, he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it! This is a man who was twice dismissed and had a litany of black marks against him as a public official, and the Cabinet Office—at the heart of this Government—protested that there was no need to vet Mandelson.

The appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, and that is corroborated by what was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle at the very same time. In the early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through Mandelson’s approval, was also secretly, behind the backs of not just this Parliament but his Foreign Secretary, saying, “Could Matthew Doyle be found an ambassadorial post? But don’t tell the Foreign Secretary.” That is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister’s No.10, yet he comes to this House and tells us, “Nothing to do with me, guv. People didn’t tell me. I’m innocent because I didn’t know.” As a lawyer he should know that ignorance is no defence; as a lawyer, his training and instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up. Sadly, what we have had in this case is a monumental failure not just of process, but of character, of judgment, and of leadership—and he should go.

Security Vetting

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Because I wanted to know who took the decision, the basis upon which they took it, and who knew about the decision, so that I could set out a full account to the House, which is what I have done this afternoon.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This House and the country are being asked to believe that, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister, and provoked a raging controversy while making the United Kingdom’s most critical diplomatic appointment, he never asked if his nominee had been security vetted. Is that not staggering and incredible? What was the role of our National Security Adviser? What does he know? Could the House be told that?

[The Prime Minister]

The attention to the process began very much in September ’25, when the Bloomberg emails were published. That is when I agreed with the Cabinet Secretary that he would carry out a review of the entire process, and I have set that out at some length this afternoon.

Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am conscious of the impact that this situation is having on fuel, and therefore on people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are working on a number of fronts, first to make sure that there is absolutely no profiteering from this, in relation to the price discrepancies, but also to ensure that we de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That will be the most effective way to get those prices down again, which will impact on everybody filling up their cars.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister knows that his Government’s coffers have been swollen by hundreds of millions by the extra tax take, particularly VAT, on rising fuel prices. Would it therefore be unreasonable to expect a socialist Government to practise some redistribution of wealth from Government to hard-pressed vehicle users, farmers and businesses who are being crippled by the price hike in fuel? Today, surely, he can give some light to consumers by saying that, instead of anticipating an increase in fuel duty, he will announce a decrease in fuel duty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that economic growth is the answer to many of the questions that the Executive and the Assembly are facing. Northern Ireland, with its dual market access, along with its innovation and ingenuity, has an extraordinary opportunity. Being in government requires taking difficult decisions with the money one has got. We are giving a record settlement to the Executive; they have to decide how to spend it most effectively.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.