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 21 of 95.
“If the biological reality is that only girls and women menstruate and that boys and men are not in that category, why are we shy about identifying in the legislation the people it will help? Mr Catney, to my surprise, was quoted in the press as saying, "Boys have periods too". Boys do not have periods.”
“If we legislate for free period products for those who need them, we are legislating for women and girls; that is everyone who needs them, end of. Men do not need period products. Boys do not have to go through that experience, yet we had the quite —”
“I will in a moment. Therefore, the perversion of gender by the removal of it from the Bill is a retrograde step. Here is a Bill that addresses an issue for women and girls, and yet those words are not used anywhere in this legislation. That seems to me to be foolish and wrong. I will give way.”
“It is quite clear that the need is the need of those who menstruate, and they, of course, are women and girls, and no one else. Therefore, I am somewhat saddened that the Bill's sponsor has allowed himself to fall for the Stonewall agenda of trying to attack gender and remove references to gender from legislation, and therefore —”
“Then, if there is any doubt that it is for persons who need to use those products, the key definitions in clause 7 say clearly that:”
“I readily support Mr Catney's laudable intent with regard to the issue of free period products for women and girls, and also his compassion in identifying an issue and acting upon it. It clearly is causing great stress and poverty for a number of young women and girls. Therefore, the addressing of that is a necessary and good thing. In the addressing of it, it is quite clear from a number of the contributions that the Bill would assist in bringing dignity to the issue, and also assist something as fundamental as school attendance for young women and girls. That has to be a communal benefit for the whole of society, so that is good. <BR /> <BR />It is quite clear to whom the Bill is directed. One has only to look at a couple of its clauses. Clause 1(1) is directed at:”
“<BR /> <BR />We are making some baby steps today, but, my oh my, we have some giant steps to make to bring the House to anything that equates to recognisable democracy where you can have a Government who are opposed with vigour and can be replaced because they fail, instead of the dysfunctionality that has hallmarked this place for the past two decades and more.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to say to the House, if you are going to do this job, do it right. Restricting an Opposition and tying their hands by refusing to give them the resources is not the way to go. If we want an Opposition, they have to be a full-throated, effective Opposition, and that means that you have to enable them financially with the resources and research to mark the Government that they are opposing. Failure to do that is just to underscore the churlishness of the approach to having opposition in the House.”
“A few months ago, the House approved a translation service, needlessly and pointlessly, to translate that which is spoken into Irish and Ulster Scots and vice versa etc. That will cost the House £340,000 a year, and we think that £100,000 for an Opposition would be enough. The Audit Committee was told that the £340,000 a year would recruit six people. What will £100,000 recruit? Not even two full-time equivalents. <BR /> <BR />What is an Opposition's job? It is to mark a Government who have behind their backs the full panoply of a Civil Service of 20,000 people and more, who have spads who cost us almost £2 million a year, and the House thinks that giving an Opposition £100,000 a year to mark government and challenge all the resources that they have is adequate. It is a farce.”
“They so want to cocoon themselves from scrutiny that, to this point, they have eschewed the very initial steps of having a proper Opposition, enjoying instead the luxury of knowing that they can never be voted out of office because of the absurdity of mandatory coalition. The House has long needed an effective Opposition. Of course, the purpose of an Opposition is, ultimately, to provide the electorate with an alternative, but this system fails and will continue to fail under mandatory coalition to do that. <BR /> <BR />I described this as a "baby steps" report, and so it is. That is most stark when you come to the financing of an Opposition. It is suggested that there should be an extra £100,000. How paltry.”
“A Parliament and a Government without an official Opposition is a sham and a travesty of democracy. Ask any GCSE politics class what the features are that denote a working, viable, worthwhile democracy, and I guarantee that amongst the answers will be the existence of an effective Opposition. Without it, we have the sham of this place. <BR /> <BR />What a commentary that, over 20 years after these institutions came into place, we are now discussing a report to take some baby steps in respect of opposition. Such has been the vested interest of those clinging to office that they do not want to be scrutinised.”
“I am sure that, as was alluded to earlier, many of the poultry farmers in my constituency would, first and foremost, like to have heard about the long-awaited ammonia strategy. In respect of this strategy, of course one will look for significant private investment, but the Minister's vision will, of necessity, involve considerable public purse expenditure. Surely, there has been some scoping of that. I do not expect a precise figure, but can the Minister give us an indication of the demands on the public purse to deliver what he is talking about today?”
“Does the Minister now think that he and, indeed, we can change the climate?”
