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 20 of 95.
“which, it says here, was published in July 2018. That surprises me. The report continues:”
“The purpose of my amendments — amendment Nos 1 and 2 — is to require the implementation of what we agreed six and a half years ago and to preserve the right to have oral evidence in committal proceedings, if the magistrate is persuaded — the onus is on the defence — that that is in the interests of justice. <BR /> <BR />When I discovered that, I was shocked beyond words, so I went to the Justice Committee's report — the Committee that examined this Bill — to see what it was told about this. I found that it was told very little about it. If you look at the explanatory document that accompanies the Bill, you will not find a word of explanation for why the commencement order was never made or why the Department thought that it was fit and able to defy the House. In the Committee's report, there is a reference in paragraph 69, which says:”
“Six and a half years ago, the House decided that the path that it wanted to tread on committal proceedings was to abolish all oral hearings except for those where it was found by a judge to be in the interests of justice, and yet the Department of Justice took it upon itself to defy the decision of the House and to circumvent that decision by never moving a commencement order. What an audacious challenge to the authority of the House. Today, six and a half years later, we have arrived at the situation of what this House declared to be law never yet having been implemented.”
“So, this House, in a settled view on an amendment moved by the Minister — it did not provoke a Division in the House — decided that the 1981 Order would be amended to preserve in very particular circumstances the right to have oral evidence in committal proceedings. Those very particular circumstances were that it would be in the interests of justice. The matters that would inform the decision on whether it would be in the interests of justice included such things as the nature of the offence and the interests of the witnesses themselves. One might have thought, therefore, that that became the law of this land. <BR /> <BR />I have to tell the House that, in the most astounding course of events, six and a half years later, the Department has still to move the commencement order for that section.”
“I should interpose to say that the phraseology "preliminary investigation" is the one that allows oral evidence, while "preliminary inquiry" does not. It goes on to say:”
“The relevant amendment came in section 7(2), which inserts after article 29 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 the following as article 29A, which was passed without Division at Further Consideration Stage:”
“To understand and appreciate the amendments that I have moved, one has to examine the backstory of the matter, which the House will, I think, find intriguing, interesting and maybe a little surprising. In 2015, the previous Justice Minister, Mr David Ford, brought before the House the Justice Bill. In that Bill, he sought to remove all oral evidence from committal proceedings. The House disagreed. It accepted an amendment from me at Consideration Stage, which preserved the option of oral evidence at committal stage if the magistrate was persuaded that it was in the interests of justice. Mr Ford then returned to the House at Further Consideration Stage with a more fleshed-out amendment that was compatible with the House's decision. In consequence, we have section 7 of the Justice Act 2015, which says:”
“My point was slightly different. As I read it, under article 39A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, there is a legal obligation that, at the date of issue of the revaluation, it should have taken into account anything that affected, adversely or otherwise, the physical enjoyment of the hereditament. Was the Department in receipt of legal advice by 1 April 2020 that it therefore had to, or should, take account of the COVID impact on the valuation list that it was about to issue? Did it issue it nonetheless?”
“Or is the Department minded to find some device or mechanism to nullify the impact of COVID on the 2023 revaluation? We need to hear a declaration of intent from the Department on that. <BR /> <BR />When I look at the Bill, I wonder whether some thought process has been given to clause 1(3), whereby further regulations amending the section, which is the power given in clause 1(3), could be made to take care of the 2023 situation. I trust that the Minister can be forthright in explaining both how we got to this point with the knowledge, before the 2020 valuation was issued, of the adverse impact of COVID and whether or how he anticipates dealing with the 2023 valuation, given the COVID impact that is bound to prevail there as well.”
“Yes. The Member reminds me that, also under article 39A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, you have to take into account not only the "physical enjoyment of the hereditament" but its physical setting. Clearly, a chip shop beside a pub that is no longer open is bound to experience the adverse impact on its physical setting. So, of course, that is right. It underscores my question, however, which is this: how did we get ourselves into this situation, where we proceeded to issue a 2020 revaluation knowing that it must have been infringing the requirements of article 39A? <BR /> <BR />My second major question concerns the fact that we are heading towards a 2023 revaluation based on 1 October 2021 just past. Is that revaluation going to reflect the COVID impact at October 2021 going forward into future years?”
