House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No notice was given of a point of order, but go ahead.

[Jim Allister]

Is there no etiquette in the House about somebody who has sat through the entirety of the debate being gazumped in the calling list by somebody who has recently arrived?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you so much for pointing that out. Unless colleagues have been bobbing from the beginning, they are unlikely to be called—there are colleagues on the Government Back Benches who will not be called in this debate—but it is absolutely right that those belonging to the party that forms a majority in the House tend to be called earlier. You are most definitely on the list and will be called shortly. I call Chris Curtis to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

We have had a lively debate and some wonderful maiden speeches. I noted some telling and impressive phrases—phrases that I think very few in this House could disagree with. Yet the House, in its actions, implements that which it disagrees with. What were those phrases? One Member talked about the need to move to “a more democratic form of government”. Good. Someone else mentioned “strengthening democratic rights”. Good. Another Member talked about “advancing democratic control”. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said that “unelected lawmakers should not be a thing”. Good. However, the phrase that struck me most poignantly was about the principle of electing those who govern us.

This House has spent an afternoon debating the rights and wrongs of having hereditary peers, but there is a part of the United Kingdom where the primary issue is not whether the legislature has the right make-up but why 300 areas of law are made by a foreign Parliament. Those laws are made not by this House or the other House, or by the legislative Assembly in Stormont, and that is the product of the protocol agreement made by the previous Government and continuing to be implemented by the current Government.

Laws affecting fundamental issues, that govern most of our economy, that govern our entire agrifood industry and that control much of our environment are not made in this House—they are not made with the contribution of hereditary and non-hereditary peers—but by foreign politicians who no one in this nation elects. [Interruption.] Someone says, “Wrong debate”. It is not the wrong debate when we are talking about the fundamentals of what it means to have democratic legislatures. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that we should be governed by those we elect.

The position of all the hereditary peers in the House of Lords may be indefensible—that is my own inclination —but at least they are United Kingdom citizens making laws for United Kingdom citizens. My constituents live under a regime in which many of the laws are made not by United Kingdom citizens and not by those elected by us, but by those elected in Hungary, Estonia or wherever.

This comes down to practical illustrations. Just a few days ago, a statutory instrument about pet passports was laid in this House that imposes not a UK law, but an EU law. It means that any Member of this House or any citizen of Great Britain who wants, for example, to come and visit the wonderful Giant’s Causeway in my constituency and bring with them their best friend—their dog—must, subject to EU law, have a pet passport, have it inoculated according to EU demands, belong to a pet scheme set up under that law and have the documentation inspected.

I am using this debate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, yes, it is right and necessary that we debate the apparent anachronism of hereditary peers, but there is a far more compelling issue that this House should be preparing to address. I will be bringing a private Member’s Bill to this House that will give it the opportunity to address those issues, and when I do, I hope that the same enthusiasm for basic democratic principles will be shown for the principle that we should be able to elect those who govern us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am shocked to hear of the impact on Derbyshire county council, which is proposing cutbacks to adult social care. Councils across the country were on the frontline of the last Government’s ruinous economic failure, which has left people who rely on services counting the cost. There is no quick fix, but we will provide councils with more stability and certainty through multi-year funding settlements, ensuring that councils can properly plan their finances for the future. We will work with local leaders to deliver this.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Prime Minister have any sense of unease that, although he is Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are more than 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland in which legislation is made in a foreign Parliament? Has he any ambition to recover UK sovereignty over those 300 areas of law, thereby restoring the equal citizenship of my constituents and ending their disen-franchising in respect of making laws that govern much of their economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. The Windsor framework was negotiated by the last Government. We supported it, and we continue to support it. We will work to make sure it is implemented properly and fully.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out our position: domestic law is clear, international law is clear, and we have taken our decision and put a summary of that before the House.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If we in this House, at this distance, can feel the pain of that dastardly attack a year ago, we can but imagine its indelible imprint on the people of Israel and on Jewish folk across the world. What is the Prime Minister’s view of the fact that our national broadcaster, the BBC, refuses to call those who perpetrated this heinous terrorist attack “terrorists”, and likewise now with Hezbollah? What is the Government’s position on that and what representations have they made?