Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Those protections, including against repeated investigations, are clearly set out in the Bill that the House gave a Second Reading to yesterday. I hope that, as people come to understand that they are there and how they work, they will offer the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Yesterday in the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would not appoint any paramilitaries to the victims and survivors group. In light of that undertaking, will he now underwrite it by indicating that he will accept an amendment to put into statutory form that there cannot be any paramilitary serving on that group? If his undertaking is good, let us make it even better by putting it in statute.

[Hilary Benn]

From memory, I gave that undertaking three times at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hoped that it would provide the hon. and learned Member with the assurance that he seeks, because I am clear that no one with that record will be appointed to the victims and survivors panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud to lead an open, tolerant, generous country. To maintain that principle, we must restore order and control, fix the utterly broken system left by the Conservatives, and end the division that others seek to exploit. That includes creating safe and legal routes and recognising those who contribute, integrate and strengthen our society, while at the same time reducing the number of illegal arrivals and removing those with no right to be here. That is a fair, progressive system which meets modern challenges.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Governments of France, Germany and the United States have all extracted compensation from Libya for their citizens who were affected by Gaddafi-led terrorism across the world. Why are the British Government continuing to fail citizens of the United Kingdom who suffered to a huge extent through the importation of arms, and, in particular, the tonnes of Semtex that Gaddafi supplied to the IRA, giving rise to Enniskillen, Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and multiple other incidents? Why is no compensation being extracted from Libya for our citizens when it can be done for others? Will the Prime Minister at least meet representatives of the almost forgotten, but still campaigning, families of those affected by Gaddafi’s terrorism?

[The Prime Minister]

So many suffered from Gaddafi’s actions, and the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right to raise this really serious issue. We are working hard on it, and I will absolutely make sure that the meeting he asks for is set up with the relevant Minister, so that we can give the full position and take onboard what the families have to say.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s perseverance and patience on this issue. Unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him by referring him to the answer I gave previously.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

May I take the Minister back to devolved issues? In the case of Northern Ireland, international trade, quite rightly, is a reserved matter, yet last Wednesday in Belfast, the Chinese Government, no less, hosted a major investment conference in collaboration with the local Department for the Economy, with 120 Chinese companies, including Huawei, ZTE and BYD. At the conclusion of it, they signed a strategic co-operation framework agreement with Invest NI. How is that possible when international trade is a reserved matter? Will this Government finally closely examine the operation of the Stormont Executive and their collaborations with China?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was in the hon. and learned Member’s part of the world just a couple of weeks ago. We take very seriously the importance of engaging with the devolved Administrations. I will look carefully at the points he has made and reflect on them, and if he wants to discuss them further, I would be happy to do that.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course we must acknowledge the role that the media and others played in this—it was a cover-up at so many levels. As for an oversight mechanism, I do not think that the Bill is the place for it, but I do agree with the proposition that when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. This Bill is obviously intended to deal with all the situations in which there needs to be a duty of candour, with consequences if that is not adhered to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In welcoming this Bill, I am very mindful of the tenacity and courage of the campaigners who got us to this point, both outside and inside this House. They can take some comfort from this Bill today. I trust that it is a Bill that will live up to its promise. As I mentioned in my intervention on the Prime Minister, I trust that it will bring justice to the Chinook families, for example, who have been treated to serial cover-ups in respect of that appalling incident.

However, there are issues with the Bill that I want to probe. It declares in its very first clause that:

“The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…(a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest”.

But will it be at all times? We discover in the Bill that the only criminal sanction applies to those who do not show candour, transparency and frankness to a public inquiry or a public investigation. In many such cases, there would already be the threat of perjury, so where is the commitment to ensure that there is candour at all times?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

rose—

[Jim Allister]

If the Minister wants to make an intervention, I am quite happy to take it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, but the Bill literally says that there is a duty of candour “at all times”.

[Jim Allister]

It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by

“imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”.

That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever. The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by

“imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”,

by

“imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”,

and by

“making provision about parity at inquiries”

about legal aid.

The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent?

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister.

[Jim Allister]

That is exactly what I said. Why does clause 11 not apply to the whole United Kingdom on the basis of a legislative consent motion? Such a motion could be sought from Stormont and from Edinburgh, and in that means we could have uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is the mechanism for doing it, but the starting point is to make the clause applicable across the United Kingdom, and then to have the legislative consent motion that would enable it to be enforced. That is how Parliament works with the devolved institutions. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but I was a Member of a devolved institution and know that that is how it works—that emphatically is how it works.

[Patricia Ferguson]

The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened.

[Jim Allister]

I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This is not a debate about the constitution; it is a debate about the duty of candour. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the intention is for all nations in the United Kingdom to be bound by this legislation. However, he will be fully aware of the devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland in this case. We are having positive engagement with both nations, and that is the intention of the Bill. I just remind him to perhaps bring the debate back to exactly what this Bill is about, with the families in the Gallery today.

