Jim Allister
North Antrim · Traditional Unionist Voice · Northern Ireland
“<BR /> <BR />Last week, a 'News Letter' editorial rightly drew attention to the fact that there is a chorus of demand that it is up to the British Government to pay for that, but no pressure whatsoever on the GAA — the primary beneficiary — which still persists that its contribution will be a miserly £15 million.”
“Public money, we are constantly told, is in short supply and scarce. I am sure that it is, and will continue to be so. Yet, while many in the House pay lip service to the need to prioritise health, there seems to be a majority here who would prioritise public spending on a sporting facility, namely Casement Park.”
“That editorial stated that the DUP "should make clear" its view on the Casement Park costs. Yet, yesterday, we had the launch of the DUP manifesto and not a mention of Casement Park. We have a Minister — Minister Lyons — who has ruled out clawback for non-GAA use of that stadium.”
“Therefore, the Minister comes to the House with a proposal that, effectively, has been written in Brussels, because it tells us how much we can give to our fishing industry in Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister told us that this is a scheme under the Fisheries Act, which it is, whereby all the devolved regions and England and Wales can make their own provision.”
“Rather than removing the green lane, the introduction of the new customs border arrangements will further advance the development of the green lane, thereby helping to make the Irish Sea border and our alienation from the rest of the UK more firmly established.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,749 lines we hold for Jim Allister, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 95.
“— it should be provided in the same proportion as was provided for rugby and football and nothing more.”
“I say to the House that, at a time when we all profess a belief in the need to fund education and health, we really need to get a grip of that runaway project and realise that, if it is to be provided —”
“That editorial stated that the DUP "should make clear" its view on the Casement Park costs. Yet, yesterday, we had the launch of the DUP manifesto and not a mention of Casement Park. We have a Minister — Minister Lyons — who has ruled out clawback for non-GAA use of that stadium.”
“<BR /> <BR />Last week, a 'News Letter' editorial rightly drew attention to the fact that there is a chorus of demand that it is up to the British Government to pay for that, but no pressure whatsoever on the GAA — the primary beneficiary — which still persists that its contribution will be a miserly £15 million. It was £15 million when the whole project was meant to cost £70-something million, and it is still £15 million when it is likely to cost over £300 million. As that editorial pointed out, that is an untenable position. If the GAA wants the stadium, it has to put its hand into its own deep pockets. It is the richest sporting organisation in Northern Ireland, yet it thinks that it should sponge off the British taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.”
“Public money, we are constantly told, is in short supply and scarce. I am sure that it is, and will continue to be so. Yet, while many in the House pay lip service to the need to prioritise health, there seems to be a majority here who would prioritise public spending on a sporting facility, namely Casement Park. That is a project that might well swallow up more than £300 million of public money, yet it is blindly endorsed by that majority, which comprises Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. Of course, that is done with repetition of the habitual demand that the British Government should foot the bill.”
“It is not that the EU gives the money, but it controls how much the British Exchequer can give and how much its colonial slave — the Minister — can give to the industry. That is a fundamental affront, against which I am surprised — maybe I am not — to be the only Member of the House to protest.”
“Therefore, the Minister comes to the House with a proposal that, effectively, has been written in Brussels, because it tells us how much we can give to our fishing industry in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />That is but an illustration of how appalling the continuing control and jurisdiction of a foreign Parliament and Commission is over an industry in Northern Ireland that, having already been crucified by the common fisheries policy for 40 years by the EU, is now but a small shadow of itself and still has to continue being dominated and controlled by EU limits on the aid that can be given to the sector. It is an appalling vista and situation. <BR /> <BR />It is little wonder that our fishing industry will not be allowed to flourish and grow back to what it was, since the EU still controls the purse strings.”
“It is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the explanatory document. There, in black and white, is the elephant that no one wanted to mention: all that the Minister is allowed to provide under the scheme is £16·9 million over five years. For this year, the first of five, he has provided 20% of that. It also says that the maximum that he can provide in any year is £4·01 million. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental issue is that this is a Minister who can only do Brussels' bidding and is not allowed to put our fishing industry into a position from which they can better compete with the EU, because the EU dictates how much grant aid he can give. It does so on the basis that we should not be allowed to compete with it from an advantageous position.”