“Now, if that is right, it adds to my question: why did the Department, therefore, proceed with the revaluation knowing that it had not taken into account the adverse impact? Was it always the intent to say, "We'll do it anyhow and sort it out later"?”
“My first unanswered question is this: how did we get to the point where the 2020 revaluation was issued, with the knowledge that there was bound to have been adverse impact on the physical enjoyment of the hereditaments owing to COVID? Why did we proceed to issue that revaluation on 1 April? <BR /> <BR />I imagine that, certainly, those of us in the Finance Committee have seen the letter from the person who calls themselves a "whistle-blower". We have no way of measuring its truth or otherwise, but if we put some credence or weight on what the letter claims, before 1 April, the Department was advised that, by law, it would have to take the impacts of COVID into account.”
“I approach the Bill with a number of unanswered questions. It takes us back to the 2020 revaluation. Article 39A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 is very clear that statutory provisions require certain matters to be taken into account in setting the revaluation. One of them is the "physical enjoyment of the hereditament". Since the 2020 revaluation was for 1 April, it was abundantly clear before 1 April that the physical enjoyment of the hereditaments was adversely affected by COVID, yet the revaluation proceeded as if it was not. Now, legislation attempts to block appeals against the very point that COVID should have been taken into account.”
“<BR /> <BR />The House has a duty of scrutiny and an obligation to our constituents that necessitate, where there is no good cause, the refusal of accelerated passage. No good cause has been presented. On the contrary, we have the most toxic mix of legislation that is retrospective and on which there has been no consultation, and, to top that off, we have a request for accelerated passage. That is a step too far.”
“I, too, will not support accelerated passage. I will keep my remarks brief, as that seems to be the consensus in the House. <BR /> <BR />By its very nature, accelerated passage should be reserved for particular and demanding circumstances. It is not to be an easy fallback or a convenience, it is something, rather, to be used in extremis and only in such circumstances. The issue being addressed in the legislation has been known about across the United Kingdom for months upon months. Other legislatures in the United Kingdom have proceeded to act. This Executive did not, and then, at the last moment, they come and say, "Because we did not act, the House needs to give us accelerated passage". I am sorry, but that is not how it works.”
“Just so that I understand properly the idea of the triple dimension of COVID certification. Vaccination, I understand. When you proclaim that you have had a negative test, is that a self-certifying proclamation? If so, what is the efficacy of it?”
“Can the Minister give us an assurance today that there will be a vote in the House on passports, so that, without the limitations imposed by the Deputy Speaker, we can debate the issue fully and properly?”
“One of its limbs is that you produce evidence of a test, but what you produce, as I understand it, is a scan of the little barcode on the box. Whether you ever took the test is another matter. The efficacy of the passport needs to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />At the end of it, are we doing something for the sake of being seen to be doing something, or will we do something that will work? Make no mistake: we are doing something that certainly involves the suppression of fundamental liberty. That is somewhere where the House should always be slow to go, particularly when we do not bring the very proposition to the House until we have done it.”
“If the exit strategy was vaccination and we have 90% vaccinated, what reason is there to think that, suddenly, passports are the exit strategy? It seems to me that there are fundamental questions that need to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Minister that the Executive collectively need to lead on the issue. You cannot lead on the issue by going in diverse directions, but that is undoubtedly what is happening. You have stirred up a hornets' nest amongst genuine people who feel that their civil liberties are suppressed by the fact that they are to be treated differently because, for ideological, medical or other reasons, they decline a passport. <BR /> <BR />The passport is anything but foolproof.”
“The first regulation that we are approving is the one that throws open the nightclubs and dispenses with all the safety measures therein. It flows from that that the next step of passports is being ushered in, so I have been asking whether that was the right step in the first place or an ill-considered, precipitate and premature step. Without it, would we now be where we are? <BR /> <BR />Where, ultimately, are we going? I remember, probably about a year ago in the House, asking the Health Minister, "What is your exit strategy from lockdown?", and his answer was clear: "My exit strategy is vaccination". Well, we now have 90% or thereabouts of our adult population vaccinated, but, nonetheless, we seem to be going backwards on this.”
