Christopher Stalford
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“In the United States of America, you have two schools of thought: the expansionists — the people who do not believe that the Founding Fathers should be taken at their word, or that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strict sense; and the originalists — those who do.”
“Let me make some progress. <BR /> <BR />The key point in the brief is the "particular circumstances" of Northern Ireland. That is, and should be, central to everything that we examine.”
“I do not think that it ever got particularly bad-tempered, so I am disappointed at the tone that was struck in the opening of the debate and in subsequent contributions, but I am not going to lie down like a dog and take it. I am not going to take the rewriting of history.”
“There is one absolute right in law, and that is the right not to be tortured. That is an absolute right that is accepted as a universal right. How many people did the fellow travellers of the party opposite deny that human right to? So I am not going to take that from any Member opposite when it comes to rights.”
“I have stated my position and made it clear that I think that we have a strong human rights framework in Northern Ireland. We have two bodies, established in law, that are dedicated to the protection of human rights and equality. We are one of the most human rights- and fairness-compliant societies in the world. It is important.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. She and I served together for many years on Belfast City Council, where people from different and disparate backgrounds had to work together because nobody had a majority. That was just the nature of the place. She talked about respect and disrespect.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,239 lines we hold for Christopher Stalford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 25.
“Sunday is, obviously, Mother's Day. On behalf of Trinity, Oliver, Cameron and Abigail Stalford, I wish to ask whether they will be allowed to go to the local florist to buy their mother a bunch of flowers on a click-and-collect basis?”
“From the Minister's previous answers, it is apparent that, in television advertising, we are going to see a lot more asterisks with, "Offer not available in Northern Ireland". Does my honourable friend agree that that should be changed to, "Offer not available in Northern Ireland, thanks to Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Greens"?”
“Does my Rt Hon friend agree that those who devised the scheme should be reasonably expected to finance it and the continued foot-dragging of the Secretary of State on the issue does a gross disservice to many victims?”
“Article 2 of the protocol reflects the commitment made to uphold the Belfast Agreement. Given that the agreement's principle of consent is being turned on its head, is the First Minister aware of any indication that the Human Rights Commission or the Equality Commission is considering the impact upon the human rights of members of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland?”
“— and indeed, as was said, to have satisfactory jobs and contribute to the economy. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to support the motion. I commend the Clerk of the Committee for his work in pulling this report together.”
“I absolutely agree with that observation. The days of leaving school at 18, maybe going to university, starting a job and being in that job for ever are over for almost every occupation, short of the Civil Service. Therefore, it is important that we create an environment where our people are constantly arming themselves with new skills, are exposed to new areas of training to allow them to have full and productive working lives —”
“With regard to my earlier comment about the need for a cross-governmental approach, it is my hope that the Department of Finance will approve that, although I have to put on record my disappointment — I am sure that the Minister will speak to this — that, over the course of the past 12 months, the Minister has been armed with less than one third of what she asked for from the centre. If we are serious about investing in and trying to rebuild the economy, it is important that the necessary resources be provided to the Department. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was right to labour the third theme in the report: the response to COVID-19. I will read a key point from the report:”
“We need to build and expand on that and approach new areas. One important issue is the need to improve the careers advice given to young people in schools, as the school that someone goes to almost determines the careers advice that they are given. That is wrong. For kids at grammar schools, there is an automatic assumption that they will pursue some sort of academic route. Actually, a culture has now been created where almost everyone is encouraged to pursue an academic route, the consequence of which is that we now have a massive deficit in trades and vocational occupations. That skills gap will need to be filled as we develop the economy. <BR /> <BR />The Chairperson referred to the economic recovery action plan, and it is my understanding that the Department for the Economy has bid for £290 million to finance the plan.”
