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 2 of 95.
“Any law that is based on perception rather than on reality is the road to absolute folly. That is one of the fatal flaws in legislation that has been propagated under the hate crime title elsewhere. Law has to be based on reality: it is an assault, so was it aggravated by some inappropriate motive? That is it, as far as dealing with hate crimes goes. Courts are then punishing for the fact and adding to the sentence by the fact that it was motivated by hate on a particular basis. <BR /> <BR />I do not understand where Members want to go with this, unless they want to get into the morass of the Scottish legislation and the craziness of misgendering and all of that, or unless they want to make it an offence to be offended. There is no legal right to not be offended. If we go down the road of saying, "I feel despised. I feel humiliated.”
“The further aspect of folly that could arise here is to ensconce in law the idea that a decision on whether something is a hate crime is not objective but instead lies with the victim. If the victim perceives that it was a hate crime, the law has its hands bound to find that it is. It should always be an objective decision.”
“The outcome would be precisely the same, so what is this really all about? Is it about getting us into the morass that the Scottish Parliament got itself into with its hate legislation and the crazy business of making it an offence to misgender someone? We would then be into the whole argument about what a woman is, with which some politicians seem to struggle. Is that really where we want to go? We would get into the madness, as Scotland did, of private conversations becoming criminalised. <BR /> <BR />We need to pause and take stock instead of rushing to say, "Oh, let's do this and let's do that". Where is the need to do it, when the aggravators are already established in our law?”
“The proposition is that we need stand-alone hate legislation. I was struck, though, when listening to the proposer of the motion, that, two or three sentences into her proposition, she was reciting to us figures on the hundreds upon hundreds — running, I think, to almost 2,000 — of hate offences that have been investigated in recent times. I am left struggling to understand what would be different under new legislation. If someone is assaulted, for example, for a motive related to their ethnic background, that is an assault, and, at present, the law provides that the motivation can be hate-designated as an aggravator, thus enhancing the sentence. What would be different under new legislation that states that it is an offence to assault someone because of their ethnic background?”
“Those who told us just four months ago that all those things had happened, when they had not, now would say to an electorate, "Trust us nonetheless". The response of many will be, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". <BR /> <BR />I associate myself with the remarks about the D-Day celebrations. Eighty years ago, events occurred that shaped the liberties that we enjoy to this day. I join in saluting the heroism, courage and fortitude of all those who set in motion that which delivered our nation from the threat of Nazi subjugation. In this generation, we should never forget the sacrifice and courage of those who made this day possible.”
“Four months ago this week, the Assembly resumed on foot of the DUP/Donaldson deal. On that day, I expounded on how, despite all the spin, it had not removed the Irish Sea border; it had not blocked EU law; and it had not restored our place in the United Kingdom. The response of the DUP through Mr Paul Givan was to denigrate me as "a dead-end unionist". It turns out that the dead-end unionist was dead right, because we have now had the admission from the DUP that the Irish Sea border has not gone, contrary to what it said; that EU law still prevails, contrary to what it said; and that our place in the United Kingdom has not been restored. That raises fundamental issues of trust in political parties and politicians.”
“Given that we got to that stage, if there were no Tellers in favour, would the consequence of that not be that there would have to be a Consideration Stage?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to make a ruling, although maybe not today. When the Question on accelerated passage was put, there were no Tellers in favour. How is the motion decreed to be passed if there was no manifestation of Tellers in favour of it? We cannot go back retrospectively to the vocal vote, I would have thought.”
“I am not familiar with the concept of strict liability on a case-by-case basis. The approach of a court is that the legislation as drafted either does or does not impose strict liability if the circumstances of the legislation are met, so I do not understand how it would be that, in one case, there would be strict liability, and, in another, there would not be.”
“It does not matter what the excuse is; if you do not have insurance, you are strictly liable. Under proposed new clause 4A, is there strict liability, or is it the case that, if a builder uses what appear to be proper materials and he has no means of knowing that they are not, he is, nonetheless, liable? It is important to know whether that is absolute strict liability, particularly in circumstances where there is not going to be a Committee Stage, it appears, for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the questions that I raised during the motion on accelerated passage, it would be helpful if the Minister could address those specifics.”
