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 12 of 95.
“Did the Human Rights Commission also tell you about the cases that say that blanket bans are extremely dubious legally? That is exactly what the Committee is endorsing here.”
“We just finished debating the Defamation Bill. I sat on that Committee, and we heard from several individuals. It is not alien to hear from individuals, but you had 6,000 people expressing a view, and you did not want to hear from one of them.”
“It drives a coach and horses through basic, elementary, lawful expectations as to freedom of expression. It outlaws that, elevates to an unbelievable point the rights of abortion clinics to self-certify the zones and removes the very Department from any oversight of that. It is quite appalling and unnecessary legislation, because, as I said to the House, there are multiple limbs of legislation that cover unruly, inappropriate behaviour outside or in any public place. That is not enough for the Bill sponsor and her Bill. The Bill's supporters want exclusivity, to have only their view capable of expression and to expunge the right to even silent protest. I will not and cannot endorse that. I will therefore oppose the Bill today.”
“You tell us that the views expressed in written submissions were taken into account and that all but 13 of the 6,459 were against the Bill, yet here we are, still with a Bill that the Chairman and others are about to make worse by supporting the amendments. Who does the Chairman think that he is kidding when he says that those views were taken into account? There were over 6,000 objections to the Bill. There is no evidence in the report that they were taken into account other than by being counted. They did not count when it came to the argument. The Committee was consciously and deliberately deaf to views other than those that fitted the Bill. That is exactly how we got here. <BR /> <BR />In my respectful submission, the Bill is unworthy of any support in the House.”
“Was there not a group of laymen and ministers who asked to be heard and were politely — if it was politely — told, "Go away. We do not want to hear from you"?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member referred to taking evidence. I had a look at the report. I was struck by how diffident the Committee was in hearing anything but one side of the story. Of 6,459 written submissions, only 13 supported the Bill. There was a slate of witnesses but a refusal to hear from those who were opposed. The Committee did not cover itself in glory in dealing with the matter; it covered itself in bias, by virtue of the fact that there were people from whom it would not hear. No doubt, that same bias will be here today.”
“What is wrong with that? Patently, it is not enough. Harassment is provided for in the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. You even get a restraining order under that Order. Disorderly behaviour is provided for in the 1987 Order; article 4 allows conditions on public assemblies, so, if you have a situation where there is a routine of regular protest, it can be regulated by that article. Instead, along comes this Bill with a Bill sponsor who says, "I want to amend my Bill to the point where anyone who sets foot within 150 metres of one of those abortion clinics will be criminalised if they dare to try to influence anyone". Some of those places may be public buildings that have other purposes, but the zone applies to the whole building. It is such unbelievable presumption on their part.”
“The Member might be so in favour of the destruction of the unborn that she thinks that no one should have the right to try to influence someone not to destroy the unborn, but I disagree. To destroy the unborn is one of the most fateful steps that any mother or anyone else can take. Surely we live in a society where legitimate influence should still be recognised and honoured instead of being expunged and criminalised, as the Bill will do. We are heading down a road that is quite shocking. <BR /> <BR />All of this has no regard to the existing law. Article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 makes it an offence to use:”
“What does the sponsor do? She comes along with an amendment to expunge clause 9. The very essence of any regard to freedom of expression that was in the Bill is now, by the sponsor, designed to be removed. What you are left with are no-go zones for the Department. They are zones of censorship, self-certified by the organisers, where it is a criminal offence to dare to breathe anything that might be interpreted as being influence, and you abandon the zones to the control of the abortion clinics. That is what the legislation is coming to, through the amendments. Any semblance —”
“If there was any saving grace in the Bill, it was the indication that, in the exercise of its functions, the Department must have regard to three things:”
“That is gone under these amendments. Amendment No 8 makes the Department the depository for a registry. It would keep a register of where these organisations, which, in some cases, are profit-making, self-certify and decree. It is beyond comprehension that any House would want to hand that control over the public streets to such profit-making organisations, because that is what is happening. This is public property, and they are going to self-certify who can and cannot go. In taking out clause 8, of course, you take out clause 8(3), the power to consult by the Department; clause 8(4), the power to vary the determination; and clause 8(5), the power to revoke. All that is to go under this. <BR /> <BR />There is also an amendment to take out clause 9.”
