International Day of Democracy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.

We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.

Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.

So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.

I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.

We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.

That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his remarks about my appointment—I think most Members do not realise that I have been silent for a good two years, so it is nice to know that the voice box is still working.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank Members from across the House for the cordial way in which we have debated today—clearly without everyone agreeing, which is the whole point of democracy in this place and in institutions around our United Kingdom. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate to mark such an important day and for her work to advocate for her constituent, Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case remains a priority for the UK Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Mr Lai. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to all the points raised.

In these unpredictable times of global tension and turmoil, with democracy under threat, the stakes are high. When we stand up for our democratic values, we are not only doing what is right, we are safeguarding our own future, for we know that accountable governance is the foundation for a safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous world. Although public support for democracy remains strong, as has been mentioned, over the last 20 years, the world has, overall, become less democratic. Today, more than seven in 10 people around the world live in autocracies, and democracy is under pressure from climate change, conflict and irregular migration, among many other factors. Even long-established democracies like our own are affected. That is why in the UK we continue to work with partners at home and abroad to ensure that democratic principles remain strong.

We need to maintain public trust and support for democracy by showing that democratic Governments can meet today’s challenges and deliver for their citizens. We must address the threats posed by countries such as Russia that are working to undermine democratic systems and values in the UK and around the world. We must also support our partners where the shoots of democracy are still growing to defend the space for civil society, uphold the rule of law, champion equal rights, support accountable, inclusive institutions, and tackle global challenges such as dirty money and corruption.

The Government have already taken big steps to strengthen democracy at home. As has been mentioned, we are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in UK elections—a major change that will boost young people’s trust in democracy. We are making sure that eligible voters are not prevented or deterred from voting by permitting the use of UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at polling stations. We are introducing tougher rules on political donations, striking the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns.

We are also empowering the Electoral Commission to clamp down on those who breach political finance rules, with fines of up to half a million pounds, and there will be tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners, or elected representatives or their staff. Our commitment to give more decision-making power, funding and tools to local leaders and mayors in England will enable them to effectively address local needs, drive growth and improve public services.

Alongside our efforts to strengthen democracy at home, we must protect ourselves from those overseas who do not share our values. The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is leading a whole-of-society effort to protect the integrity of British democracy. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been stepping up its efforts to expose those who manipulate information, interfere with our democratic processes and institutions, or undermine the rights, freedoms and security of our citizens.

The international nature of the threats requires an international response. We are working through partnerships such as Five Eyes and the G7 to share expertise and take co-ordinated measures against actions by states such as Russia, China and Iran. Last month, the UK and our G7 partners condemned the latest round of arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong police as acts of transnational repression. In July, we exposed and sanctioned the Russian interference agency African Initiative for its role in malign influence operations across Africa.

It is equally important to nurture and support democratic government around the world. We are delivering on that commitment through our extensive diplomatic and development partnerships. The UK supports elections, Parliaments and political parties in over 30 countries through our arms-length body, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and I am more than happy to engage with the WFD governors and ensure that FCDO officials do too. Election observation remains an essential part of the UK’s support for free and fair elections. This year and last year, we sent more than 160 observers to watch votes around the world, including in Moldova, Georgia and Uzbekistan.

Freedom of expression and a free media are the bedrock of a healthy democracy, empowering citizens to hold institutions to account. However, as the persecution of Jimmy Lai demonstrates, in many parts of the world the freedom of the media is under threat. The UK is one of the most significant champions of international media freedom. Our support for the BBC World Service brings impartial, accurate news to 320 million people around the world, in 42 languages, every week. It remains the world’s most trusted international news service.

Illicit finance and corruption are transnational challenges, undermining growth and democratic governance, and fuelling organised crime and conflict. We are strengthening our domestic defences and stepping up efforts internationally to ensure that dirty money has nowhere to hide. In April, we sanctioned the cronies of corrupt leaders who are undermining democracy and the rule of law in Georgia and Guatemala.

It is unacceptable that in the UK and around the world, women face barriers to participation in politics and are increasingly exposed to abuse and threats. Our special envoy for women and girls, my noble Friend Baroness Harman, is championing gender equality worldwide and co-ordinating international efforts to ensure that women and girls are empowered and their rights are protected. I am sure that Members from across this House can agree that there is no more powerful advocate for ensuring that women and girls are able to take part in our democratic processes.