“They are possessed of the same civil rights and liberties as the rest of us. However, in taking the step of introducing passports, we consciously treat them differently, and that is the issue with passports. Of course, that is of its essence divisive and, to some, provocative and has given rise to some crazy utterances, but it is also a distraction from the fact that successive Executives in this place, since devolution came back in 2007, have overseen a monumental rundown of our health service to the point where it cannot cope. We have 2,000 fewer beds than we had and fewer intensive care beds than Romania. That all happened under devolution. The passport issue, to me, is something of a diversion and distraction from the fact that there has been a lamentable failure to sustain, support and fund our health service in —”
“I have a number of issues with moving towards the passport scenario. Until this point, all measures taken by the Executive applied equally to everyone. Everyone, unless you had a medical exemption, had to wear a mask. Everyone had to do the various things that were required, but, in taking the step on passports, we step into the arbitrary territory where we will divisively enforce difference of treatment of the unvaccinated. I am fully vaccinated — indeed, I look forward to getting my booster on Thursday morning — so I have no hesitation, difficulties or reservations about vaccination. However, some people have. The people who have are not some sort of lesser individuals. They are not people who are to be treated as some sort of alien race. They are not pariahs. They are not lesser citizens.”
“Is it too much to ask that we, at least, should have the right to vote on such an extensive and, indeed, oppressive step as COVID passports? Surely it is not too much to ask that the legislative Assembly should, at least, be given a vote on that so that we can all declare ourselves at a meaningful time before the regulations come into effect.”
“Of course, within all that, we have seen the division and rancour of the Executive on the issues. We have had some "Pass the parcel" today. We had the Justice Minister saying, "Oh, no, no. Don't stop the music with me when it comes to the enforcement of face coverings. Pass it to someone else". We had the Economy Minister saying that the Health Minister's latest paper calling for a return to working at home is an overly simplistic approach. We had the four DUP Ministers in the Executive voting against but not blocking the passports; willing to wound yet afraid to strike. <BR /> <BR />My primary question to the Minister is probably this: given the radical move that COVID passports is, will the House be afforded the function of having a vote on it before it comes into effect?”
“That, of course, routes back to the power that was granted in the very first oversight regulations. On this occasion, though, the fact that, several weeks later, we are debating these regulations illustrates the farce into which the Executive have got us on COVID. It was the Executive who decided that nightclubs should open, and we all saw the debacle of The Elk on the back of that. Then, having opened the nightclubs, the Executive now say, "Oh, to deal with an action we took in opening the nightclubs and other aspects of hospitality, we now need COVID passports". Perhaps if they had not taken the first step, they would not think that they need the second.”
“Often in these debates in the House, I have been very critical of the fact that these are all retrospective approvals, and that weeks after the various changes have been implemented, we, the legislative Assembly, are asked, in circumstances where you can hardly do anything else, to approve and give a veneer of legitimacy to the regulations.”
“I join in the tributes to the courage and tenacity of the Murray and Dorrian families and, indeed, others. So that I can better understand the Minister's thought processes, I put this to her: if someone duly convicted of murder has withheld information and been sentenced on that basis with an enhanced sentence and the body is then found without their help, do they get any advantage from that? In other words, is the determinant the withholding of the information or the absence of the body? Can the Minister help me in that?”
“Of course, there is nothing there because the protocol, by design, treats Great Britain as a third or foreign country and annexes Northern Ireland as part of the EU's jurisdiction. Hence the lunacy of veterinary checks being carried out on our fish, and hence the disastrous economic consequences that will flow from this if a key component of our processing industry moves from Northern Ireland to Scotland, as it is threatening to, because of what it calls "madness". It is time for the Government and business to wake up and recognise the detriment that the protocol is causing to our industry. That example is but one small segment of that industry.”