“I return now to the tyranny of self-certification. There is no oversight, appeal or proportionality; it is on the whim of the operator: "We want to extend it to 150 metres". New clause 5A would make it a case of, "That's all right then, you do it". There is no oversight or asking the Department; there is nothing whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />On the notification of zoning, clause 8(2), as the Bill stands, states:”
“If the child says, "I don't want you. I don't want you to come with me. I'm going to do this on my own. I'm getting an abortion. I don't care what you say", and the mother says, "I'm your mother. I love you. I care for you. I want to persuade you not to do this", and attempts to do so by trying to accompany her daughter, that mother becomes a criminal once she steps over the line into the zone, according to this law. That is how absurd the legislation would be. We are going to criminalise mothers who are showing motherly concern for their daughters, because they are not allowed within that zone to seek to influence the child. Is that what the House wants to do? That is beyond comprehension.”
“Her mother does not wish her to; she wants her to deal with this in other ways. She tries to give motherly advice but the young girl says, "No, I am going to do it". She heads down to the abortion clinic and the mother goes with her, pleading with her not to do it. Once the mother steps within this zone, she is the criminal, because she is trying to influence the minor not to proceed. She becomes the criminal: that is how absurd this is.”
“So you are going to create zones that are only allowed to contain one world view, which is the pro-abortion view, and within that, even though it is a public place, it is outside the public right to express a view that is contrary to the pro-abortion view within that zone. That is how audacious this is. If the Member is saying that this is about harassment, you do not need "influencing". You do not need to criminalise influence, because that is already covered in clause 6(2)(c). <BR /> <BR />The point here is that you have to look at the breadth of a law. The breadth of this law is that it can criminalise mere silent protest if it is thought capable of influencing someone. I gave an example of that in the Second Stage debate. Take the 14-year-old girl who gets pregnant and is determined to have an abortion.”
“The Member says that she supports the right to protest, yet I guarantee that, today, she will vote to expunge all right to protest. There is not much point in her coming to the House and saying that she supports the right to protest when she is going to vote to take out clause 9.”
“It really is unbelievably audacious that this Bill would bestow upon the operators the self-certification rights to create and to extend these zones, within which to silently protest is a crime and within which to silently stand, as I have said, with a copy of the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", is a crime.”
“etc, they can even extend it up to 150 metres. So it is made in the first place, and then they can extend it on their own whim and self-certify it with no consent from or need for the Department. The only duty of the Department, in the proposed new clause 5A(4), is:”
“Then, along come amendment Nos 3 and 4. Amendment No 3 removes that role and obligation for the Department to ensure that it is reasonable to do so. It simply leaves a situation where a zone arises when it is self-certified by the operator. So they get to write their own laws — their own rules — and they do not have to go through any filter of any Department. The Department's sole role is to hold a register of these places. Under amendment Nos 3 and 4, we have this absurd position whereby a zone is established on self-certification. That is the import of amendment No 4:”
“It is obviously not harassment as defined in the law, so one would have expected to see, in the Bill, a definition of whatever harassment it is that the Bill refers to. That is just a side issue. <BR /> <BR />Where the Bill really oversteps the mark is in its audacious move to create self-certification of zones, at least under the existing clauses. Clauses 3(4) and 3(5) state:”
“That is how dastardly the extent of the Bill is. Of course, this does not exist anywhere else. Within the United Kingdom, the Home Office decided against it and Scotland decided against it, but here, we want to put those measures upon individuals and society in general. <BR /> <BR />I said that there is no definition of harassment, and I made this point at the Second Stage. I thought that the Bill sponsor might have at least taken that under her notice, because harassment is already defined in law. It is defined as causing alarm etc. Of course, alarm or distress is the legal definition of harassment, but this Bill, in its tautology, says "causing harassment, alarm or distress". What is the harassment here? It is obviously not alarm or distress.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the previous debate, we heard about freedom of expression from some of the very people who, I suspect, will vote for this Bill. They were lauding freedom of expression, but freedom of expression provides equally for saying the unpalatable as it does for saying the palatable. There is no sifting in freedom of expression that you must only say that which is palatable. Freedom of expression also entails saying the unpalatable, but, under clause 6, freedom of expression is totally expunged, and therein is something that is quite unpalatable in itself. <BR /> <BR />Even silent prayer is now a criminal offence. Someone could go to one of the facilities, stand within the zone and silently pray, indicating their position on these matters, and they could be capable of being criminalised.”