“However, what we are facing is the very real possibility of up to 100,000 job losses as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee, rightly, highlighted the response to COVID-19 and the economic recovery that, we hope, will follow as an area of work in the report. There is no getting around the fact that serious economic damage has been sustained by the Northern Ireland economy because of the strictures that we have all had to live under in order to beat COVID. It will require flexibility, imagination and innovation as we come out the other side of that in order to rebuild the economy. <BR /> <BR />I will share with the House just one figure that, I think, should give us a glimmer of hope. Even during the crisis, more than 1,000 new jobs have been created in tech. Northern Ireland is a leader in that area.”
“I want to associate myself with almost everything that the Committee Chairperson said. The report is a good piece of work. It highlights some of the serious issues that we will have to tackle. I welcome the fact that the motion recognises that the solutions to those problems cannot come from one Department alone but that what is required to get to grip with the economic situation that confronts us is a cross-governmental approach, embracing not only the Department for the Economy but Finance, Education and almost every facet of government and the Administration here. <BR /> <BR />At the start of the COVID crisis, we were told that we were facing the very real possibility of 15,000 deaths in Northern Ireland. Mercifully, that figure has not been realised.”
“It reflects the fact that the unionist community in Northern Ireland will never, ever, consent to living under the protocol.”
“It means that it is more difficult to start businesses, to trade and to engage in economic activity that would benefit the community. Members opposite arguing that it is a good thing for Northern Ireland does not at all stand up to scrutiny, and people can see that. <BR /> <BR />The Member who spoke before me mentioned the need for cool heads. Can I suggest that he visit Iveagh House and suggest "cool heads" to the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic? Mr Coveney's contributions in the media over the last week do not demonstrate a cool-headed approach: quite the contrary. Some could say that he is deliberately inflaming the situation. <BR /> <BR />I finish by congratulating my Executive colleague Gordon Lyons on the action that he has taken.”
“<BR /> <BR />The only conclusion that people will come to is that the pro-protocol parties have a higher fealty and allegiance to the European Union than to serving the interests of their constituents. The idea of the European Union is more important to the parties that argue in favour of the protocol than making life better for their constituents. Having spent four years demanding the provisions and their rigorous implementation, some, at least, had the political nous to try to back-pedal from some of it by saying, "Oh, these are just teething problems". That was the argument that was used. When issues like this are raised, it is apparent that rigorous implementation is the position of the pro-protocol parties. <BR /> <BR />What does that mean?”
“It is important to start from first principles: we do not consent, have not consented and never will consent to the provisions in the withdrawal agreement. Extending grace periods is, insofar as it goes, perhaps positive, but it is not enough. The protocol should be abolished and consigned to the wastepaper bin where it belongs. Frankly, I find it bizarre that elected Members of the House are demanding that their constituents be punished and that provisions that make it harder to establish businesses and to trade should be — what was the phrase? — "rigorously implemented". It is for the parties that argued in favour of the protocol to justify that to their constituents and justify why they are in favour of barriers to the biggest market that we have: the UK domestic market.”
“<BR /> <BR />He was blessed in life to have a loving family: fours sons, his wife, Lynda, and his grandchildren, who would have been such a comfort during the final days of his life. I wish to place on record my deepest sympathy to his family at this very sad time.”
“I rise to pay tribute to a life of public service. Mr Jimmy Spratt faithfully served his constituents as a Member of the Assembly, but he also served in the police during some of the darkest days of the Troubles. I recall Jimmy telling me some of the stories of a dark time for this country before I was born. He served to protect the community in those dark days during that very difficult time. <BR /> <BR />Jimmy was a firm unionist, and there was no disguising that. He joined the Young Unionists in Moneyreagh as a young man but went on to serve as a Democratic Unionist councillor, the Mayor of Castlereagh, an Assembly Member and as the Chair of the Regional Development Committee, as has been said.”
“In the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, we read:”
“On a point of order, sir. Can you confirm that no unionist Member voted for that motion?”
