Belfast: Violent Disorder

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

Debate on the Address

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As my hon. Friend writes in her book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Government Procurement Strategy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Chris Ward]

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

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

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

Security Vetting

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his years of work on that issue. I can confirm that the wide-ranging set of reviews that are taking place today will happily receive submissions from him and others in this and the other place, should they wish to make them. We will be looking at current and previous reports from the relevant Committees in the normal way.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

These papers show that, on 11 December 2024, just nine days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador, he was specifically advised of the J.P. Morgan report from 2009, which expressly said that Mandelson maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Yet the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has said that he regrets believing the lies of Peter Mandelson and that, had he known the depth and extent of the relationship that we now all know and have confirmed, he would never have appointed him in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister has apologised and acknowledged that this appointment was a mistake.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee know that I look forward to working with them and other Members on how we might legislate more innovatively through the Bill coming later this year, so that quicker digital transformation of public services is enabled through appropriate checks and balances in the House, without having to return to an enormous piece of primary legislation or have repeated Bills. I look forward to the Committee being a part of that when we legislate later this year.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I suspect that my constituents will have at least these three concerns: that the digital ID scheme will become mandatory by stealth; that it will be vulnerable to IT failures; and that it will be in danger of malevolent hacking. Are those not real concerns? How will they be addressed? Will this proposal be China-proofed?

[Darren Jones]

On the question of mandation, I expect it will be on the front of the Bill coming to the House later this year that it is not mandatory. Should any Government in the future wish to change that, they will need to come back to this House to change the law in order to do so. That is the right and proper thing.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns, as we should in relation to any modern services, about cyber-security, hacking and the confidentiality and security of people’s data. That is precisely why we are building this in-house—in Government—with the National Cyber Security Centre as a sovereign capability to ensure that we are not reliant on external companies, whether they are in the UK or abroad, to cover those bases for us.

Middle East

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.