“The issue here is this: are you wholly persuaded that it is right, in 2022, to create a criminal offence out of silent protest seeking to influence someone? There is no point in glossing over that by saying, "Oh, but this is really to deal with harassment", which is not even defined in the Bill, or to deal with abuse or violence, all of which are covered in the current law. If it were really to do with that, clause 6(2)(a) would not be in the Bill, but clause 6(2)(a) makes it a criminal offence to seek to influence and creates these censorship zones at the behest of the operators. It is most incredible that any Bill would so lose sight of fundamentals that it would put that draconian measure upon us.”
“The very issue of seeking to influence someone is therefore now to be criminalised. That influencing might be an entirely silent presence. It could be an entirely silent protest. It could be someone simply holding up the words of the sixth commandment — "Thou shalt not kill" — in the context that abortion is killing. Someone who chose to stand quietly with those words, without saying a word or handing out anything, would be criminalised by this legislation. That is how draconian and outrageous it is in its reach. <BR /> <BR />Based on past performances, my words will, no doubt, fall on deaf ears, but I ask the House to stop and think about what it is doing. You might be wholly persuaded of the merits and desires of promoting abortion; that is not the issue.”
“I tabled my opposition to every clause, because this is a Bill that carries and contains no merit. When weighed against the current position of our law, it is unnecessary, it is overwhelmingly vindictive in its approach, and it quite consciously and deliberately expunges and oppresses any legitimate protest whatsoever. It is ironic that no choice to protest is permitted in the Bill. It creates these censorship zones, where even the attempt to influence is criminalised. <BR /> <BR />If I go to clause 6(2) of the Bill, we can see exactly how pervasive it is. Within a zone, it makes it an offence to:”
“On a point of order. Just before we vote, could you clarify a matter? Amendment No 15 anticipates clause 5 still being part of the Bill. Clause 5 was voted down, so in what shape is clause 18? Will it include a commencement for a clause that is not in the Bill?”
“If defamation is whether someone's reputation has been lowered in the eyes of the public or their peers, is there not a natural correlation in letting the public, as represented in the jury, decide what the alleged libel actually means? Is that not the correct correlation?”
“Is there any read-across from that answer to clause 8, which is on the single publication rule?”
“Recompense can, of course, embrace money. It can embrace apology and withdrawal, but, under the Member's Bill, unless you get to the threshold of serious harm, you get no apology and no redress. You get away scot-free with telling a lie if it does not cause serious harm.”
“For the reasons that I have given, clause 1 should be rejected.”
“If it were, the point about the costs in defamation cases would be dealt with, because all those cases would be at a manageable cost for most people. They would be scaled costs, as they are in the County Court. <BR />The fundamental and basic question for the House is this: will we endorse the principle that it is all right to reduce someone's reputation by the lies that you tell about them, provided that you do not go too far? That is the fundamental question, and I cannot sustain a positive answer to it. Therefore, I must and will oppose clause 1. Really, without clause 1, the Bill is not of great weight. Yes, the Bill, in clauses 2 and 3, modernises the terminology of the current defences of justification and fair comment, which is fair enough, and deals with some other matters, but the real burden of the Bill turns on clause 1.”