To briefly answer the point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—having spent many years myself not always getting answers as an Opposition Member—I understand more than most Members of this House the importance of the Commonwealth, having served on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK and international for years. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government recognise the importance of the Commonwealth, and we are working with the new secretary-general. I give him the assurance that we will continue to do that work.

This Government are working to protect and strengthen democracy internationally because it is the right thing to do and is clearly in our national interest.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Elmore]

I am running out of time.

A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.

Ambassador to the United States

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I want to use the few minutes that I have to focus on how it could be that, just last Wednesday, the Prime Minister of this country came to tell this House that he had “confidence” in Lord Mandelson, the friend of the paedophile, in his role as a key ambassador for the Government. The Prime Minister said that not once but twice, when the Leader of the Opposition rightly asked him, declaring:

“I have confidence in him”,

and

“I have confidence in the ambassador”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.]

Those were his ringing endorsements of Lord Mandelson.

I want to examine the circumstances that then prevailed when he said that he had confidence in Lord Mandelson. What is confidence? Confidence is having trust, faith and belief in someone. That is what the Prime Minister was telling this House in respect of Lord Mandelson last Wednesday, yet by Monday it was a matter of public knowledge that the Bloomberg emails had been published.

The Prime Minister has since made some startling claims. He said that when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions he knew that questions were being asked, but he knew only about media inquiries about the emails and that questions were being put to Lord Mandelson. Our Prime Minister is a King’s Counsel. The natural instinct of a lawyer is to interrogate, and the training of a lawyer is to equip them to interrogate. However, this House is being told that when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said “I have confidence” in Lord Mandelson, even though he knew that questions were being asked, he did not interrogate them for himself or ask about what was being asked. When he told the House that he knew that there were media inquiries about emails, we are being asked to believe that he did not ask, “What emails? What did they say?”

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. The Prime Minister said that he had “confidence in the ambassador”. He did not say “pending investigation or a suspension”, “I’ll look into it” or “I’ll follow process”, but “I have confidence.” Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister did not say that he would look into the situation seriously, and instead said from the Dispatch Box specifically that he had “confidence”?

[Jim Allister]

That is the most troubling thing about this. Equipped with the knowledge that he inevitably had—Monday night’s publication, and the knowledge that questions had been asked and that there were media inquiries about the emails—the credibility of the House is stretched to be asked to believe that the Prime Minister, a trained lawyer, never interrogated any of that and never asked, “What emails? What did they say? What questions have we asked?” We are asked to believe that he came to the House blind to all of that.

Not only in the appointment of Lord Mandelson do we see serious flaws in the judgment of the Prime Minister. If it is truly the situation, that he came to the House with a limited but uninterrogated knowledge of these matters, then that raises further questions about his judgment. I fear that this House has many answers yet to receive. It is a matter of regret to me, as it is to other hon. Members, that the Prime Minister is not here today to answer those demanding, alarming yet simple questions: they are questions that go not only to the heart of the Prime Minister’s confidence in Lord Mandelson, but to the question of whether this House, and this people, can have confidence in the Prime Minister.

Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.

For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.

When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.

In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.

The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

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

Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not comment on ongoing judicial matters, but as I have set out a number of times the negotiations were necessarily between the UK and Mauritius. However, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, which is why the measures that I just set out have been put in place.

China Audit

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the sensitivity and the import of what the hon. Lady says. That is central to the considerations and discussions that are under way within Government as we look at these issues and balance them against our national security.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would have liked to hear more and the statement was opaque, but the other side of that coin is that it might be reassuring that the Government are not making all of our intelligence capability and understanding available to China and the outside world. He will recognise that the biggest academic partner in that research is the United States, and given the way the economy of China has grown, certainly over my two decades in Parliament, it is not surprising that it has emerged as our second largest. I want to reassure him that, of course, the agencies are able to offer full advice to universities and examine sensitivities, and we are very aware of the threats he has conveyed to the House.

Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I can state again, as I have stated throughout the afternoon, that diplomacy is the way, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that our Government, and successive Governments, have learned from the Chilcot inquiry.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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?