“Environmental responsibility is indisputably good. However, I am intrigued by paragraph 11 of the statement, in which Minister Poots states:”
“So all users are registered users. Will the Minister give some indication of the quantity? Are we talking about dozens, hundreds or thousands of registered users? One of the aspects of the weekend's press report was a claim that the updated system was less efficient or did not have an audit facility. Can he say categorically that that is not correct? Does the system enable the overseers to see who accessed it and when? Is there any grey area around that?”
“Does the Minister agree that the protocol barriers have caused a substantial diversion of trade, which is one of the proper grounds upon which article 16 of that same protocol can be triggered? If it is triggered, will the Minister undertake to, at that point, cease all checks at our ports that are being exercised under the protocol?”
“From time to time, the deputy First Minister proclaims empathy with the hurt of victims, and, in the context of the hurt of IRA victims on the thirty-fourth anniversary of the horrendous Poppy Day massacre in Enniskillen, I have a fairly straightforward question that touches on the hurt of IRA victims. In the eyes of the deputy First Minister, was the attack in Enniskillen a terrorist attack?”
“So, if the Minister is persuaded by your argument, she could do it by an order. Is that not correct?”
“Article 7(2) of the 2006 Order is pretty clear:”
“I just want a little clarification. It is quite clear that, under article 7(2) of the 2006 Order, the Minister could by order do what the Member is looking for. Are you saying that there has been a refusal to do that? Would that not be a quicker route than the legislative one, which compels that which the Minister may be willing to do?”
“I welcome the accolade and the opportunity for Glenarm. On a somewhat related matter, 'New Decade, New Approach' ('NDNA') ushered the Minister back into office. Amongst its many promises was reference to a project that it grandly titled the "Great Ulster Forest". What has become of that project? Indeed, what is it?”
“That would be fitting and necessary to make good on the affirmations of the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government of their belief in and desire for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />Why is our centenary not one of the dates marked in the annual calendar in respect of the flying of flags on public buildings? We know why it is not in this Building — because of the bigotry of Sinn Féin — but the Secretary of State has a responsibility to right that wrong by including that day in the regular regulations that apply.”
“To me and to those whom I represent, it was a matter of regret and insult that, in the centenary year of Northern Ireland, the Assembly Commission did not have the grace to accede to the flying of the Union flag on one of the dates that mark the centenary: the original May date or the date of the first sitting of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Instead, we had the belligerent refusal of respect, which, as was mentioned, also manifested itself in the refusal to date of a centenary stone and even a rose bush in the gardens of Parliament Buildings. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Secretary of State that he should take the opportunity to include, as a standard day every year, a day to mark the centenary of the creation of Northern Ireland.”
“The updating regulations were, of course, brought about because of the sad intervention of the death of the much loved Duke of Edinburgh and, looking forward, because of other changes in the royal family. The Secretary of State makes the regulations, and I want to put it on record that it is a matter of regret to me that he does not adopt and follow in this part of the United Kingdom the flag-flying policy that exists across GB. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission has the discretion to include additional days for this Building.”
“— but it would at least be a declaration of proper intent to defend the —”
“The sooner that article 16 is activated, the better. Not that it is the whole answer —”
“Some time ago, the EU was the party lecturing everyone about how an international agreement could not be breached. It now threatens to set aside an international trade agreement when someone says that they might exercise a power already in the protocol, that of article 16.”
“It has transferred lawmaking powers from the United Kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction that is overseen by a foreign court. Of course it has made constitutional change. <BR /> <BR />Fundamentally, the flames have now been fanned by the belligerent, bellicose utterances of an EU official, when he talked about being:”
“<BR /> <BR />Last night, we saw a totally different level of violent incident at Rathcoole. That was utterly wrong. Violence is self-defeating, although it comes from within the community of Northern Ireland that saw a reward for violence through the Belfast Agreement. However, it is wrong. It is clear to me that the consequential burden on unionist politicians, I include myself, to ensure that there is no room or vacuum for such violence, is to pursue relentlessly the dismantling of the iniquitous protocol, which has wrought constitutional change. The High Court has decreed that it is incompatible with article 6 of the Act of Union 1800 in its denial of unfettered trade and is, therefore, impliedly repealed. There is no point in people like Mr O'Toole pretending that it has not made the constitutional change that it has made.”