“The Minister told us that this is a scheme under the Fisheries Act, which it is, whereby all the devolved regions and England and Wales can make their own provision. What he did not tell the House and what the Committee does not even seem to have examined is the overriding fundamental constitutional issue that, under the protocol, the scheme is capped. The EU, our colonial masters for whom the Minister is but a slave in these circumstances, dictates how much can be granted in aid to our fishermen. Article 10 of the protocol subjects us to state aid rules. They apply only to Northern Ireland, and therefore England, Wales and Scotland do not have their hands tied behind their back in this regard. State aid rules have specified the maximum that the Minister can grant under the scheme to the fishing industry.”
“Those are not my words; those are the words of someone involved in the haulage industry right at the interface. That is strangling our economy —”
“Rather than removing the green lane, the introduction of the new customs border arrangements will further advance the development of the green lane, thereby helping to make the Irish Sea border and our alienation from the rest of the UK more firmly established. <BR /> <BR />It is nothing short of mind-boggling that the leader of the DUP should have sought to argue that that event in the autumn would validate the removal of the green lane when, in reality, it will result in the introduction of the next stage of the green lane. The application of the green lane customs border in addition to the green lane SPS border that is already in place and the red lane — all of which stay — is making the Irish Sea border the subject of the most complicated customs and SPS registration anywhere in the world.”
“Then, on 8 April, he admitted overselling it, and, over the past weekend, he denied overselling it. The Donaldson deal embraced access to the EU single market; yet, last week, in the House, we had Deborah Erskine repudiate it and tell us that it undermines the integrity of the UK's internal market. Where does the DUP stand? That is the question that I find being asked increasingly by many people. <BR /> <BR />The DUP then told us that, come the autumn, the delivery would be clear. On 1 October, the green lane customs border will come into force for the first time. As was the case with the green lane sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) border introduced by the Windsor framework on 1 October 2023, the green lane customs border will help to entrench the EU/Irish Sea border this year.”
“In just 100 days, on 1 October, we will see not a loosening, as some have claimed, but a tightening of the EU border noose when the green lane customs border comes into effect. On 1 February, Gavin Robinson said that the green lane was gone and defended the principle behind the red lane. He said that the Government had provided constitutional harm that his party had repaired. However, when asked by the BBC about whether the Irish sea border had been removed, Mr Robinson said:”
“How can it but interfere with one's constitutional integrity if you move from a situation of being governed by laws made in your own country — you elect representatives to make those laws — to a situation where you subject yourself to foreign laws over which you have no control? How could that not be a huge constitutional and democratic deficit?”
“The Minister will recall that one of the boasts of the 'Safeguarding the Union' Command Paper — the DUP's deal — was that legislative action would be taken on the duty to cooperate North/South. Has the Minister seen any sign of that?”
“The volte-face of Gavin Robinson is welcome. It is a pity that he was one of those who told us the lies that the Irish Sea border was gone and therefore lost the trust, as his party did, of those who are of a unionist persuasion.”
“Instead, we have put up a partitioning border in the Irish Sea, and we are now spending £192 million building border posts to enforce that which is wholly unnecessary when it comes to securing trade between and within two independent sovereign entities, such as the EU is and such as the United Kingdom should be. <BR /> <BR />The motion is laced with its political ambition of dismantling the Union, and the protocol is the greatest aid to that imaginable. That is why it is couched in the terms that it is. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the DUP has found reverse gear from 'Safeguarding the Union', when it was embracing the idea of dual market access. The DUP now tells us that it wants rid of EU law. Good, because you cannot have dual market access and you cannot be in the EU single market if you are subject to EU law.”