[Mr Lammy]

I think that the people of Britain are entitled to know that we were not involved in this action, and that we work for diplomacy and de-escalation. That is why I was sitting in the White House last week, it is why I was in Geneva on Friday, and it is why I was at a Cobra meeting and making a round of calls to allies and partners to de-escalate at this time yesterday.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is a very powerful personal story from Noah, who I think reflects the maturity of many young people when dealing with these challenging issues.

By imposing, in effect, a statutory gag in this one area, new clauses 1 and 2 risk infantilising terminally ill patients, creating a chilling effect on communication at the very moment when clarity and compassion are most needed. If anything, new clauses 1 and 2 may result in harm to patients, forcing them to suffer in silence, unaware of lawful options simply because they do not know how to ask.

Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which presents a number of issues. In the first instance, subsection (1) would permit there to be, in effect, two different standards of proof. That must be legal nonsense. The boundaries of any legal test or hurdle must be clear. A failure to do so creates a great deal of uncertainty. Furthermore, the proposal to shift the standard of proof from the civil to the criminal, requiring panels to operate on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, is deeply inappropriate. The balance of probabilities is the cornerstone of medical and civil decision making. To adopt a criminal threshold risks freezing the entire process, creating a very risk-averse system.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With new clause 9, we are talking about the occasion when the final potion is delivered to the patient to kill them. We do not deprive people of their liberty without proving something beyond all reasonable doubt. Why should we deprive someone of their life if we are not going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that that is their will?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. These are individuals who are making this ultimate choice for themselves. My fear is that this well-intentioned new clause would make the Bill so unusable as to become ineffective. We are not prosecuting a crime here; we are enabling a choice under tightly prescribed circumstances.

While I accept that each of these new clauses in their own way seeks to improve the Bill, we must be cautious about layering protections to the point of paralysis. The Bill as drafted is not a blank cheque—it contains safeguards, panel oversight and rigorous eligibility criteria. Let us not bury its moral clarity under legal clutter. In defending this legislation, we are not abandoning care; we are affirming dignity. Let us do so with confidence and reject these amendments.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Jim Allister Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said before, I will not get into the detail of talks and discussions. We are very clear on our position, which is that we need to support and stand with Ukraine. We are having productive and constructive talks. Those continued yesterday with the United States, European allies and others, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) a moment ago.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Minister describe yesterday’s talks as productive if the United States continues to make unreasonable demands of Ukraine that the United Kingdom does not support?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can describe those talks as productive and constructive because they were.

Persecution of Christians

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler.

The first Christian martyr was Stephen. Stephen was martyred simply because of his loyalty to the head of the Christian Church, Lord Jesus Christ. Stephen has been followed, down the eons of time, by millions of others who have been persecuted and put to death for simple adherence to the basic Christian message of redemption through the sole mediation of Christ. There is nothing offensive in that and yet it offends. The offensiveness has caused many to lose their lives, and that is a shocking indictment of the wider world. We take for granted all of the freedoms and liberties we have, but a debate such as this rightly causes us to reflect on those who exercise the freedoms that jeopardise their own lives. Think about Iran, where there has been an increase in the imprisonment of Christians from 22 in 2023 to 96 in 2024, indicating the trend. Think of Afghanistan, where the Taliban’s return and their extreme sharia law means many people have been executed simply for converting to Christianity. That is a sobering reminder of the values that we have, should hold to, and never take for granted. I finish with words from the beatitudes:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Syria

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As I said in response to a previous question, we are in discussions about what a UN role could be in a future Syria. I will not comment too much on what personnel might staff it.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Was the delisting of 24 institutions from sanctions on Friday the product of engagement with the interim Government? If so, in the light of the gruesome mass murders of Saturday, was that decision premature?

[Mr Falconer]

It is true that the interim Administration are asking for sanctions relaxation, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the economic situation in Syria: 99% of the value of the Syrian pound has disappeared, and 90% of the population live below the poverty line. This is an acute emergency, and we want to see, now Assad is gone, Syria as a stable country that can stand on its own two feet. Those 24 bodies are involved in the basic functioning of Syria’s economy. We will keep all our sanctions under review, as Members would expect, and once we have a clearer picture of the events over the weekend, I will return to the House.