“I join other Members in offering my best wishes and condolences to our colleague Peter Weir. <BR /> <BR />Thirty-four years ago today, one of the most appalling acts of IRA terrorism took place: the Poppy Day massacre in Enniskillen. Today, I think of the families of the 11 people who were killed immediately and the family of Ronnie Hill, who died some 13 years later. In that context, I was utterly appalled to read the comments of the Secretary of State in an interview with the PA news agency at the weekend, when he proclaimed, in support of an amnesty, that Troubles deaths were different. Troubles deaths were murder. Murder is murder. Amnesty, sadly, is, therefore, validation of murder. I utterly condemn those comments. On this day, I join in sympathy and thought with the many who are grieving in the Enniskillen area.”
“Is part of the problem not the lack of coordination on the handover of patients from the ambulance to the hospital? We have cases in which ambulances sit for hours with patients on a trolley, but if they were to be transferred to a hospital trolley, the ambulance could get back on duty. Do we not need proper coordination?”
“If the Minister thinks that there is not a lack of confidence among the unionist and loyalist community and that it is only a matter of perception and not reality, I am very disappointed by her complacency. Does she think that she maybe contributed to that lack of confidence by her action in the House a few weeks ago, when she voted against the removal of convicted prisoners from the Policing Board? Does she not think that that gives cause to the lack of confidence in the police by many in our community and feeds that view? How can she justify saying to the community that it is right to have convicted terrorists controlling the police through the Policing Board?”
“I would like to hear from the Minister on those two points, within the ambit of the debate.”
“There is particular concern amongst many about the booster programme. <BR /> <BR />If I can test your patience a little, Mr Speaker, I also invite the Minister to comment, if he can, on the fact that the medical director in the Northern Trust has said that patients visiting hospital should be entitled to ask the attending staff whether they are vaccinated. There has been some controversy about that, not least today. Is that the Department's policy? What is the compulsion, if any, on the nursing and medical staff to answer such a question? If they do not answer such a question, are there consequences? The medical director's remarks are opening up a whole new controversy. <BR /> <BR />If the Minister could clearly spell out the Department's stance on those issues, that would be of particular interest and assistance.”
“The regulations typify the steps being taken to open up society. There is a corresponding concern in respect of those who feel vulnerable to COVID as to whether and why our booster programme has fallen behind. Many of us were amazed at the efficiency and achievements of the original vaccination programme. It truly was a remarkable feat. However, suddenly, when it comes to the booster, which, we are told, is necessary six months after the previous vaccination, we drag far behind. The figure quoted is only 28%, which is less than half of some other devolved regions. As the Minister is present, I would like him to use the opportunity to explain to the House why the booster programme lags behind, what steps are intended to make up that lost ground and what the time frame is in that regard.”
“If you build into that farce the fact that you can only have a Government if, at their top and heart, you have a party that does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, you arrive at the ultimate farce of why this system of government can never work, will never work, cannot bring good government and will continue to bring the dysfunctionality that is a shame on the system.”
“It fundamentally denies the electorate the right that should be the most cherished: the right to change its Government. You all sit here cocooned in the knowledge that, no matter how big a hames you make of government, provided you hang on to a handful of seats, you cannot be removed. What sort of farcical system is that? <BR /> <BR />Then we are surprised when some come to the House and weep crocodile tears about it not working, its dysfunctionality and the fact that it is falling apart. Of course it will fall apart; it is incapable of holding together. The only glue that holds it together is the self-interest of being in government in the sure and certain knowledge that you can never not be in government.”
“If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system. That is the very essence of mandatory coalition: provided a party continues to hold a handful of Assembly seats, it is guaranteed, as of right, a place in government. The right to vote a party out of government is removed from the electorate. Across the world, people go to the polls more often than not inspired by the determination to vote a party out. In this country, we are denied that basic democratic right because of the iniquity of mandatory coalition. There will never be stability or a working system of government in these institutions as long as there is mandatory coalition, because it disincentivises the need to agree about anything.”
“Hence it is no surprise that, in government, we see the dysfunctionality, the disagreement and the shambles that characterise these institutions. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the other fatal flaw in mandatory coalition is that it denies the electorate its most fundamental right: the right to change its Government. Yesterday, I quoted the late Tony Benn and his five democratic questions, the fifth of which was:”
“In opening the debate, Mrs Armstrong made a number of powerful points that would be hard to refute. She has a legitimate grievance about the fact that her designation is less equal than others. She is right when she says that the system perpetuates division. That, of course, is the outworking of the Belfast Agreement, for which the Alliance Party was a cheerleader. Whereas Mrs Armstrong said that mandatory coalition does not work, the sad thing about her motion and amendment is that they utterly avoid that issue. The gaping void in the motion and the amendment is any reference to mandatory coalition, a system that is inherently and congenitally incapable of working because it is based on a number of unworkable premises, one of which is that you do not have to be agreed about anything in order to be in government.”
