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 17 of 95.
“However, even when you have made the best of it, it will still not be a worthy Bill. It will still be a tawdry attempt at supremacy, and one which is about elitism in the worst possible sense.”
“If the Member thinks so much of that independent review of five years ago, why was it that it was his party, we are told, that wrote a new independent review into New Decade, New Approach? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, "Didn't we do well? We got it into New Decade, New Approach. There will be a new independent review of integrated education", and then, out of the other side of your mouth, say, "But we are not prepared to wait for that. We want to create our privilege first. We want supremacy first, so we will bring a Bill that gazumps that". That is what the Bill is about; gazumping the independent review and, in particular, obtaining supremacy over the other sectors. That is why it is an unworthy Bill in all its parts, and why I urge the House to, yes, make the best of it that you can with those amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some of the amendments — the Minister's amendments — will try to make something of the best of a bad job, but it still a bad job as far as this Bill is concerned. I find it astounding that, after the five parties of government trumpeted a new approach — New Decade, New Approach — the first party out of the traps to supersede and override the new approach on education is the Alliance Party. The new approach in education was meant to be an independent review, but here we have a Bill that wants, as I expressed earlier, to gazump that.”
“as if it is a novelty. <BR /> <BR />I think of many controlled schools. Harryville Primary School is a controlled school in my constituency in Ballymena. It has 11 or 12 different nationalities, and multiple languages, in it, and yet we are told, "That doesn't count. The controlled sector doesn't count". Of course, the real purpose of the Bill, in putting the integrated sector to the top of the pile, is to push others to the bottom, particularly the controlled sector. The sector that is going to pay the price of the legislation is, above all, the controlled sector. The body that represents that sector was not even consulted about the Bill, such was the disregard of and disinterest in what the controlled sector might have to say. This is a Bill of privilege and supremacy. That is why I opposed it at Second Reading and continue to do so.”
“Interestingly, that clause tells us that that is the purpose of clause 8. It may not appear exactly in clause 8, but that clearly is its purpose. We are in the realms of privilege building for one sector, and one sector only, when you create:”
“Absolutely. The intended outcome is that there will be a special status for integrated education, which, I remind the House, already has the statutory protection of encouraging and facilitation. It is already in the law, but we are now going to craft onto that the additional privilege of the Bill. Clause 12 — it is part of this group — as Mr Weir pointed out, very vividly illustrates that in clause 12(3). I did not hear the sponsor's response to Mr Weir because she was speaking away from me, but she certainly has not tabled an amendment to that. Clause 12(3) creates in law:”
“I am well aware of that amendment; it tinkers with "meet demand" by changing it to "aim to meet". However, the direction of travel and the expectation that will be created, and therefore the expectation that will be looked for, is that of meeting demand. What other sector has been afforded that privilege? None. However, that is the premise of the Bill.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Look at what that means. Take Lagan College, which is a very successful school. Year after year, many people are disappointed about not getting into Lagan College. It is the same with Slemish College in my constituency. This Bill would provide that you cannot be disappointed and that the schools must provide the places. What does that do for financial equilibrium? What does that do for cost? During the debate on the Second Stage, I commented on the total absence of costing implications for this Bill. There is a staggering cost implication, which would create a phenomenal burden on the public service in the name of giving special status to integrated education such that, if you ask, you must get.”
“Let us deal with that issue of meeting demand for integrated education. There is not another sector where there is a statutory duty to meet the demand of applications to particular schools. Take the voluntary grammar schools: many people are disappointed when they apply, and that is tough. Under clause 5 of this Bill —. I confess, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am drifting somewhat. I need to find my glasses. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 expressly states that there is a statutory duty to provide:”
“I will, but I would have liked to —. Yes, carry on.”
“That is a fair summary of this Bill. This Bill is designed and intended to elevate the integrated sector above all other sectors into special status, special provision territory.”
“He went on to say, of the significant advantage given to the integrated sector, that:”
“I will start by referencing some things that he said in the Second Stage debate, to which Mr Stalford alluded, because they rang unusually true. He said this:”
“I am not given to quoting Mr John O'Dowd — certainly not approvingly — but, at the risk of some reputational damage to him,”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely, clause 12 is in group 1.”
“Will the Member remind us how many pupils you have to have to form an integrated school in the primary and post-primary context?”
“I want to take the Minister back. She made a passing reference to where the Bill, if approved, would fit, juxtaposition-wise, with existing arrangements. Tomorrow, as I recall, we are about to see the publication of strategic documents. How would the Bill fit with that strategy in terms of future area planning etc?”
