Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.

[Jim Allister]

There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.

It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:

“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”

Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.

I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:

“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.

It is the one that records the fact that we

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s

“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”

the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that

“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,

whether it appeared that the

“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,

and the extent to which they

“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”

Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?

We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that

“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.

Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.

The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.

There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.

The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Middle East: Defence

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of the first statement, it was indicated from the Chair that those who were not called on that statement would be prioritised in respect of this second statement. Did that happen? If not, why not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. There has been a degree of prioritisation, but no guarantee. I am sure he understands that the time pressures in the Chamber are sometimes impossible. With three Government statements and an important debate, it is just impossible to call everyone.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

Of course. That is further compounded by the fact that if those companies did set up in Northern Ireland and were manufacturing businesses dependent on raw materials coming from GB, as most are, they would have to pass through an international customs border with extra costs as well. In Northern Ireland, they are being invited not only to set up in a place where state aid may be capped by a foreign jurisdiction, but to set up in a jurisdiction where the raw materials will, by virtue of the Irish sea border, cost them more.

The Minister will say, as he has said to me before, “Ah, but you have the advantage of dual market access.” No, we do not. We have the worst of all worlds in Northern Ireland. We have the worst of all worlds in the sense that our raw materials are hiked in price because of the Irish sea border, and we now have the reduction in available state aid—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is minded of the Bill that we are discussing and will soon get back to it.

China Spying Case

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

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.

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of her intention to raise this point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ speeches. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will seek to correct the record if necessary.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The whole House will be appalled, as I am, by the grotesque and wanton violence that has afflicted Ballymena in my constituency, and appalled by the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. There can be no excuse for the resulting violence. However, the Government must be aware of the underlying tensions produced by uncontrolled, and often undocumented, immigration. In that regard, would it be in order to ask that the Government make a statement to the House on what they will do to constrain the flow of migrants who legitimately travel under freedom of movement from one EU country to another—in this case, into the Republic of Ireland—and then pass unchecked from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland? That has been a contributor—particularly in respect of Romas, it would seem—to the concentration and the resulting problems. None of that excuses violence, but it is a matter of concern to many. How can I obtain a statement from the Government on how they intend to address that gap in our ability to control who comes and goes from our own country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no notice that the Government intend to make a statement. However, those on the Government Benches will have heard his comments, which are now on the record. He will also have an opportunity tomorrow during Business questions to raise the matter again.

Spring Statement

Debate between Jim Allister and Judith Cummins

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?