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 15 of 95.
“I cannot support the proposal, primarily because of the extortionate 500% increase involved. It may be on a very selective item, but it comes in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. To me, it is wholly punitive and beyond anything that, in conscience, should be considered. From 5p to 25p may not sound much or be much to many Members of the House, but, cumulatively, it could be too much for those who struggle. It is wrong-headed at this time, and it is not appropriate for the House to indulge in an increase of such massive proportions.”
“If the serious situation arises in which the courts overrule the Minister's legitimate decision — we have already seen the ill-judged interim intervention — will his position as a Minister and that of any unionist Minister become untenable?”
“Though in the past year she has had the great sadness of the loss of her life partner, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, this marks the start of the platinum jubilee. I trust that across the House that will not be treated in the churlish way that some treated it by denying even the planting of a tree to mark it in the grounds and that it will be recognised for the momentous occasion that it is. For many of us, it is an occasion of celebration and thanksgiving. My only prayer is this: long may she reign over us.”
“Yesterday, in the history of our nation, we passed a remarkable landmark in respect of a remarkable lady, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who, for 70 years, has been the head of state of the United Kingdom. Her rule has been remarkable not only in its longevity but in its style and in its substance. She brought to that office graciousness, outreach and incredible success, at which other nations can only marvel. She brought to this kingdom and to the Commonwealth stability and respect across the world, and so much of that is down to Her Majesty and the manner in which she conducts herself.”
“There was the folly of allowing the protocol to bed in with the Poots posts and checks. That was an unnecessary and foolhardy step, but we are now in a position where the chickens of the protocol have come home to roost. We were told that the protocol was about protecting the Belfast Agreement institutions. Now, they are in tatters, thanks to the protocol. It is the supporters of the protocol who need to examine themselves. The protocol is the destroyer of not just our position in the United Kingdom but these institutions. It is your protocol that has brought us to this point. It is your protocol — you own it.”
“Though it may be the approach of an election that drove the DUP, my only complaint is that it did not act sooner. The protocol is a full-frontal attack on Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. To place Northern Ireland in a foreign single market for goods, under a foreign customs code and a foreign VAT regime, all overseen by foreign laws and adjudicated upon by a foreign court, is wholly incompatible with our position as part of the United Kingdom. It is summed up in the fact that, under the protocol, the rest of the kingdom is deemed to be a third country — a foreign country. That cannot be reconciled with our position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, so long as Stormont had to implement that, it was a price that no unionist could ever — should ever — have paid.”
“Now, in the hope that the advice that they will get will be more palatable, they wish to set up a fresh body to implement, enforce and advise. That is unnecessary, and it squanders public money. <BR /> <BR />In the Bill, we impose multiple statutory obligations on Departments. The House is the oversight body of those Departments, and the House holds them to account, not some artificially created, unnecessary body, such as commissioners and advisers. Therefore, I will vote against the slate of amendments that would further burden the people of Northern Ireland with unnecessary, expensive bureaucracy.”
“I will be very brief. I regard the very suggestion of yet another commissioner in Northern Ireland, with all the expense, back-up and other requirements of such a post, as further squander of public money. Here we have a situation where, yesterday, the majority in the House openly and consciously defied the expert advice from the UK Climate Change Committee.”
“The Member makes criticisms of that report that I do not accept, but where is her report? Where is her economic assessment, or does she think that we should blunder into this without one?”
“<BR /> <BR />Now is a moment of truth for us all, and I will watch with interest to see who stands up for their rural constituents and who wants to put them down and off their land.”
“It is time that you rose above the delusion that you, with your net zero, will make the phenomenal difference that you pretend it will. Just as the threats and the Armageddon suggestions of the last 50 years have proved to be untrue, this too, I fear, is another false prophecy. <BR /> <BR />I appeal to anyone in the House who cares about the future for their rural and farming constituents: the very least that you can do is vote against these anti-farming amendments. <BR /> <BR />It is not that the Minister's Bill is not without threats. To me, it goes too far, but it is by far more preferable to that which is on offer from the climate change alarmists in the House.”
“I have a very simple question for the House. You pass net zero and do all the things that you want to do. Do you really think that it will change anything? Do you really think that it will stop climate change, which has happened through the years? Yes, of course we should do sensible, necessary, logical things to preserve our planet in the most pristine way we can, but do any of us really think that puny man, by going to net zero, will stop climate change? <BR /> <BR />Many of you will tick this box and vote for this woke proposal. You will do so with no assurance that it will do anything; you have only the assurance that it will devastate our agricultural industry. That is what many of you will opt to do tonight.”