“Perhaps the Minister could be clear about that. The wording of proposed new clause 4A suggests that there might be liability for the conversion from dwellings to other uses. Is that the intention or is it not? <BR /> <BR />I thought that the explanatory and financial memorandum might have answered my second question on proposed new clause 4A, but it does not seem to. Is it importing strict liability on the developer? In other words, once it is established that proper materials were not used in the building, is that it, and there is strict liability? Strict liability does not arise that often, but it does for public policy reasons. For example, it is a strict liability offence to have no car insurance because you are protecting the public in the public interest.”
“I raised a number of questions in the previous debate that I will not necessarily repeat, although I express my disappointment that the Minister did not answer any of them in his winding-up speech. I trust that he might answer them in his winding-up speech in this debate. <BR /> <BR />A few additional points need to be explored. In clause 1, which would add a new clause 4A to the 1975 Order, it appears that any liability relates only to work done to dwellings, so there is no liability for commercial properties, as I read the Bill. Where a commercial property or any property is being converted to or from dwelling use, is there liability in both directions? If a property is being converted from an old factory into dwellings, is there liability? If dwellings are being converted for commercial use, is there liability?”
“Just before you depart from it, clause 2(4) imposes a mandatory obligation to dismiss if convention rights are prejudiced. What convention rights is the Minister advised would come into play?”
“Has the Committee had a briefing on what that even means? What are the convention rights that, under clause 2(4), would mandate a court to dismiss an action against a defendant? What are those rights? I did not hear any discussion of them, yet here they are, written into the Bill as a peg on which could be hung not just a discretion but a mandatory obligation: "a court ... must dismiss" an action against a defendant. What convention rights are we talking about? How do they manifest themselves and interlink with the Bill? Those are all questions that are crying out for answers, and, frankly, I have not heard them answered. Maybe we will. Maybe the Minister will shed great light on all those things, but rushing down this road seems to me to be a wrong-headed approach, particularly after what happened last Friday.”
“Those tests will come, yet we are rushing, without consultation or drilling into it or any of that, to follow suit when there are red flags all over the place about how the Bill may or may not assist.”
“The English Bill has not stood the test of time, in that we cannot say that the fears that were raised about it have proved to be non-existent. The Bill is only on the statute book. It has not yet been tested.”
“If we are in the circumstance whereby none of those issues has been drilled into, what is the House doing with its scrutiny functions? It does seem to be very ill-advised. <BR /> <BR />Scotland declined to follow the Bill for England and Wales, which was about far more than this issue within this Bill. It struck me as being almost a commentary in itself on the haphazard approach to this. In the explanatory and financial memorandum, the explanation for no consultation is, "Ah well, England and Wales consulted". England and Wales consulted on a much wider Bill than this. It seems peculiar that the explanatory and financial memorandum states:”
“It could be. Take one of the schemes that exist for the limited number of properties in Northern Ireland that have been affected by defective cladding. To qualify for that building safety fund, you have to show that there was no other available redress. Going forward, for 30 years, there will be, on paper, an alternative redress, so how would you qualify for that or a like fund, even though the people you might wish to sue are long gone or anything else? <BR /> <BR />There are many issues here that need to be drilled into. In taking this vote, the House is deciding that we are not having a Committee Stage. We are just going to rush through, so the prospect of an amendment based on any serious consideration is gone once we pass accelerated passage.”
“Indeed, by virtue of natural process, they are liable to be dead within the 30 years, yet they may be the only person capable of being sued. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the building of projects, this Bill will generate and encourage individuals to form limited companies before they build anything so that there is no personal liability. They may, indeed, form a limited company for the very purpose of building the project and then dissolve it. Who do you sue then?”
“I certainly do. No matter what the assurances were in private, the House is putting its credibility on the line by saying, "We are going to cut out a Committee Stage. Despite what happened last Friday in the High Court, we are going to rush our fences on this". I am raising a red flag to the House and asking whether that is wise. I really do seriously question the sense of doing that. You could, under this legislation, sue an architect. An architect, as a professional, will always maintain their professional insurance for a period after they stop practising. I did it myself for six years, because in those six years you could be sued. Where is an architect or anyone else going to get insurance for 30 years? They are not, I suspect.”