[Jim Allister]

I therefore hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will indicate that, subject to legislative consent, she will indeed make this Bill apply across the whole United Kingdom, because my constituents are as entitled as anyone else to the same duty of candour that arises elsewhere.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful point. The Minister referred to devolved competences. Does he agree that this Parliament is sovereign and has on many occasions intervened in laws in Northern Ireland that are devolved? It is therefore upon this Government to do the right thing and make all of this legislation applicable to Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister]

I agree absolutely, and such interventions have happened many times. If we are serious about saying there is a basis of equal citizenship across this United Kingdom, and that is what it is to belong to a United Kingdom, the duty of candour being given to England and Wales should equally be given to all of the United Kingdom. I welcome it for England and Wales, and I welcome it so far as it goes in Northern Ireland, but it does not go far enough. I am disappointed by the Government’s reticence to accept that this Bill, like any other, could be improved. A mighty step forward in improving it would be ensuring that it provides that duty of candour across the United Kingdom.

[Paula Barker]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Jim Allister]

I would give way, if I had not run out of time. I say to the Government, yes, let us go forward with this Bill, but let us make it a better Bill that gives the same rights across this United Kingdom.

China Spying Case

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Among all the finger-pointing in this House, there are some immutable facts, and one is that in the spring of 2024, the evidential burden to bring a prosecution was met, because the CPS levelled a charge that the two individuals were guilty under the 1911 Act of having information capable of assisting an enemy. The first point is that a deficiency in the 1911 Act is not the problem, because the CPS was capable of bringing the charge. The second point is that to bring the charge, the evidential tests for bringing a prosecution had to be met: that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest.

The unanswered question in all this is what happened between the spring of 2024 and September 2025, when suddenly the same evidential test was not met. What changed? It was met, or the charges could never have been brought, but suddenly it was not met and the charges were dropped. It seems pretty clear from what has been said to a Committee of this House that what changed was that the Government backed off in their evidence as to what would establish whether China was an enemy.

The Government were assisted in the meantime by the Bulgarian case, where the Court of Appeal refined “enemy” to “posing threat or threats”. Indeed, the Court said it was a matter of common sense as to whether something or someone was an enemy. There is no greater jury question than to decide whether or not something is common sense. The prosecution looked easier after the Court of Appeal decision, not harder, yet the prosecution was dropped. That is yet to be explained to this House. It seems to me that it can only be explained by the Government’s failing to come up to proof. Since they had come up to proof to bring the charge in the first place, they obviously retreated. We can talk around this as much as we like, but that seems to me to be the immovable reality of the situation.

There are, of course, issues here about the equivocation of the Government towards China, but it is an equivocation that is even infecting devolution. Coming up in Northern Ireland is a co-sponsored conference between the Chinese Government and the Sinn Féin Economy Minister to talk about infrastructure and investment. I say to this Government that they need to take a long, hard look at the way in which devolved institutions, particularly in Stormont, are playing footsie with the Chinese Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect, it was the decision of the Opposition to table the urgent question in the way that they did; they could have chosen to table it in the way that the hon. Member describes. The Attorney General and colleagues right across Government looked very carefully at the circumstances of this particular case. I have spelled out in some detail the information that the Government are able to put into the public domain about the three witness statements published by the Prime Minister last week. The final piece of evidence was sent by the deputy National Security Adviser in August; there is nothing that any Minister or special adviser could have done thereafter.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It seems to me that the key question, which has not been answered despite three sessions on this subject, is the following. We know that in April 2024 the evidential test for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911 was met. We also know that come September ’25, the CPS was saying that it was not met. The key question is: what changed? Part of the answer seemed to come from the CPS, when it said that it asked for Government information, which it did not get to a satisfactory level. Does that not suggest that there was a failure on the part of Government that contributed to the collapse of this prosecution? If the Government simply said, “On the one hand, China is a threat; on the other hand, it is an opportunity,” how could we ever put beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal case the fact that it was a threat? Was that equivocation not the source of the problem?

[Dan Jarvis]

As I have said previously, in each of the three statements the DNSA makes it crystal clear that China poses wide-ranging threats to the UK. In his third statement, in August ’24, he says that the Chinese intelligence services are “highly capable” and conduct

“large-scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK”.

I do not think that there could have been any greater clarity.

Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that however welcome the news, it is tempered by the loss over the past two years in Gaza and in Israel. It is essential that the voices of those most affected by this are heard and are part of the rebuild that is now necessary.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I gladly join in the tributes of appreciation to all, including President Trump, who made the long-awaited release of the hostages a reality yesterday. May I press the Prime Minister on the disarming of Hamas? For the Prime Minister, is that wholly non-negotiable? How is it to be delivered? If it is not delivered in totality, where does that leave this nation? We would have recognised a Palestine that then would have a continuing presence of an armed and controlling Hamas.

[The Prime Minister]

Disarmament must be non-negotiable, and that is why it is written into the 20-point plan, and it is why we are now putting ourselves forward to play a part in the decommissioning. It is only by decommissioning that we can ensure that the threat from Hamas is removed. That is why it is in the plan, and it is why we want to play our full part. We will do everything we can with other allies to bring that about.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It seems to me that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, put her finger on the nub of this matter. We know that in April 2024, the CPS decided that the evidential test was met. The evidential test was that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction for the offence of passing useful information to an enemy. We know that in September ’25, the DPP maintained that the evidential test was not met, so what changed? Who changed it? How did we move from the evidential test being met to the evidential test not being met? Was the evidence before the DPP withdrawn? Was it found to be unreliable, or did the Government fail to substantiate the evidence that enabled the evidential test to be met back in April 2024?

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is what I was at great pains to explain in my opening remarks.

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.