“Go back 50 years to 'The Limits to Growth' report and the phenomenal threats that it made. Here we are again being told that we are in the last chance saloon.”
“I go back further to 1989, when a UN report told us that entire nations would be wiped out by rising sea levels by 2000. In 1982, the chief director of the UN environmental programme told us that, by 2000, devastation that was as complete and irreversible as any nuclear holocaust awaited us. We have had plenty of false prophets in the climate change brigade.”
“Your job might be secure — some, maybe, less secure than others — but we are talking tonight about livelihoods. We are talking about the future of our rural community. It is not something to be played with in pursuit of ticking the politically correct boxes in this woke age. It is something to take seriously and make sure that we do not pursue the folly that the amendments advocate to us. <BR /> <BR />I heard Ms Bailey say that this was all scaremongering. A climate activist should be the last person to talk about scaremongering. How many false prophets have there been in the cult of climate change? I remember Al Gore telling us in this century, in 2009, that there was a 75% chance within five to seven years that the North Pole would be free of ice.”
“I hope that they were not just present today for the optics; I hope that they were present today because they have realised what persisting with the folly of 100% and 2045 would mean for our agriculture industry and thus for our entire economy. There is no more seminal component of the economy of Northern Ireland than our agri-food industry. It is the component on which so much is built. Without a vibrant, effective and flourishing agri-food industry, our economy is in deep trouble. <BR /> <BR />Rural communities, whose interests some claim to have at heart, are right on the front line of decimation under that proposal. Think about it: KPMG talks about 13,000 on-farm jobs before we even come to the spin-off processing industries. That is surely something that no MLA should have on their conscience when it comes to voting on these matters.”
“Many of them, I suspect, will remember it. I was at a meeting — I have been at many meetings about the issue — where, predominantly, those participating probably would have voted in the past for parties that, today, may be advocating net zero. Those people were clear that, for them, this was the defining issue and that, if their representatives voted as they had previously voted, they would have to take the message that will be delivered that, while it is only platitudes for them, it is destruction for them through their votes. I hope that that message gets through to the House. <BR /> <BR />Today, it was encouraging to see, outside the Building at the farmers' demonstration, that some parties were represented that, at the Second Stage of Ms Bailey's Bill, voted for 2045 and 100%.”
“That is all that it would take — a 10% cut — to challenge and threaten the viability of those farms. It goes on to say that that means that 98% of farms in those less-favoured areas would be vulnerable. Think of what an 86% cut would mean. It would mean the greatest devastation in those areas since the famine. Yet that is what Sinn Féin comes to the House to advocate: net zero. That is what Alliance has attached its wagon to. That is what the Greens say to those rural communities — net zero — despite the reality of the devastation that that means. <BR /> <BR />I have to comment on those in the debate who have spoken out of both sides of their mouth, saying, "Yes, we want 100% reduction, but we are supporting the farmers". Sorry, you cannot do both. You simply cannot face in those diametrically opposed directions, and your voters know it.”
“It is doing that with full knowledge, because it has in the KPMG report, in flashing lights, the impact of net zero on our farming community. It could not be clearer. It is not as if people can say subsequently, "We did not know". There it is, writ large. It tells us that net zero demands will decimate our livestock industry, particularly cattle and sheep, and it calculates that there would have to be a staggering 86% reduction in livestock head of cattle and sheep. That is, of course, total devastation for most farming enterprises, particularly those of beef farmers, who are predominantly in what we have always called the "less-favoured areas". One striking statistic in the KPMG report is that even a 10% cut in livestock levels on a hill farm would make that farm non-viable.”
“Farmers, indeed, have more vested interest than anyone else in a sustainable future for our land and all that goes with it and have for centuries been the primary custodians of our land. It is the ambition of every farmer I know to pass on his land in better condition and facility than he inherited or obtained it. I want to refute clearly the commonly peddled mistruth that farmers are the enemy of the environment and the villains when it comes to climate change. Let us be clear: they are not the villains, but they will be the biggest victims of amendments such as those we have seen proposed today. <BR /> <BR />It is abundantly clear that the net zero brigade is inevitably and deliberately in the business of devastating our farming sector.”