“Sir Jonathan Faull, Professor Weiler and Professor Sarmento all suggested that the answer to the Irish border problem was mutual recognition, and so it was. However, the Irish Government, in their political pursuit of unifying the island of Ireland through the protocol, rejected what is the basis of international trade elsewhere: if you want to make goods that are destined for a foreign market, you make them to the standards of that foreign market and vice versa, and you mutually enforce each other's laws. That is the fundamental element of international trade. We do not need a protocol. We do not need that which is encumbering our economy. What we needed was what exists elsewhere: mutual enforcement of each other's laws on goods.”
“The truth is that it is our services industry that has expanded, not our manufacturing industry. The irony is that services are not covered by the protocol; they remain within a United Kingdom context. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Being in the EU single market is not benefiting the economy of Northern Ireland; instead, it is fettering our relationship with our biggest partner, hence the fundamental assault on our economic prosperity that access to the dual market brings. <BR /> <BR />It all comes back to the fundamental question: is it right — can it be proper — that a people be governed by laws that they do not make and cannot change? My answer is that that can never be right. <BR /> <BR />It did not have to be like this. There was an obvious answer, which actually emanated from some of those who worked for the EU.”
“My mission to educate the Member will never cease. I remind him again that the United Kingdom voted to leave. It was a single vote for a single nation. Sadly, we in Northern Ireland did not get Brexit; we got left behind. That is the source of the problem. <BR /> <BR />The Europhiles of the House are very keen to talk about their democratic credentials when it suits them, but, on this subject, we get stony silence. They do not want to defend the right of their electorate to pass the laws that govern them. That is the Achilles heel of the entire concept of the EU single market. <BR /> <BR />As for the panacea of dual access, where is it? Mr Kennedy, the US envoy, told us about the wonderful avalanche of companies that were just waiting to come. Where are they?”
“I will vote against the motion, fundamentally because it embraces the most anti-democratic concept available in a democracy: a people of part of the United Kingdom should be disenfranchised from controlling and legislating for the laws that govern much of their economy. I have already made this point, but I make it again: to be a member of the EU single market, which sadly we are, you have to subjugate your own sovereignty to that of the EU. In the case of Northern Ireland, that means that to enjoy the misnomered benefits of the single market, we have to subject ourselves to 300 areas of law that we do not make and cannot change: EU laws — foreign laws. The motion embraces that anti-democratic concept of disenfranchising the people of this part of the United Kingdom by making them colonial slaves to a foreign jurisdiction.”
“The Member is the leader of the Opposition for a party called the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Is that which he is embracing — the concept of 300 areas of law that should rest in this House being surrendered to a foreign Parliament over which we have no control — not the very antithesis of democracy? I never really thought of the Member as a colonialist, but it turns out that that is exactly what he is: a willing slave to colonial rule by the EU.”
“With the West Midlands investigation stalled by the proclaimed illness of the ombudsman, surely it is untenable for the office to continue rudderless, with no ombudsman and no chief executive. Does the ombudsman not need to step aside?”
“You have no powers over the Irish Sea border.”
“Minister, given that your powers and controls over the Irish Sea border have been removed from you, how are you accountable to the House for the functions exercised by your Department, over which, apparently, you have been denied access and control? What sort of democratic accountability is that?”
“Will the Minister explain to those small farmers why he and his Department are against them? The inevitable consequence of that step is to financially drive those small farms out of business. Why does he want that?”
“It is that, rather than the aggressive promotion of an all-Ireland through organisations such as Ireland's Future, which presents a far more dangerous and insidious threat to the Union, as well as the assault on basic democratic principles, whereby there is a disenfranchising of the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Although we are electing a sovereign Parliament, we elect one whose writ does not run on these areas in this part of the United Kingdom, because sovereignty in them has been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. That is something that many unionists are alert to, increasingly so.”
“That dynamo is fired by the fact that over 300 areas of law, many of which should rest with the House and touch on our agri-food industry, trade and much of our environment and economy, are now areas of law identical to the laws in the Irish Republic that are now provided by a foreign Parliament. That is the intended mechanism of the protocol: to build surreptitiously and on an ongoing basis an all-island economy, aided, of course, by the fact that, in the House, the Department for the Economy was surrendered to a Sinn Féin Minister.”