“Alan McCulla described them as being treated as foreigners in their own land. Mr McCulla further said:”
“Further, the Fish Producers' Organisation warned that that would be catastrophic. Mr Wick, the leader of that organisation, said:”
“In Northern Ireland, we have a very vibrant and successful fishing industry. It employs some 1,200 people in processing and fishing. We land approximately £40 million of fish a year. At the weekend, however, we had a wake-up call from one of the industry leaders about the disastrous effect that the protocol is having on the industry. Whitby Seafoods is one of the leading scampi processors. The head of that company warned that it may have to switch all its production in Northern Ireland to Scotland because of what he called the "utter madness" that the protocol is imposing on it, whereby veterinary checks are required on fish caught in British waters and returned to a British port, such as Kilkeel.”
“The Minister describes this as "not ordinary legislation". He is certainly right about that, because it combines, in a most toxic mix, that which is retrospective with having absolutely no consultation. The Minister then wants to add to that a third component: accelerated passage. He wants to bring to the House legislation that is retrospective, that denies appeals and that has involved no consultation with the sector, and he wants to ram it through the House. Is that not a triple lock of unaccountability?”
“I trust that, in any code, there will be more vigour required and expected with regard to these matters. I trust, too, that when special audits are ordered, they will have the same vigour. Therefore, I trust that lessons can be learned, and will be learned, from what I see as failings that I have experienced with one particular council in the past, and that, going forward, we will see greater interrogatory rigour from the Local Government Auditor.”
“The auditor looked at the issue, simply accepted at face value nonsense that they were told by the council, did not dig or interrogate, and gave a clean bill of health on an issue on which that should never have been the outcome. That issue now lies at the heart of the Minister's having to seek a special audit of that council. It is tangential to that. <BR /> <BR />The relationship that can develop between the Audit Office and councils is one that needs to be kept under close scrutiny, because public faith is put in the auditors to be interrogatory in their approach to matters rather than to be fobbed off with answers that are convenient to the council but that bear little relation to the function of the auditor in getting to the bottom of those matters.”
“I will make a couple of short points. Obviously, it is right that there should be a code. I have always had some reservations about the juxtaposition of the Local Government Auditor and the Northern Ireland Audit Office and about the crossover in that office. My primary difficulty over the years with the Local Government Auditor is the practice that has developed whereby individual auditors are embedded, as it were, with a council for a period of up to five years. They will be embedded with more than one council. In my experience, that has induced what I perceive to be an unhealthy cosiness in the relationship between council and the Audit Office. <BR /> <BR />I have had experience of that with an issue that I had with a council.”
“I certainly think that this a very wise legislative consent motion. I am sure that the Department has considered this, but I just want to hear from the Minister as to whether any EU protocol consequences touch on it. Does the protocol impinge at all on how things will operate in Northern Ireland under the legislation?”
“Will the Minister clarify whether she is still pursuing the anti-growth proposal of congestion charges in Belfast, a proposal that has been rightly and roundly condemned by Retail NI?”
“Why was no memento of the momentous occasion of the centenary offered to pupils through schools that wanted it? Was there any curriculum coverage of the centenary?”
“The First Minister has avoided the question. Business can be conducted at any North/South meeting only if the agenda and content is approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. At the health meeting, on non-health issues, the First Minister approved appointments to five of the six North/South bodies. Why did he do that if there is a real, persistent, determined campaign, based on opposition to the protocol, against the operation of North/South bodies, given that our east-west relations have been trashed?”
“Though he is now a functionary of the Belfast Agreement, does its First Minister accept that its core assurance of no constitutional change without consent has proved to be a fable and a deceit, in view of the finding in the High Court that the protocol has had the effect of repealing a cardinal principle of the Acts of Union: article 6. If that is so, why is the Minister's party, through his preferred leader, continuing to implement the Union-dismantling protocol?”
“The test is whether the EU is willing and prepared to give up its ill-gotten sovereignty over this part of the United Kingdom. If it is not, there cannot be a settlement. The test from my perspective and, I believe, that of most unionists is that, at the end of this, will we still be in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code and a foreign VAT regime, overseen by foreign laws and a foreign court? If we are, there will have been no solution to the protocol issue. The protocol has to go in all its parts.”