“Before the Minister moves into any detail, may I say that I am struck by the point that she has just made? As I understand it, 'New Decade, New Approach', which was embraced by all the parties of the Executive, endorsed an independent review. Therefore, surely what we have in this Bill is an attempt to gazump that. Is that what it comes to?”
“I am content with amendment Nos 2 and 7 from the Minister.”
“Is the Minister aware that, shortly before Christmas, local farmers in the Loughguile area of North Antrim invited MLAs to meet them to discuss the issue, and that Mr McGuigan, who styles himself as a co-sponsor of the green Bill, did not trouble himself to attend? If he had, he would have been asked this question by one of the farmers: would you rather that your constituents bought high-quality north Antrim meat, or meat that is produced from the cleared Amazon basin? What is the Minister's view about that?”
“— plays any part in that, so much greater the shame on them.”
“Now, at the behest of and to facilitate one man and his party, it seems that double-jobbing is to return. The key question for me is this: what price was paid for that facilitation? It benefits only one party. One has observed a softening in the urgency attending the protocol. No longer do I hear the Prime Minister being told that he must choose between the protocol and Stormont. Why is that? Will a further price be paid in respect of this facilitation? Let me be clear to the House: the protocol is dismantling the Union, check by check. The Poots posts are the very manifestation of the partitioning of the United Kingdom. Any unionist who can come to terms with the protocol is coming to terms with the end of the Union, and, if a deal to obtain short-term party advantage —”
“The date of 17 January is a day of infamy in the terrorist record in the Province: the day of the Teebane massacre, when eight innocent, hard-working Protestant men were blown to bits by the IRA. Thirty years ago today. For those men, there was no special ombudsman investigation, no inquiries, no truth, no justice and no apology from Sinn Féin, the spokesmen of the republican movement; rather, there is the continuing glorification of such acts of vile and unspeakable terrorism. <BR /> <BR />The second issue that I want to address is this: several years ago, for very good reasons — reasons that remain equally valid today — the electorate of Northern Ireland was rid of the selfish scourge of double-jobbing and the insult that it was adequate to be represented in Parliament by a part-timer.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the debate, we had many references to the strategy in respect of violence against women, which was launched in a photocall last week. Why was that strategy not presented to the House, which is the proper place for such a strategy to be presented?”
“If, as I trust will be the case, the perpetrator is found, dealt with by the law as they ought to be and spends many years in prison, that may help with a sense of justice. It will not, however, remove the pain of loss, which is something that the Province knows much about. <BR /> <BR />We have heard today about those women who lost their life during the pandemic. I think also of those who lost their life in the pandemic of terrorism that some still seek to justify.”
“I join in expressing my revulsion at this shocking murder. The shock is intensified by the fact that it took place literally in broad daylight. That adds to the layers of fear that evolve from a murder such as this. I express my condolences to the Murphy family — to the parents, who have suffered a loss that they will, frankly, never get over. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, as I spoke to relatives of the victims of the Teebane massacre yesterday, it was quite clear that, 30 years on, the horror and deep pain of murder resonates every day with those who are affected, no matter how long ago it occurred. So it will be, sadly and tragically, with the Murphy family in the days, months and years ahead. The community response will undoubtedly help.”
“They need to come with a reasoned, costed argument, if we are to do this, as to how we will pay for it and what the knock-on consequences are rather than simply saying, "This is what we want. Somebody else go and do it". That is not really the way to conduct responsible politics, but, sadly, in this disintegrating Executive, that is how things seem to work or not work.”
“It is common case that the symptoms within the school-age limit are, thankfully, relatively modest, but what is the cost? Who will pay for it? How will it be paid? We have a Finance Minister who has told the Education Department that, for the next three years, it is a 2% cut. Then that Minister's party says, "Go find the money to pay for these things". As someone pointed out earlier, once you establish that precedent in school workplaces, will the same demand logically be made for every workplace? What will that cost? Once more, we are in a free slide of easily made demands without any appreciation or consideration of who pays for it, what it will cost and what you will have to go without in order to supply this. Those who bring a motion such as this need to do better.”