“Then, on Saturday, its front organisation, Ireland's Future, had the disappointment of seeing more empty seats than filled seats at its latest jamboree in Belfast. Some were unable to attend, it seems. Alliance leader, Mrs Naomi Long, had more importance business: she had to ride the ghost train in Portrush. Maybe, of course, it was really because she did not want to frighten unionist-minded voters in East Belfast. <BR /> <BR />Unionists in Northern Ireland know and understand what the aggressive agenda of Ireland's Future is about, but there is something far more insidious in building that same all-Ireland. That is the protocol, which is now the dynamo driving an all-Ireland creation economy.”
“Last week, the electors in the Irish Republic delivered a very timely rejection of Sinn Féin. The election cut that party down to size.”
“yet at the nation and Europe's most significant anniversary since she came to office, she was deliberately absent, choosing to prioritise her party interests and dogma. Is the truth of the First Minister's absence because she and her party are compromised by their association with Nazism in World War II, Sinn Féin having eulogised the IRA leader Seán Russell, who infamously collaborated with Hitler on his plans to invade Great Britain? Will the First Minister apologise to veterans and to democrats for her calculated insult on Thursday?”
“It is concerning to hear about under-reporting, considering 8,000 have been reported in the figures already. Will the Minister assure me that we will now see the sort of data that we see from England and Wales, which indicates the age of the mother and the medical cause? England and Wales publish whether it is related to Down's syndrome, spina bifida or something else. Will all of those things now appear? It is important that people know how many babies with spina bifida or Down's syndrome are being killed in the womb.”
“No business cases have been presented, but the Department must have some idea of the likely cost of those bodies. What is that estimate?”
“Is it another sign of the profligacy of North/South bodies that, in the case of SEUPB, no accounts after 2021 have even been certified, yet the Minister comes to the House today and announces an increase in staff to up to 86 or even 88? She has not told us how many extra staff that is. How many extra staff are being appointed for the body, whose accounts are not in order?”
“It is a constitutional outrage that we are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change, even down to that most mundane of levels.”
“Think of it: a foreign Parliament is deciding what flavourings can be applied by Northern Ireland manufacturers to something as common as potato crisps. How ridiculous is that? <BR /> <BR />It illustrates, however, the consequence of the surrender of sovereignty over Northern Ireland by the protocol to a foreign power. Of course, it goes much wider. Our trade and economic laws and how we manufacture, package and sell all our goods are governed by laws that we do not make and do not change, thanks to the pernicious protocol. <BR /> <BR />None of that has been altered or reversed by the dud Donaldson deal that, some told us, would remove EU law. Patently, it has not done so, and now we continue down the path of the ridiculous.”
“In recent days in most of Europe, we saw the election of a foreign Parliament. The relevance of that foreign Parliament to us in Northern Ireland is that it has control over 300 areas of law that affect Northern Ireland. Those are areas of law that should be decided by this House or by Westminster but are instead legislated for by that foreign Parliament, the European Parliament. Those areas of law, from the sublime to the ridiculous, touch all our lives. <BR /> <BR />Last week, we had an illustration of the ridiculousness of the pernicious tentacles of foreign law in our country, when it was decreed by those whom we do not elect that in Northern Ireland, from two years' hence, it will become illegal, according to that foreign law, to produce smoky bacon crisps.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of what Mr Clarke said, it is obvious that there is a table, which I do not have. He referenced £54,000. I have never heard of it. Can Members have that table shared with them so that we can see what Mr Clarke is talking about? It sounds to me as if there has been a lot of concealment to arrive at this carve-up.”
“How does it, in your words, reflect the increase in costs since it was last increased for either People Before Profit, the Ulster Unionist Party or the TUV, since we are continuing on precisely the same level that we had years ago? How is that reflecting the increase in costs?”
“<BR /> <BR />As for the rest of us, we are treated as nothing, because of the greed of the big parties, which take upon themselves the lion's share and look after themselves. That is what the carve-up was all about: the big parties in the House looking after themselves. Of course, they will railroad the motion through here this evening on a vote, because they care nothing about the reputation of the House when it comes to how it treats minorities. As long as the bank balances of Sinn Féin, the DUP and the Alliance Party are on the up, nothing else matters. That is a very sad commentary on this place indeed.”