“I am grateful to my friend for giving way. It is important that we have accuracy in the debate. It was inaccurate for another Member to claim that the European Union did not invoke article 16. That is precisely what it did. Then, when there was blowback from its despicable behaviour, it performed a reverse ferret and changed its position. However, it did invoke article 16, and that sword of Damocles still hangs over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland.”
“It is for Members to justify that and how it squares with their previously stated positions. Anyone looking at this in a reasonable or fair way would conclude that it does not have the consent of the unionist people of Northern Ireland, nor shall it ever. Motions like this can pass in the House presently. I hope that in a few years' time we have a sufficient number of unionist Members elected to the House in order to banish the protocol and free our people from living under it any further.”
“Let me tell you who it is not agreed by: it is not agreed by the unionist people of Northern Ireland. The concept of parallel consent that has governed, or supposedly governed, this place since the fall of the old Stormont Parliament — reference was made to Captain O'Neill — means that the two major communities can move forward only in parallel together. The protocol drives a coach and horses through the concept of parallel consent. <BR /> <BR />It was very telling to me that the motion that demanded the "rigorous implementation" of the protocol was passed by the House without a single unionist member voting for it. It speaks volumes to me that the second that people who for many, many years insisted that parallel consent was an inviolable principle of how this place was to be governed had a majority, out went parallel consent.”
“People talk about removing barriers to trade, but those are the barriers to trade that some of the parties opposite openly campaigned to have put in place. They own them; they made them; they demanded them. The motion refers to the protocol being:”
“I liked the concept of free trade with the rest of the world. That is why I supported leaving the European Union, which is an ever-diminishing bloc in the world economy. When we joined, western Europe accounted for something like 35% of the world economy. Today that figure is less than 20%. It is a diminishing market, and the allegiance that some wish to show to a diminishing market is for them to justify. I supported the United Kingdom getting out into the rest of the world. To be fair, the motion refers to "China", India, "the United States of America" and other markets for us. I absolutely want to associate myself with that element of the motion, but, unfortunately, it is worded in such a way that means that we will not vote for it or the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The protocol is damaging and dangerous to business.”
“Just give me two seconds. <BR /> <BR />I find that incredible. I also must disagree with the contention that the situation that we now face is the consequence of Brexit. No; it is not. It is the consequence of Brexit denied to this part of the United Kingdom. The parties opposite, who scurried in and out of Barnier's office in Brussels demanding these provisions, made this. <BR /> <BR />Let us also be clear that a none too subtle threat of violence was used to achieve these provisions. That is indisputable given that we had performing street-theatre troupes at the border, people dressed up as soldiers, and the Irish Prime Minister showing pictures of a bombed border post. A none too subtle threat of violence was used to deliver these provisions.”
“I commend the Member for North Antrim and my former boss, Mr Jim Allister, and Baroness Hoey for the action that they are taking to test the law in this area, because it is important. <BR /> <BR />Throughout this process and when we debate motions like this, it is clear that ideological rather than economic considerations are to the fore. I think that some Members opposite are suffering a form of political Stockholm syndrome. The people who are determined to inflict higher costs on consumers and make it more difficult to run a business are the people whom the Members opposite will rise to their feet to speak in defence of.”
“As the previous Member who spoke indicated, this is a somewhat circular debate. I am at a loss to understand what the party opposite hopes to achieve by bringing non-enforceable motions like this before the House week in, week out, but that is its prerogative of course. <BR /> <BR />Some comments that have been made in the debate merit response. The previous Member who spoke talked about the right of people to test the law on these issues. I seem to recall members of the Alliance Party, on several occasions, scurrying in and out of the High Court in Belfast testing the law on Brexit. Indeed, I think that a legal case was even taken to prevent article 50 from being invoked. If unionists choose to test the law in court, that is their absolute right.”
“Does the Member agree that it demonstrates that some Members seemingly have a higher allegiance to the European Union than to their constituents and are prepared to inflict this suffering on them?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the EU demonstrated its commitment to the free movement of medical supplies when it invoked article 16 to try to strangle off ours?”