“I stand corrected, but I think that it is fair to say that the thrust of that vote was not to rush our fences but to take the 30 days and have some degree of scrutiny. That position seems to have been abandoned by some.”
“That leaves me puzzled as to why in Committee there was, I think, a vote against supporting accelerated passage, yet today that seems to have faded away. <BR /> <BR />There are other issues. The Bill as drafted —.”
“How is that providing a foolproof and satisfactory course of remedy to anyone in those circumstances? When a builder or someone like that is sued in our civil courts and says, "It is not my fault, because I used what I was given", they would normally join as the defendant the manufacturer of the goods. It seems not in this case, because, in this case, it looks as if the manufacturer of the faulty concrete pillars or the faulty whatever is away scot-free. Where is the thought that went into deciding that that is a good way in which to proceed? I did not hear the answer to that when I listened to the Committee meeting. I really am surprised, and, indeed, today I detect a very different attitude from parties in the House from that which I heard at the Committee.”
“The RSUA identified to the Committee for Communities a very disturbing list of potential unintended consequences, which the Committee certainly has not had the time to explore, and there has been little evidence that the Department has explored the potential unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />I will amplify a few of them. In the Bill, under clause 1, it is clear that the provision is to apply only to the person who took on the work. We therefore have a situation in which, perhaps 20 years ago, work was taken on, but the fault from then is not that of the workman. The fault is that of poor materials, yet there is to be no cause of action against the manufacturer of those poor materials. The cause of action instead lies against the builder.”
“I join in the condolences to the Chairman of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Just last Friday, in the High Court, this House was rebuked for inadequate scrutiny of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Yet, here we are again, about to rush our fences. I heard Mr Allen ask questions about what consultations the Minister had held. I also listened to the proceedings of the Committee and the evidence of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects that, although it had written to the Minister and drawn matters to his attention — and, apparently, asked for a meeting — he never met its representatives before he issued his declaration on what he was going to do.”
“Considering that the Minister walked the Assembly into this folly, not least by exaggerating Lord Justice Gillen's proposal, does she accept the judicial rebuke, and how will she retrieve the situation?”
“Minister, on North/South programmes, I read in the statement about common work programmes, teacher and pupil exchanges, pilot programmes, collaboration on inspectorates and funded programmes. When one looks at east-west programmes, one finds in your pretty threadbare 'Safeguarding the Union' document two lines about twinning arrangements between schools in Northern Ireland and GB. That is not much of a match, is it, Minister?”
“You are taking a stand because you have been inadequately provided for, as, indeed, an Ulster Unionist predecessor in Health, a number of years ago, was inadequately provided for. However, if you are taking a stand on the principle that you are being inadequately provided for, why on earth would you humiliate yourself to go back and implement the very same Budget? That is really what I do not understand at all. <BR /> <BR />As for efficiency, I asked every Department what efficiency savings it planned to make. Each Sinn Féin Department answered, "Nothing. We do not intend to make efficiencies". Their attitude still is: begging bowl, beg and then blame. That is the essence of this Budget.”
“Here it is saying, "We will pay only £15 million, but we demand that it be built at whatever it costs". Where is the balance in that? As for football, it is held to the inflation-ravaged allocation of 10 years ago. That is all that it gets. Furthermore, it is expected to be happy that the only legacy of the Euros will be a futuristic stadium for the GAA, which will be a money-spinner for every non-sporting event that it runs commercially but will provide no clawback for government. <BR /> <BR />I come now to the Ulster Unionist Party's position. I understand its complaint, but I do not understand its response. It may well be right, and is, in the sincerity of its complaint to vote against the Budget, but where is the logic in its then going back with its tail between its legs to implement that same Budget? Where is the principle in that?”
“Why is childcare not getting the allocation that was intended for it? That is the product of this system of government. <BR /> <BR />When we talk about squander, one cannot but think of the rising demands for Casement Park. Whatever it costs — £300 million, or perhaps more — it is a flagship project of the Executive, and it therefore must be built. When it comes to it, it must be prioritised over health and education. If our constituents were faced with the choice of whether they would rather spend £300 million on improving their health system and educating their kids or on a vanity project for a sporting organisation, most people would think of their family and their health and decide which was the better spend. Of course, the GAA, by its demands, would bleed any budget dry but never put its hand into its own deep pockets.”