“What does that say about the House's treatment of minorities? What does it say about my staff member, who is employed out of the FAPP scheme, as opposed to staff members who are employed by other parties? Is my staff member less valued? It certainly seems so. My party and People Before Profit are told, "You are capped at what you had" — I cannot remember, but I think that it is the same figure as back in 2016, which was £27,000 a year — "but the large parties get an extra £100,000, £90,000 and £45,000". <BR /> <BR />What about the poor old Opposition? They cut them to the bone as much as they can, because they expect an Opposition to run in this House and face a Government with — what is it? — 14 special advisers and a Civil Service at their back with an extra £100,000. At least the Opposition got something extra, however.”
“Here we have a situation in which independent officials came to the Assembly Commission with, as I understand it, a proposition that was deemed to be equitable that would have seen all parties, big and small, receive an increase — considering that there had been no increase for many years — but the big parties on the Assembly Commission decided no. Instead, they would hoover up all the increase and award to themselves £100,000 extra in the case of Sinn Féin, £90,000 extra in the case of the DUP and £45,000 extra in the case of the Alliance Party, while the rest of the parties could suck it up and live on what they had lived on for the past seven or eight years.”
“It has often been said that a Parliament can be judged by how it treats its minorities. If that is the test that we apply to this, it falls woefully short.”
“Will the Member clarify whether there was a proposition from officials of the Assembly Commission for a different outcome? If so, was that proposition overridden by the politicians on the Assembly Commission, with the consequence that the large parties in the House get a whopping increase and those of us in small parties get no increase? Was that the result of a political decision that ran contrary to an official’s recommendation?”
“It seems to me that, so often in this society, the cry for equality and freedom from this quarter is only for LGBT+ interests, but not for Christians or freedom of religion. It is that which is under threat. I return to the point that the motion does not define what it means by "conversion practices", but does, in its innards, with regard to the report that it quotes, make it clear where it wants to go.”
“Of course, extreme issues, such as electric shock, which is already an offence, and all that, are totally wrong, but to try, under the radar, to embrace issues of religious teaching, which is what the motion is doing, is wholly wrong. <BR /> <BR />I am tempted to say that maybe the real word of offence is "conversion". Conversion is not a wrong or a bad concept. None of us, by nature, likes to admit our failings, or even our sins, but it is the reality of those that, for some, make conversion relevant and necessary. To deny Christian Churches the right to pursue their work, to pray with those who seek it and to read and expound their scriptures with them — those are things that cannot be outlawed if we believe at all in religious freedom; rather, they are things to be protected.”
“One of my issues with the motion is its lack of definition. Some Members have been anxious to say that it does not apply to faith issues or anything else, but that is not what the motion says. In fact, the motion is centred around an LGBT-promoted report, which itself gives a clear insight into what it is directed at, because that report is a conglomerate of pretty confused stories from 10 individuals, one of whom complained that they experienced prayer, Bible studies and teaching. That is offered in the report as an example of conversion practices. If that is what conversion practices are, and that is what the motion seeks to outlaw, the motion is wholly wrong-headed and inappropriate.”
“Let us be clear about this: is the Member saying that if an individual of whatever background asks for prayer and counselling in a religious setting, that should be banned?”
“Will the Minister tell us the costs that were identified in the business case that her Department approved? The Minister mentioned the monitoring rounds. Are we now in the situation where Health, which says that it is £200 million or £300 million short, is going to have to compete in the monitoring rounds with pet projects like the Irish language commissioner?”
“I feel demeaned because of what was said. I'm offended, so it must be a crime", it will be absolute folly, yet that is where this talk and new legislation could lead us. I suspect that, for some, one of the targets in all of this may be street preachers. Some people may be offended by what they say. They may want to embrace that in hate legislation, but that is not the way in which to deal with it. Any idea of departing into the morass of free-standing hate legislation that does not improve the actuality of the law seems to be legislating just for legislating's sake and for other motives.”