“It is a well-known expression that advisers advise whilst Ministers decide, but, when those advisers choose to take on a very public-facing role, it is legitimate to question the advice that is being given. In that vein, why is Professor Whitty wrong about school opening but Dr McBride right?”
“The triggering of article 16 by the European side was, I am sure that the deputy First Minister would agree, a hateful, spiteful act by an incompetent, bungling European bureaucracy to disguise the fact that it had singularly failed to deliver a proper vaccine roll-out for the people of continental Europe. Given that article 16 has now been triggered, does she agree with me that, in future, UK Governments should not be reticent about using it to defend our interests in the way that the European side did theirs?”
“I am grateful to my friend for giving way, not least as it gives him an extra minute. The Member will agree, I am sure, that a recalibration of the economy is under way. Does he agree that, as we roll out the vaccine and more people get the protection that they need, a recalibration of the way in which the Government have functioned over the past 12 months, with one Department dominating all others, is also needed?”
“I will. That is why schools should not remain closed for ever. As quickly as we can get schools and institutions of learning open, the better for everyone.”
“It was designed to punish the people of Northern Ireland as they tried to purchase goods or operate a business. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, I recall that, in a previous debate, my colleague Mr O'Toole thanked the EU for giving us the protocol. Thank you for making it harder for my constituents to purchase goods. Thank you for making it more expensive to run a business. Thank you for your benign attitude towards us. The vaccine debacle demonstrated to all of us just how benign and decent the view of the European Union is towards Northern Ireland. We are nothing more than a plaything for it to use to get back at the rest of the United Kingdom for voting to leave. The proposer of the motion said that the solution must begin in schools. I agree.”
“That is the point. These debts will have to be paid back. It is not real money; it is borrowed money. We need to be cognisant of that. <BR /> <BR />As for the benefits of the protocol mentioned in the motion, they are as illusory as the concept of European Union flexibility. There are no benefits to the protocol. It adds costs to customers and businesses and makes it harder to operate a business in this part of the world. Among those who argued for it, I noticed that the tone has now changed. Gone is the "rigorous implementation of the protocol", as the consequence of what they campaigned for has become increasingly obvious to businesses and consumers. "Rigorous implementation" has been changed to "teething problems". They are not teething problems. It is what the protocol was designed to do.”
“The economy is everything because it pays for all of the public sector; it pays for all of the services that we want to provide for our constituents. It is only through having a strong and thriving economy that we can pay for roads, hospitals and schools. Therefore, we must be cognisant of that fact. Yes, of course, health is important, but the economy is equally important.”
“I gave way, but I will not take the entire minute. I am not suggesting that for a second but I am pointing out that Northern Ireland is one of the most locked-down places in the world with regard to controlling access to education, closing off huge swathes of our economy and all the resultant trouble that will come from that. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we do everything in our power to get the economy opened up as quickly as possible within the public health constraints. I have noticed that, when that is hinted at or suggested, certain parties run to the TV studios to rubbish the suggestion. The same ones demanding almost eternal lockdown will be the ones tabling motions like this and singling out the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance. People see that as quite cynical behaviour; they see straight through it.”
“I am happy to, if I get an extra minute. Do I get an extra minute if I give way, Mr Deputy Speaker?”
“You cannot lambast the Education Minister every time that he is in the Chamber for daring to suggest the reopening of schools. You cannot appear in the media and in the press opposing even a hint of the slightest easement of lockdown and then bring such motions such to the Assembly.”
“We will not be supporting the motion, but we will support the amendment. Everyone recognises the serious impact that lockdown measures have had, not only at an economic level but at a societal level. As I said earlier in my intervention to the Chair of the Economy Committee, the pandemic is costing the Northern Ireland economy £100 million a week. We have seen projections that show that up to 100,000 jobs are likely to be lost in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />In that context, it is well and good to table motions demanding recovery plans and greater action from one or two Ministers, but you cannot at the same time, day in and day out, week in and week out, appear in the media to demand that lockdown continue. You cannot have it both ways.”