“That is still the attitude of Sinn Féin, even though it is producing this austerity Budget. There is never enough for Sinn Féin. There is not enough money, we are told, for health, but there is enough money to squander by increasing the budgets of cross-border bodies. There is not enough money to deal with waiting lists, but there is enough money to increase the staff of InterTradeIreland by 50%. I think that we can see from this Budget and from the Department of Finance where Sinn Féin's priorities lie. <BR /> <BR />There has been much ado about childcare recently, but a sleight of hand has been delivered to parents, because, under the Barnett consequential, the Executive got £57·2 million for childcare, but what of that do they put into spend? They put in £25 million. Where did the rest go? Where is it being squandered?”
“It reminds me of that very apt tweet from the now deputy First Minister that appeared in the WhatsApp messages that were revealed in the COVID inquiry. When, obviously referring to Sinn Féin, she said:”
“There is something of a rich irony and a poor delivery in respect of both this debate and the Budget document. The rich irony arises from the fact that we are debating a Sinn Féin austerity Budget. It is the party that could not wait to get back into government, with no regard to whether there was or was not enough money. Indeed, that was the position of most of the parties, and then, when they came back, they discovered that they did not have all that they needed, so they had to produce what effectively is an austerity Budget. Welcome to the "New Tories", who sit to my left. Maybe the "Whining Tories", because they are still whining that there is not enough. Indeed, old habits die hard, because, even though Sinn Féin has the authority and is in charge, it is still someone else's fault. It is still the British Government's fault.”
“Is it the case that you were really hiding your WhatsApp messages about the Storey funeral?”
“In your witness statement to the tribunal, you said that you had wiped only administrative messages. Was that truthful? Is the situation —.”
“— of the obscenity of the position that you hold?”
“Now, First Minister, try my question, which you avoided. You oversee victims policy, but you still side with the victim-makers by refusing to condemn their murders and their other actions. How can you do that and expect to have any respect from those who were made victims? Is that situation not an offensive illustration —”
“The other major impact of the calling of an election is that the DUP's 'Safeguarding the Union' document falls flat on its face in terms of its delivery. We were initially told that it abolished the Irish Sea border and led to our being fully restored within the United Kingdom, but, after those lies fell to the ground, the assurance was, "Oh, it is a work in progress". Now we discover that the deliverer of that progress has cut and run and that there will be no delivery. First, the DUP jumped, and then there was the fact that the Prime Minister knew perfectly well when he would go to the polls and that he would never deliver on the promises that he was making, and so 'Safeguarding the Union', for what it was worth, has been left marooned and undelivered. Such is the consequence when you surrender sovereignty over your nation.”
“We saw, when it passed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and would have seen, had it had time to pass the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, that none of that legislation could be applied to Northern Ireland. Why? Because sovereignty over key areas had been surrendered to a foreign Parliament and jurisdiction. Is it not ironic that, when we come to elect to a Westminster Parliament, we will be electing MPs who, just as we in this place and their people are, are disenfranchised when it comes to the extent of the legislation they can pass?”
“I join others in welcoming you back, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The calling of the general election puts a fresh focus on the degree to which the people of Northern Ireland have been disenfranchised by the protocol. As MLAs, we already know, although some do not care, about the fact that 300 areas of law that should be disposed of mostly in this House are, instead, in the hands of a foreign Parliament, courtesy of the EU protocol. Now, we will elect a Parliament that, amazingly, is proclaimed to be the Mother of Parliaments, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, yet it will be unable, as we have seen, to legislate in certain areas for all parts of the United Kingdom.”
“It could have done it when it made concessions on human medicines, but it held out and refused, quite deliberately, to deal with the issue. That speaks not to the EU's goodwill or benevolence but to the belligerence in its attitude to Northern Ireland. All the more shame why. That, of course, is the root of the problem. All the more shame that Northern Ireland was betrayed under the protocol and left subject to EU law, the veterinary medicines division of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and all the rest of it. We are now paying the price: a price that is there only to extract pain and discomfort and to serve no animal health purpose at all. That is the approach of the EU. Shame on the EU, although it is no surprise.”
