Digital ID

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The scale of the response to this petition—almost 3 million people—should cause us all to pause. This rash proposal has clearly touched a deep-seated opposition among our constituents to anyone interfering with their personal data and personal details. Almost 5,000 of my constituents are among that number, and I well understand and support their opposition.

Yes, digital ID might be convenient and it might be expedient for some people to have all their data in one location that they can share, but the key issue here is that the Government are choosing—without a mandate—to make it mandatory. It would be a different matter if the Government were coming to this House to say, “We are going to provide a facility whereby, if you wish, you can have the convenience of this: if you want to take the risk of being hacked, we will provide the facility,” but when they say to the citizen, “You must,” or, “We will impose,” they have crossed a line that no self-respecting Government should cross and that no self-respecting people should tolerate.

That, for me, is the critical component: this is a Government who think they know better and who will impose it, and we will be left with no choice as citizens. That is so illiberal, so fundamentally an assault on our personal freedoms, that no one in this House should be entertaining it, least of all the Government.

[Mr Mohindra]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent contribution, as always. If this is such an important issue, why was it not in the governing party’s manifesto at the last general election?

[Jim Allister]

That is a question that I obviously cannot answer, and it is one that I doubt the Minister will answer, but it is well posed. Why, oh why, if the Government were going to impinge on the personal liberties of their citizens, would they not, in asking for their votes, tell them that that was their agenda?

[Jamie Stone]

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I must of course be fair minded and impartial at all times, but the hon. and learned Member might be acquainted with the fact that I represent the most remote mainland constituency in the whole of the UK. Let me just put this point: we do know what digital exclusion is.

[Jim Allister]

As I represent North Antrim, I know of many parts of my constituency where people cannot get the digital connections that are supposedly promised, and I know what digital exclusion is in that regard as well. This proposition is flawed no matter which way we look at it, but most fundamentally flawed in the compulsion that it brings.

The final point that I want to make to the Minister is this: whatever happens on this subject—I trust the idea will be ditched in its entirety—and whatever the ultimate outcome is, it has to be a nationwide outcome. Too often, I have seen differences of treatment in my part of the United Kingdom that add to the already obnoxious situation in which we are partitioned by an Irish sea border. We do not want to be partitioned by a digital border as well.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I am always. He made an important point about parliamentary security, and I hope that, as a very dedicated parliamentarian, he will know that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why we are working very closely with Mr Speaker and this House, through the defending democracy taskforce, to make sure that we have the appropriate mitigations in place to counter the nature of the threat we face.

I hold the hon. Gentleman in very high regard, and I refer him to what the Prime Minister said on Monday. The Prime Minister made an important point that is highly relevant to the question the hon. Gentleman raised:

“Protecting our security is non-negotiable. Our first duty. But by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to cooperate in other areas.”

I hope he agrees—I know he does—with that.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Today, the Minister has again said that the reason the case collapsed was the inadequacy of the 1911 Act. That raises this obvious question: how come these two gentlemen were ever charged in the first place? The evidential test at the moment they were charged is exactly the same as the evidential test when the case was dropped, so how did they come to be charged under this Act if it was inadequate? Is it not quite clear that the Act was more than adequate to charge them and more than adequate to convict them?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am not sure that anybody really thinks that the 1911 Act was appropriate. As the hon. and learned Member will know, because it is a statement of obvious truth, the decision to proceed was taken not under this Government, but under the previous one. All I am able to do in this House is to account for the decisions and actions taken by this Government. What this Government will always do is ensure that we protect our national security. It is our first duty and nothing matters more.

G20 and Ukraine

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor?

[The Prime Minister]

The approach that we have taken is based on the principles that I have set out to the House, and is absolutely rooted in what the Ukrainians want out of this. That is why we are speaking to and working with them so extensively in relation to these negotiations. All matters involving the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that is the guiding principle in everything that I have been doing.

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.