“I will be very brief. In the previous debate on the economy, the lady from Foyle thought it very funny for me to point out the massive debt that the Government are running up. The Minister has revealed that every week of lockdown is costing the Northern Ireland economy £100 million. Would the Member like to talk to that?”
“Thank you, and, speaking as someone who has been in hospital three times in the last year, I absolutely associate myself with your comments on the National Health Service. <BR /> <BR />I urge the Minister to be bold in pushing for the fullest possible opening-up of our economy. It is utterly soul-destroying for people who are trying to run businesses that, every time there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, up pops some public figures demanding that we build more tunnel.”
“Does my friend agree that it is bizarre to be in a situation in which political parties in the House will defend arrangements that will impose additional costs on families and firms? Does she also agree that what we are dealing with here is a group of Belfast masochists defending Brussels sadists?”
“I am absolutely happy to support the measures. They are helping businesses to function better. They are also helping credit unions and mutual societies, which means that they are helping some of the most vulnerable. Therefore, I give my support to the Minister and to the approach that she has taken.”
“We need to get our economy up and running again, because, ultimately, everything that we want to do, whether that is investment in health or public services, the provision of new roads or building schools — all the things that people go into politics for and want to do — can be delivered and paid for only if we have a sustained economic recovery in the period ahead. I know that the Minister is cognisant of that fact. <BR /> <BR />I also know that, in the most recent round of budgetary allocations, the Minister got less than a third of what she had asked for from the centre. It is important to put that on the record. There is no point in Members saying that the Economy Minister needs to be doing x, y and z when she has received from the centre a third of what she had asked for. We need to be cognisant of that.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Minister said, the measures that she is announcing correspond with the approach taken by the Government at Westminster, and that is appropriate and right. I noted that she said that this would be the final time that this could be done by statutory rule. We need to take cognisance of that and, perhaps, plan for the future. However, all of our focus, particularly of those of us who are privileged to serve on the Economy Committee, now needs to be on opening up as much of our economy as possible. I absolutely accept that that has to be done within the context of safety.”
“However, it is reflective, as I said, of the challenges that we face, and it is right and appropriate that we use the legislative frameworks at our disposal to assist businesses, mutual societies and credit unions. <BR /> <BR />I declare an interest: I am a member of a credit union. I suspect that an awful lot of people are members. The credit union movement is an excellent one. It does really important work, particularly in helping those who would otherwise not get access to credit. Therefore, it is only right and proper that we do anything that we can to assist mutual societies and credit unions to function during these difficult times. I place on record my support for the credit union movement and the excellent work that it is doing.”
“It is not my intention to detain the House long, because there is unanimity in the Committee in supporting the measures. <BR /> <BR />The measures that the Minister outlined are reflective of the situation that we are in. I do not think that, in March, anyone foresaw circumstances where we would still be in the position that vast swathes of the economy were locked down, businesses were not able to function fully and we faced all the challenges that the coronavirus pandemic has brought. No Minister, least of all an Economy Minister, wants to come to the House with measures such as these. In ordinary circumstances, that would simply not be the case.”
“May I encourage the First Minister to urge the Prime Minister to perhaps try putting the Unionist back in Conservative and Unionist Party?”
“Now that the cat is out of the bag and article 16 has been invoked by the European side, I remind my Rt Hon friend of the Prime Minister's comment that:”
“Given the vast scale of the public debts that are being run up, it is essential that we have a strong economy coming out of the COVID restrictions. Will the First Minister outline for the House whether building a strong economy will be the central feature of the Programme for Government? <BR /> <BR />Before I sit down, I congratulate Mr Middleton on his recent appointment.”