“It knows, as we know, that pharmaceutical companies are now forward-planning and deciding what they will and will not produce for where, yet the EU hangs back and has refused to arrive at an arrangement to solve a problem that is not a problem for the EU but that is a mammoth problem for Northern Ireland and its agri-food industry. Within that, I find echoes of the most punitive and belligerent of responses. That does not surprise me, because we have had them before from the EU. <BR /> <BR />So here we are. Our traditional path for accessing medicines is from GB — 85% come from there — and not one of them has inflicted any damage or hurt anywhere in the EU on animals or on health, yet, despite that proven track record of non-damage, the EU belligerently refuses to do the decent thing.”
“For that, we continue to live under the cloud and the threat of devastation arising from the withdrawal of veterinary medicines. <BR /> <BR />As far as the EU side is concerned, it is a nonsense, because, throughout the grace periods since we left the EU, has a single threat been posed by the veterinary medicines that we are using to the EU's single market or to animal health? No, yet the EU says that we cannot continue to use the very medicines that are not causing a problem. That is a typical EU triumph of dogma over reality, with a punitive tinge that is often there when it comes to how the EU deals with matters.”
“Given the undeniable seriousness of the issue and the potentially devastating consequences for our entire agri-food industry and more, it is a huge disappointment to me that, when the DUP had the leverage, it squandered it and instead returned to the House without the issue having been resolved. Mr Buckley referred to it as a "time bomb". The opportunity to insist on the defusing of that time bomb was before you gave up your leverage, and it is a disappointment that other things mattered more than our farming community. Those who present themselves as the friends of farmers let down the farmers when sacrificing that issue. What did they get? They got what may turn out to be a talking shop — who knows? — and the promise of legislation on the never-never.”
“The Northern Ireland Audit Office report, 'Access to General Practice', stated that, in 2022-23, 5·4% of health and social care spend went on primary GP care. How does that percentage compare with the percentage of the work done across the health service?”
“Can the Member shed any light on the oft-repeated promise of the Government to bring in legislation on issues such as this? When is that going to happen? If the DUP did that deal with the Government, surely it knows when. What assurance is there that any such legislation will not fall foul in the way that other legislation has of the supremacy of EU law?”
“The Windsor framework impediment is the unaltered protocol of 5(4) and the application of the tobacco products directive, which applies to the sale of tobacco. Is the Minister not concerned about the examples of the Danish Government and the Irish Government? From what I read in the Irish press, the Irish Government say that their preliminary legal advice suggests that Ireland cannot pursue a smoke-free generation policy, as has been suggested in other jurisdictions, due to the EU single market rules and the tobacco products directive. Here are two EU member states — we are in the same pickle — that have said that they cannot do it. Does that not concern the Minister?”
“No doubt, there will be vested interests in the tobacco industry that are willing to exploit this; of course there will. There may well be issues, arising from our subjugation to EU law, where EU law, prima facie, seems to say that you cannot do in a member state, which, sadly, we are still regarded as under the protocol, what this Bill seeks to do. If that is so, it will be an appalling situation, not just constitutionally but from a public health angle. If that happens, I trust that there will be enough honesty in the House to face up to the cause.”
“The Member may be uncomfortable to hear what the legal outcome of his embracing and advocacy of a protocol actually is. If it turns out — I trust that it will not — that EU law trumps this Bill, and if it turns out that the lives that could be saved cannot be saved because of EU law, I trust that the Member will come to the House and acknowledge how wrong he was, both in supporting the protocol and in swiping away the legal realities that flow from it. <BR /> <BR />I have to express surprise that the Committee, in dealing with this legislative consent motion, does not seem, from what I can read in its minutes, to have ever addressed this issue. I would have thought that it would have taken legal advice on the matter, and it really is surprising that it did not. In the House today, I raise the flag of warning.”
“I have no doubt that there will be legal challenge and that we will, ultimately, get an answer to it. If that answer is negative and that, yet again, a life-saving provision of the United Kingdom Parliament is prohibited from applying in Northern Ireland because of the supremacy of iniquitous EU law, I hope that those who are the cheerleaders for EU law will recognise what they have done.”