“The Member is right. In the debate, I have heard talk that we need to get the balance right: I am sorry, but there is no balance in favour of lies, none whatever. Clause 1 would introduce an amnesty for saying things about people that are false and defame them but do not sufficiently defame them. That is unconscionable, I suggest to the House. If something causes only minor damage —some libels and slanders cause only minor damage — that is reflected in the quantum of the damages, and that is the way that it should be. <BR /> <BR />In the Committee, we discussed the fact that a small case can, with little expense, be properly taken and disposed of in the County Court, where the jurisdiction is presently far too low. A defamation case worth more than £3,000 cannot be brought in the County Court; it should probably be 10 times that.”
“The real offence of clause 1 is that the House is being invited to legislate to the effect that you can tell lies — falsehoods — about other people and, provided it does not cross the threshold of serious harm, that is OK.”
“The recompense is in direct proportion to the quantum of the defaming — in other words, if the harm done is small, the damages will be small; if the harm done is great, the damages will be great. What the Bill would do by importing into clause 1 a fresh threshold is take away the present situation and substitute it with a situation where the plaintiff — the person who says that they have been defamed — has to do more than show that they have been merely defamed in the sense of harm caused to their reputation: they have to show that serious harm has been caused to their reputation. The House should remember that the onus to do that is on the citizen — the plaintiff. What that means in practice is that clause 1 gives an amnesty in instances of non-serious harm. If you tell a small lie rather than a big lie, that is OK; you get away with it.”
“I trust that, when we come to the next debate, the last words of Mr Muir and the exhortations of Mr O'Toole in support of freedom of speech will be at the forefront of their minds and that they will not vote to suppress freedom of expression. <BR /> <BR />I want to focus on clause 1 of the Bill because it is the nub of the issue. For decades and for generations, our defamation law, which is a very important protection for all citizens, be they from whatever level in society, has been based on the simple but effective premise that, if something is written or said about you that causes damage to your reputation in the eyes of your peers, you have been defamed and, if you have been defamed, you are entitled to recompense.”
“Is the Member aware that, under our present arrangements, either party can apply to the judge to have the trial by judge alone? That facility already exists, so, whereas the presumption is that you will have a jury, either party can, in fact, apply for the trial to be by judge alone.”
“Does the Member get the idea of an Opposition? The idea of having one is to oppose. If one looks at any system across the world where there is an Opposition, primacy in Question Time is given to the Opposition. Back-Benchers of the Government parties do not oppose; they ask convenient questions. Opposition Members ask pressing questions. The Member may not want that, but that is the reality of how opposition works.”
“That is a telling insight into the mentality that drives these diffident steps. <BR /> <BR />I repeat: they are small steps, and they are useful in that sense, but they do not address the core issue. As long as these institutions are built on that absurdity and on the sand of mandatory coalition, then they continue to live on borrowed time.”
“In Standing Order 45A(5), we find that you are only allowed to be in opposition if you take that step within two years of the election. What are people afraid of, that they are scared of parties in the latter stage of an Assembly daring to take on the mantle of opposition? What are those mandatory coalition parties afraid of, that they have to so hamstring the very existence of an Opposition, that it is only allowed if it is established within the first two years? There is a tell-tale sign of the fact that the mandatory coalition parties of this House are but paying lip service to the ethos and need for an Opposition. When they think that there could be any threat to their credibility running up to an election, then they gather together to say, "Ah, but you cannot form an Opposition in the latter half of an Assembly".”
“That, of course, does not sit comfortably with the fundamental purpose of having an Opposition. At last, however, there is going to be some provision of a diffident nature made in respect of that. <BR /> <BR />After all this time, those baby steps are welcome so far as they go, but they will never address the fundamental absurdity and denial of democracy that is mandatory coalition. Unless and until mandatory coalition is swept aside and the people of this Province are given the right to change their Government and vote a party out of government, then we are only tinkering around the edges. <BR /> <BR />Even when it comes to tinkering around the edges, however, I note in the proposed amendment to Standing Order 45A that continuing holding back.”