“Where does it fit in the context of how many schoolchildren are, in fact, being hospitalised with COVID? I notice, for example, that our ICU levels are static, essentially, despite the rise in transmission.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also have to say that some of the people who brought today's motion are the very people who could not get our schools closed quickly enough and campaigned, lobbied and agitated to close the schools and to cancel exams. Now, we are supposed to believe that the motivation here is pure and that it is about the interests of our children. Well, you cannot have it both ways, just as Mr Sheehan could not have it both ways the other morning on 'Good Morning Ulster'. He boldly asserted that the Finance Minister was ready to pay whatever it took to provide the filtration systems, but, within 60 seconds, he had a volte-face and said, "No, no, I cannot say that". <BR /> <BR />Of course, that brings us to the heart of the issue: what is the cost? What is the efficacy of the systems? Are there alternatives?”
“Yes, and I will come to that. <BR /> <BR />It is clear to me that the recall for the motion is and was a stunt — nothing more than that. We had a similar situation in September; it did not make any difference, and nor will this. Of course, the primary message of the motion, which was signed by three parties of the Executive, causes me to remind the House that those three parties are in the Executive. This is the Executive, of which they are part, that they are now tearing apart when it comes to one of those Departments. What we are seeing, of course, is the dying months of the disintegration of the Executive, and the dysfunction that is writ large over the very bringing of the motion brings that point home.”
“The first thing that strikes me about the motion — it leads through to its predominant purpose — is the appalling absence from it of any acknowledgement or recognition of the hugely dedicated work of those who keep our schools going. As the chairman of a board of governors, I know just what the last year has been like, not just for teaching staff but for all staff. Yet, here we come to debate this issue and there is not a word of recognition in the motion of the sacrifices and efforts that have been made.”
“If that is so, why would there be any hesitation about the Bill? We will see whether there is any such hesitation. <BR /> <BR />I will be deliberately brief, because I have made my point, and it is very clear. Is the House on the side of visiting death because of disability — not just to disability but because of disability? That is the nub of the question.”
“It has been fenced around with doublespeak and prevarication. Take Sinn Féin. Michelle O'Neill told us that Sinn Féin believes in an all-island policy. On 2 June 2020, its spokesperson on that occasion was Emma Sheerin, who very clearly put on the record in the House:”
“as well as combinations of those complex impairments. It can be any one of those. In medical literature, congenital impairments or anomalies are commonly identified as including the following: cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, heart conditions and, yes, cleft lip and cleft palate. Therefore, we do have an indication of the type of disability that we are invited to visit death upon. It is all of those conditions. Those who vote to stop the Bill signal for themselves and those whom they say that they represent that they are onside with visiting death upon a living being in the womb because it suffers from a disability. I trust that the House has not got to the point at which it is prepared to endorse that. <BR /> <BR />The advocacy that we have heard in the House today is beyond shocking to me.”
“The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has given a definition of severe impairment. It said:”
“I have heard talk about how severe impairment is not defined. Paragraph 7 of the regulations defines it to an extent:”
“The question is that, because the child in the womb is likely to be significantly disabled, does it deserve to die? Is the state or the Assembly prepared to validate the death of those so disabled? <BR /> <BR />You can dress this up as much as you like as being about rights — I have heard no talk about the rights of the unborn — but that is the abiding question: is the Assembly, and are we as legislators, in the business of validating death being visited on a disabled living being? The Bill is necessary because our current law validates death being visited on a living being in the womb because it is disabled. We can dress it up as much as we like, but that is what it comes down to.”
“I find it deeply shocking that saving the life of a Down's baby can provoke such venomous opposition in the House. That is shocking almost beyond words. What is abortion? Abortion is the snuffing out of whatever life, in this case, is in the womb. Abortion law is about determining the circumstances in which life in the womb can be brought to an end. The Bill addresses, in a niche and narrow way, whether or not it is right for the state to validate death in the womb to those who are likely to be born with a significant disability. That is the nub of this debate. Does disability deserve death? That is the real question in this debate. The means of death is abortion. The place of death is what should be the safest place for any unborn: the womb.”
“Has the Minister taken time to review the disastrous scheme that her Department has enforced, without consultation, outside Slemish College in Ballymena, which has removed bus parking bays for hundreds of children who must attend the school by bus? The Education Minister has taken the time to visit the school and has seen for herself the absurdity of the scheme, but the roads Minister is apparently deaf on that and does not even want to see it. Will she address that issue?”
“That right is only ever exercised in a minuscule number of cases. A very small percentage of cases go down that route. To say, in its arrogance, to a judge in the Magistrates' Court, "We know better than you. We will not allow you to decide that something is in the interests of justice, because we are set upon ensuring that no one can ever test the evidence before they are put on trial". That is the shame of the Bill, and that is why I continue to oppose it.”