“The debate on this group of amendments got off to a very good and interesting start, because the Green Party missed its target in respect of amendment No 1, and that, from my perspective, was very welcome. Tonight I am here to oppose, in word and deed, the anti-farming amendments of the Green Party, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. Having listened to Matthew O'Toole, I am not sure where I should put the SDLP in that regard, because he certainly espoused that farming-destructive measure of net zero, so we will wait and see what the SDLP does on that critical issue. <BR /> <BR />I want to begin by saying emphatically that farming is not the enemy of the environment.”
“The Member proclaims himself to be a co-sponsor of Ms Bailey's Bill. That Bill was produced to the House with no economic assessment, and it still does not have one. An economic assessment has now been produced on behalf of the Ulster Farmers' Union. It is the only game in town, as far as economic assessment is concerned. Does he accept it or not? He declined to come to Loughguile even to discuss it.”
“The Member, in bringing her Bill, did not trouble with an economic assessment, and, therefore, the KPMG economic assessment was provided. It is very clear that the 100% proposal in her Bill requires an 86% cut in livestock, with 13,000 jobs on-farm to be lost and several thousand thereafter in the process. How, then, can she say that she is on the side of farming and that this is good for the economy, when that primary industry would be devastated by her proposal, or is she going to tell us that KPMG does not know what it is talking about?”
“The mover of the amendment has just said that the start year should be 2045. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, have you not just ruled that the amendment that would make it 2045, namely amendment No 1, has not been and cannot be moved?”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“Why would amendment No 4 not be called before amendment No 6?”
“Will the Minister clarify whether it is still the situation that, if a board announces a temporary closure, that does not require a public consultation to be done, but a permanent closure does? We all had experience of that a decade ago when Belfast City Hospital's emergency department was declared temporarily closed, allegedly. Is that ploy still used? Last week, we had an indication about Daisy Hill Hospital. Is a consultation done on temporary closures or not?”
“— to the EU that is denying energy users —”
“As an advocate for the protocol, surely the Minister knows that article 8 in annex 3 of the protocol retains Northern Ireland within the EU VAT regime. In consequence, that VAT regime says that the minimum level of VAT that is allowable within that regime is 5%. Therefore, if the UK Government in GB were to reduce or remove the 5% on energy, it could not apply to Northern Ireland, courtesy of the protocol. It is his ideology of subservience —”
“I would like to test the fine words in the statement against a real issue in my constituency. The world-famous Dark Hedges are suffering from degradation because of destruction from traffic and a lack of management. We have had years of parcel-passing and broken promises. We urgently need a competent body to manage the Dark Hedges. Will this policy help? North Antrim, like South Down, has many rural tourism assets, so how will the policy help in that specific instance?”
“All that someone who is subject to a stalking protection order in this jurisdiction can do is apply for its discharge after it is in force — he cannot appeal the making of it — and the only place to which he can apply is the very court that imposed it. The essence of appeal is that you appeal to a higher authority. There is no such provision in this legislation as is in the GB legislation.”
“In the Bill, all that we have is clause 10, which states:”
“The Westminster legislation of 2019 expressly provides for a defendant to:”
“But no, the Committee did not seem to have any interest in that. I am disappointed with the Committee's report in that it avoided those issues and seemed to get into, as do the amendments, a preoccupation with process. Take a look at amendment No 6. Has there ever been a more bureaucratic imposition of over-the-top bureaucracy than amendment No 6? There may not be much wrong with any of the amendments, but they are reflective of a Committee that pursued tangential issues — process issues — over substance issues.”
“If you are found guilty of breaching a protection order, you can get five years in jail. Even though you have never been prosecuted or had the right to appeal, you can still feel the weight of the criminal sanction. I am disappointed that, from what I can see, the Committee never adequately addressed that. <BR /> <BR />I will move now to an issue that I thought for some would be very important. If you have been served with a stalking protection order, the police can take your fingerprints not just for identifying you but for any purpose. So a person who has never been prosecuted, charged or convicted can have their fingerprints taken and retained for purposes other than identification. As I suggested at the Bill's Second Stage, surely that provision should have said that the power can be used:”
“I have no doubt that the Committee was very diligent and spent a lot of time on issues arising, but I have to express disappointment at the lack of focus in the legislation on some matters that are very significant. We have stalking as an issue that provokes fear, yet nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of fear, as there is in parallel legislation. Perhaps more significantly, however, the syndrome of repeat protection orders, which are civil orders, is not addressed in any appreciable fashion in that someone can be subject to successive stalking protection orders for decades even though they have never been prosecuted, a police complaint has never been allayed or there has never been a conviction. There is no right of appeal against that in the Bill.”