“It is a commentary in itself that, more than two decades after these institutions came into existence, we are making some rudimentary provisions in respect of opposition. Where in the world is there a credible Government and legislature that does not have an official Opposition? Stormont is the ringing answer to that question, and therein is the illustration of just how deficient this place is in terms of democratic accountability. <BR /> <BR />That is no surprise, of course, because the very system of mandatory coalition is so inherently absurd that it does not sit comfortably with opposition. Under mandatory coalition, the primary antithesis of democracy is on full display, namely that you cannot vote a party out of government and you cannot change your Government.”
“The report refers to high levels of cooperation and operational activity between all the various law enforcement agencies. Does that include the terrorism investigation unit? Does the IRA's cross-border criminality come within the ambit of the joint agency task force and, if so, with what result?”
“Minister, it is 26 days until 27 March. That is a very short period in which to attain 100% restoration. Is the Minister confident that that can be done, and, in that regard, are ancillary support services, such as having an adequate number of drivers to take people to day centres, in place? I have had cases in which families have been told that they can be offered only two or three days a week because drivers are not available. Has that problem been sorted?”
“The Alliance party and the other rigorous implementers of the protocol are obsessing about the modest cost of legal advice, which established that the checks were unlawful, in contrast with the figure that the Minister gave last month of £10 million for the cost of those checks, never mind the tens of millions of pounds of costs to business under the Trader Support Service (TSS). Does the Minister agree that that is a telling insight into where the interests of such questioners lie?”
“I take advantage of the self-congratulatory electioneering statement to ask about a group of my constituents in the Braid who were excluded from Project Stratum. Openreach had promised to make provision for them but has failed to do so. How can those residents be brought into the ambit of Project Stratum, or are they to be forgotten about?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some time ago, you wrote to us all to advise that, due to the pressure of business in the House as we approach the end of the mandate, you were encouraging Ministers to make only oral statements that were necessary and to make further use of written ministerial statements. Yesterday, we had a frankly self-congratulatory statement about the high street scheme. It is quite clear that an election is coming. Today, we have a statement from the Communities Minister that amounts to giving us a date, and we have two other statements. Do Ministers not heed the advice that you give them?”
“According to whose standards? Who decides that? By what measure is that made? Those are just meaningless words that mean whatever you want them to. I trust that amendment No 1, since apparently amendment No 2 is incompatible with it, is the one that will hold sway. It really needs the sustaining back-up of amendment No 17. I make it very clear to farmers across Northern Ireland that those who will tonight vote against amendment No 17 are those who are in the business of putting many of them out of business.”
“That is what we are seeing playing out before our very eyes in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I support amendment No 1. It is still a very difficult and ambitious target, and no one should be under any illusion about that. It will still impose a heavy price on agriculture, but, faced with the uninhibited destruction of our agriculture sector, amendment No 1 is better than paying that price. Anyone who is making the best choices will choose to support amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />I marvel at the meaninglessness of the language of amendment No 2. It talks about:”
“Where his farmers are concerned, maybe if Mr McGuigan had come to the meeting in Loughguile that he ran away from, he would have heard a very different message, but then he comes to the House and pretends that farmers are supportive of the Bill. Farmers are petrified by much of the devastation that will flow from the Bill, and rightly so, because the Bill, and particularly the Bill that he co-sponsored, will see a drastic reduction in livestock numbers and, therefore, in the numbers of farms, particularly hill farms and those in less-favoured areas, directly as a consequence of the ideology that the Member pursues and that Sinn Féin is pursuing in the House. It is those in that party who are the masters of reducing our agriculture industry, despite all the pious words, because their actions speak louder than their words.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today, we will hear, and have heard, many protestations for the gullible that those who are the pursuers of such ideology are, in fact, on the side of the farmers. Increasingly, that is not conning anyone. Amendment No 17 will be the litmus test of whether Members are on the side of farming or against farming, and we will see in this evening's speeches that, despite all the pious platitudes, when it comes down to it, the SDLP, Alliance, Sinn Féin and the Greens will vote against protecting the farming community. That is the reality of where they are headed.”