“We will now have a position whereby anyone can be returned for trial, often on the most serious offences, without any evidence ever being tested by anyone and without there ever being a sworn statement from anyone that condemns them as being guilty of the offence and lays the foundation for the offence, because the Bill consciously and deliberately sweeps away that last tenet of reliance that a judicial officer — the magistrate — can import into the system by saying, "Well, in the interests of justice, I think we need to hear oral evidence on a particular issue". <BR /> <BR />Such is the distrust — or is it abhorrence? — of daring to submit evidence to scrutiny, sifting and testing under cross-examination that the Minister and the Department simply wish to abrogate that right.”
“The notoriety of that is such that it not only reflects the mindset, arrogance and audacious approach of the Department but shows its total contempt for a democratic decision of the House. <BR /> <BR />Having since waited it out to obtain the same result that was refused to it in 2015, the Department returned with this proposal. On that occasion, to my regret, the House succumbed to both the arrogance of the Department and the suppression of its previous opinion and allowed the Bill to pass its previous stages. In doing that, it removed a fundamental tenet of a fair trial system.”
“For the reasons that I expounded at earlier stages, I regard the Bill as a wholly retrograde step, given its assault on the fundamental principles and practices of justice and the fact that it has come from a Department that seems to have a very live agenda of that nature. Of course, the Bill embraces the notorious saga in which, although the House reached an honourable compromise on the matter when it passed an amendment to the Justice Bill, which became the Justice Act 2015, that preserved, for a small number of cases, the use of oral evidence at committal proceedings where a magistrate thought that that was in the interests of justice, the Department determined that it knew better and therefore consciously refused to commence that amendment.”
“I will return to the question about the capacity of the veterinary staff to deal with this worsening situation. With increased demands on our vets and their staff, would it not be preferable to maximise the availability of such staff to deal with the situation by withdrawing them from the implementation of the protocol so that they might do an important job?”
“Once you cross the line of refusing to acknowledge and respect personal choice and get into the compulsive, coercive steps that this is taking us to, in circumstances where there is no assurance that any of it is going to work, then we have impinged rights and freedoms by just a step too far. I will vote against this.”
“Is the next step that of Greece and Austria: fines on the unvaccinated? Is the next step, like some other European countries, mandatory vaccination? It seems to me that, in these circumstances, we have embarked on a process and, if it does not work, then the must-do-something syndrome gets even stronger. And the must-do-something syndrome could well lead to mandatory vaccination, fines for those who are not or something of that order. That is far too far down the totalitarian route as far as I am concerned. <BR /> <BR />Although I strongly urge people to be vaccinated, because it is about protecting yourself, your loved ones and your neighbours — there is an element of "love thy neighbour" in being vaccinated — it is a personal choice.”
“Yes, that is a point that carries on from the point that I am making. The certification, as I see it, is meant to do two things. It is meant to be a coercive persuasion for people to get vaccinated and to build an air of confidence for people within certain settings. If, within one of those settings — the hospitality setting — the front-line staff who interface with the customer base do not have to meet these requirements, then it seems to totally undermine what lies within this proposition. <BR /> <BR />Another major concern is where this is ultimately leading. A year ago, the Minister told us that the exit out of COVID was vaccination. We have had vaccination — 90%. We were told, at one stage, that we have to learn to live with it. Now we are being told that we need certification.”
“If the whole idea is to cocoon people from the risk of transmission in those hospitality settings, how is it that the very people who will serve in those hostelries are exempt? Not only have you the situation where the individual can travel on public transport, work in the health service and not need any of those things — although they cannot go into a hospitality setting — if someone does go into a hospitality setting, the person who serves them does not have to meet any of those tests. That is why there are many flaws in this system which cause me to think that it is quite questionable.”
“They cannot go into a hospitality venue, but they can turn on their heel and get on a Translink or Glider bus. They can travel to Belfast City Hospital or the Royal Victoria Hospital and start a shift of work. Where is the logic of a system that lets you work in the health service and travel on packed public transport, and you do not have to have anything, but if you want to go into a hospitality venue, that is a no-no? Where is the logic in that? <BR /> <BR />Think of hospitality. In an earlier intervention, the Minister told me that employees in hospitality do not have to meet the certification. The customer base has to pass the certification to get in, but, once in, they can be served by individuals who are not vaccinated or carrying a test result or a passport.”