“There most certainly has been a diversion of trade, and it is that, of course, that supporters of the protocol want, because they see it as weakening, dismantling and diminishing the links with Great Britain. The diversion of trade is a ground for triggering article 16. <BR /> <BR />In the past few days, we had the European Commission's vice president saying that he was going to work round the clock to find solutions. The problem is that he is interested in solutions only on EU terms. He is not interested in solutions that would restore the integrity and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The four non-papers that the EU published make it clear that all that it is interested in is tinkering. I repeat the message clearly that mere tinkering will not do it.”
“Over the weekend, we have seen an increase in the hysteria over the threat that the United Kingdom might dare to implement a portion of the protocol, namely article 16. Weak and inadequate as it is, article 16 is not some foreign instrument; it is an integral part of the protocol. Therefore, the apoplectic response from some people to the fact that the United Kingdom might dare to implement that part of the protocol is totally out of kilter with the same people's enthusiasm for the protocol's rigorous implementation. <BR /> <BR />I understand why nationalist and republican fanatics for the protocol are disconcerted by the fact that article 16 might be triggered.”
“That will be part of his legacy. Today, I join in the tributes and the condolences to his family.”
“I readily join in expressing condolences to the Currie family and, indeed, to Austin Currie's political family, the SDLP. He was clearly a cherished leader in that party from times past and one to whom its members continue to look up and from whom they draw inspiration. I never knew or met Austin Currie, but it is clear that he was a politician of conviction and action. One thing that stands out about him in my mind is that, no matter how strong his conviction or his sense of grievance, he did not sully them by endorsing or supporting violence. He recognised that political change properly comes through campaigning and democratic means. Unlike others, therefore, he did not resort to or support the hideous campaign of violence that was wreaked upon this Province so needlessly by the Provisional IRA and others.”
“That includes local councils. I am somewhat surprised at the indication that there is doubt about that. A public service body, inevitably, includes a public council as much as it includes a school or a higher education establishment. <BR /> <BR />There are issues to be fleshed out and addressed. I wish that the Bill had not gone down the road of needlessly invoking controversy on the issue of gender definition. It is quite clear who, and only who, requires the products that it will provide. The principle of the Bill is good. I want to see it refined so that it is not needlessly distracted into other territory.”
“<BR /> <BR />Other points have been raised. The Green Party MLA made a very legitimate point about sanitary bins and whether their provision should be added to the Bill. There have been questions about whether the Bill applies to councils. Look at the interpretation section of the Bill. Ms Bradshaw raised a point about what a public service body is. A public service body is defined in clause 8, which states it:”
“Therefore, in my view, there is nothing wrong with the legislation saying that, and its failure to say it has, unfortunately, drawn it into areas of controversy it did not need to be in. Therefore, I say to the Member that, as the Bill proceeds, that issue will need to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />There are other issues. Cost has rightly been identified. The figures in the explanatory and financial memorandum seem to me to be more modest than what the reality might be. The Scottish experience and others elsewhere suggest that. That needs to be fleshed out. Of course, it is attractive and easy for us, as legislators, to say, "Everything needs to be done", but we also have to have regard to cost, and maybe there comes a point at which there is some delineation because of cost. We need to get the costs right on these issues.”
“I do not want to unduly labour the point either, because the important principle of the Bill is that we will give free products to those who need them, and I am clear that those who need them are women and girls. <BR /> <BR />I will quote to the Member what Kathleen Stock, former professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, said when she got into a controversy about the issue. Her work focuses on gender. She called this approach "intellectually incoherent nonsense". She went on to say:”
“Biologically, if you menstruate, you are a woman. That is it. If you do not, you are a man. Period products are for women, so why are we following an agenda that wants to deliberately and consciously deny gender distinction? That is the agenda that lies behind Stonewall and others that are seeking to involve themselves in a perversion of gender definition and distinction. Whether we like it or not, it is there, and why would legislation want to diminish that distinction and fall into that trap?”