“For a statement that tells us nothing new, this statement will take some beating. First Minister, why do the Executive think that it is right to give unrestrained access to nightclubs while continuing to restrict family members visiting hospitals? Surely he must know of many cases, as I do, of very distressed families who are told, "Sorry, one person, one visit per week", yet it is open house when it comes to nightclubs. Where is the logic in that?”
“Yes, we, rightly, all lament the situation that we face in our health service, but let us be big enough to face up to the fact that these institutions have not served the health service well.”
“I think back to the years when Michael McGimpsey was Health Minister and to the deliberate cutting off of funding to make a political point — the point that he was not capable and that the problems were caused by his incompetence. The reality was that health was being starved of funding. Today, we are reaping the fruits of that and more. I am going to tiresomely remind the House that, since devolution returned in 2007, we have seen a reduction of between 1,500 and 2,000 beds across our health service. That does not just mean the physical beds, it refers to all the staff that go with them. Then we are surprised that things are as bad as they are. This is a crisis that has fundamentally been made in Stormont; it was Stormont that cut those beds from our health service and across the whole sector.”
“Nothing is likely to touch any of us more than the death and suffering of children. This morning, therefore, we rightly focus on an acute issue affecting a section of our community. It is not unique to that section; if we look at the whole range of cancer services for all age groups, we will discover a quite chilling situation. As we focus on the position for children, however, it is truly shocking to hear the statistics that Mr McGrath and the report have laid out. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps it is a little tiresome of me to say this again: yes, COVID has been an aggravator, but it is not the cause of our problems in the health service. The cause is gross and calculated underinvestment.”
“I followed the case as best I could, but I heard no new and compelling evidence that gave me any thought at any time during the trial that there was likely to be a conviction. I say this to Mr Herron, our Director of Public Prosecutions: why did you do that to that man? What was the justification and the basis for dragging him before the courts? Mr Hutchings entered the trial under the presumption of innocence. and, in the same vein, he died an innocent man.”
“Last night, we heard of the sad end to the torrid pursuit of an old soldier. The veteran Dennis Hutchings was needlessly dragged to court from his home and family in Cornwall in what had all the appearances of a witch-hunt of a former soldier. Last Monday, when I stood with him outside the Crown Court, it was evident to me that he was far from well. This was a man who, every other day, had to have kidney dialysis and had heart trouble, yet there he was, strong in his presentation but labouring under the obvious strain and cruelty of being put in that position. <BR /> <BR />Our Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Herron, should consider his position. His office argued that Mr Hutchings was fit to stand trial. His office determined to bring the charge before him. His office proclaimed that there was new and fresh evidence. Where was it?”
“Does the Member recognise that there are light years' difference between making representations and the right to be heard, and making the laws that govern you? The issue is that we are being denied, in our own country, the right to make the laws that govern our economy in Northern Ireland, if it is affected by the EU single market. We are meant to settle for making representations. Is that what the Member has come to be — an MLA making representation to a foreign legislature?”
“I can ask those of a democratically elected Assembly, and I can ask those of a democratically elected Parliament, but I cannot ask them of an EU Commission or the European Parliament, yet they are the bodies that put their laws upon us. If Mr O'Toole is sanguine and satisfied about that and thinks that it is great to expunge democracy from Northern Ireland and to grovel to accept a website and a talking shop, it says a great deal about Mr O'Toole and his party's democratic credentials. This motion is a grovelling salute to the oppression of Brussels and therefore should be rejected, but it will not be, because this is a grovelling House when it comes to the EU.”
“This House is a disgrace, if it takes the view that it is for us not to legislate but to kowtow to Brussels, accept what it says and be grateful for the crumbs, even the crumb of a website. My my, how have the mighty fallen? Those who call themselves the Social Democratic and Labour Party are so democratic that they eschew the very notion that we should rule ourselves. What an outrage has been put upon us by the protocol. I think that Mr O'Toole wants to enlighten me.”
“It says, "We will give you a website". Wow. It says, "We will even give a talking shop, as a backup to the Joint Committee. If you are really good, we might even let some MLAs sit on another talking shop and talk to some MPs and MEPs". There are people in the House who salivate over that and think that that is democratic accountability, such is their blindness and their obeisance to the EU. If the EU says it, that is enough for them. <BR /> <BR />Where is your self-respect as a legislator? Where is your duty to your constituents, who sent you to here to legislate, when you surrender so willingly and so wantonly control over 60% of the laws that govern our Assembly?”