“When a contractor serves a termination, is there then an opportunity for that contractor to renegotiate the price, and is that really the tactic that is being followed here?”
“I welcome the fact that, after a long wait, there is some progress on Cullybackey College, although, obviously, there is still quite a distance to go. Will the Minister give us some more information with respect to Dunclug?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. On amendment No 5, I have been puzzling over why there is a distinction between what is called a "listed authority" and a "specified authority". The thrust seems to be similar in respect of each. What is the thinking in making that distinction?”
“The Minister is asking the House to vote for the amendment (No. 8) regulations in their entirety and in their original form. That is what the House is being asked to vote for. Now, if the Minister recognises that point and given that a number of the regulations have been drafted to begin on the very day on which they were drafted, why did the Executive not revise the amendment (No. 8) regulations and bring a different proposition to the House that does not encompass that which is now being jettisoned? There can be no doubt that we will vote on the original when we vote on the matter.”
“Yet the Minister will bring to the House next week a proposal to extend this very arrangement: is that not right?”
“Well, get used to it. There will be a lot of people sitting beside me.”
“I trust that they will not just note them; I trust that they will act on them. What would be wrong with somebody sitting here between me and Mr Carroll?”
“I must say that, on these regulations, the manner in which the Executive have treated the public is appalling: scaremongering and putting in regulations that cannot bear scrutiny, and then pulling them out and saying to the House, "Approve them nonetheless". <BR /> <BR />I say this to the Executive and the House: why are we being so tardy? Look at the House: 21 MLAs are allowed in at any one time. Look at the House of Commons. Why are we dragging our feet in the restoration of normality?”
“<BR /> <BR />I have said this before: it seems to me that the Executive, when faced with an issue such as this, adopt the mentality, "We must do something" — the do-something mentality. Then, to back up the do-something mentality, they scaremonger like fury about there being 30,000 cases a day by Christmas. Then we discover that one of the things that they brought in that was particularly capable of affecting disabled people — all of that — was not even equality impact assessed. This morning, I got an answer to a question that stated that that equality impact assessment is now under way. It is now under way in respect of something that has, in part, been abandoned. What way is that to do business? What way is that to govern?”
“In the days before Christmas, we had the deputy First Minister — a lady who will go down in history as leading, on a mass basis, the greatest defiance of COVID regulations ever seen in Northern Ireland when it came to burying the terrorist Storey — telling us, as part of that brazen attempt to scaremonger and whip up fear, that we would see 30,000 cases a day by Christmas and that we were going to be hit by omicron "like a ton of bricks". Why did the Executive think it necessary and appropriate to engage in fearmongering? Why did they think it right to take us into the territory of it being a pandemic of biblical proportions, only to tell us now that we are on our way through? I have to say that that approach, above all, loses the Executive public credibility on these issues.”
“Why would any self-respecting MLA in the House vote to prop up such a farcical situation? I certainly will not. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the farce comes in a context that itself was farcical.”
“Today's debate, particularly in respect of the amendment (No. 8) regulations, illustrates, if there was ever any doubt about it, the farce of the process in which we engage and the farce of the Executive's approach to this issue. Here we are, in the amendment (No. 8) regulations, debating something weeks after it was foolishly and in a knee-jerk fashion brought in. At this point, a large part of it has already been revoked, yet we come to the House and the Executive say to the House, "Nonetheless, approve the very thing that we have since revoked". What a farce, both in the sense that we only get to debate it weeks after the event and in the sense that the very thing that we are asked to approve is not something that the Executive themselves, in significant part, even still support.”
“The crippling costs to our economy of approaching £1 billion a year are unsustainable, I suspect. On 13 September 2021, the Minister said:”
“Will the Minister clarify what she meant when she started her answer by saying, "We welcome the EU's proposal" on this dimension? Was she speaking for the First Minister? Let me make it very clear: any token, meaningless input into a foreign jurisdiction while the EU continues to exercise its ill-gotten sovereignty in Northern Ireland is not an answer. The only answer lies in the restoration of sovereignty to the United Kingdom, whereby we are governed by the laws that we make and change ourselves, not by foreign laws that we cannot change.”