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 22 of 95.
“<BR /> <BR />How can you seriously call yourself, with pride, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, if you are content not to legislate on 60% of that which governs our economy? That is the reality of the protocol. Some 60% of the laws that govern us economically are made not in Belfast or London but in a foreign jurisdiction that we have no control over or even input into. <BR /> <BR />Then, along comes the EU, that most benevolent of organisations, some would have us say. It produces a "non-paper": well named. That non-paper, to deal with the democratic deficit, shows the calculated contempt in which Members of the Legislative Assembly are held. To deal with this situation — that we are governed by laws that we do not make, over which we have no control and into which we have no input — what does the mighty EU say?”
“Perhaps in a moment. <BR /> <BR />This, of course, is the fundamental, defining question of the protocol: who governs? I wonder, when I listen to some of them, whether those who boast of the title "Member of the Legislative Assembly" have ever even read the protocol. Have they ever read annex 2 to it? Have they ever noticed that there are 300 defined and named pieces of legislation that are imposed on us, that we cannot change and that we did not make? Has it even come to their attention that, during this year, a further 20 regulations, 12 of them dealing with DAERA and eight with the Department of Health, have been made, applied and imposed, without any consent or input from the people of Northern Ireland?”
“I am not given to quoting the late Tony Benn, but, in one of his last speeches — perhaps it was his last — in the House of Commons, he said:”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there a quorum?”
“Despite his and his party's doom and gloom predictions, does the Minister acknowledge that direct payments to farmers in Northern Ireland have increased significantly post Brexit? On this very day, £301 million is going out in direct payments, with more to follow, compared with a total of £281 million in the last year of common agricultural policy payments. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister acknowledge that there is one restraint on agricultural aid and that is the limit in the protocol on the amount that can be granted? Does the Minister support the protocol cap on agriculture?”
“Will the Minister undertake to speak to her Executive colleague the Infrastructure Minister about an impossible transport situation, which that Department has created, at Slemish College in my constituency, whereby the Department's active travel unit, without consultation with the school or Translink, removed the parking bays for buses on the public road in front of the school? It has created traffic chaos. Hundreds of pupils at the school travel by bus of necessity. Will the Minister discuss with the Infrastructure Minister the need to reverse that situation?”
“The word that I used was "sycophant", which fits Mr Dickson to a tee.”
“— that no one who claims the name "democrat" should be embracing it.”
“I find it beyond comprehension that those in the House with the word "democratic" in their party's title think that it is a good thing that Northern Ireland should not be able to make the laws that govern much of its economy, that we should be rule takers and that those laws should be made not in Belfast or London but in a foreign jurisdiction over which we have no control. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole talks about the "unique position" that the protocol gives Northern Ireland. Yes, it does. It is a very unique position in which, as a part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is governed by laws that the United Kingdom does not make and which Stormont does not make. That is so appallingly unique —”
“They insist that the rest of this United Kingdom is to remain a third country to Northern Ireland, with customs tariffs and checks on goods coming from what they say is that third country; and that this part of this United Kingdom must remain in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, a foreign VAT regime, overseen by foreign laws and the supremacy of a foreign Supreme Court. <BR /> <BR />There we come to the nub of the issue about the protocol, and the reason why, despite any tinkering, it will never be rendered acceptable to the unionist community in this Province: because it entails the EU clinging to its ill-gotten sovereignty over Northern Ireland.”
“Is it not intriguing that the sycophantic embrace of this proposed tinkering comes from the very same EU sycophants who embraced the original protocol, who decreed that it was wonderful and welcome in every jot and tittle, and who, in fact, on multiple occasions in this House, voted through the demand for its rigorous implementation? <BR /> <BR />It is not the oversold hype attaching to these EU proposals that matters; it is the content of the four non-papers — they are well named — that matters. When you read them, you see that they convey the same unyielding dogma of the EU, and, of course, that they spectacularly fail the most important test that can ever be applied to any such proposals, namely the sovereignty test.”
“Then people could speak with more credibility.”
“Robert Bradford died in almost identical circumstances: serving his constituents while meeting them in a community hall. He, along with a doorman, Kenneth Campbell, was murdered brutally and viciously by the IRA. Should our words not be matched across the piste by actions of condemnation, even yet, of that brutal murder, as well as all the rest?”
“Indeed, three of those named died at the hands of the wicked IRA: Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry and Robert Bradford. Would it not have been helpful today if the leader of Sinn Féin, who represents the republican movement in this Province, had been able, in this moment of grief for another widow, to say to Nora Bradford, "Sorry for the murder of your husband"? Would that not have been a decent thing to do, and would this not have been a timely occasion on which to do it? Instead we get words:”
“I join in the condolences to Sir David Amess's wife, five children and wider family following his murder. No doubt this is a moment of unspeakable grief for them. <BR /> <BR />As is evident from the tributes, Sir David was an exemplary parliamentarian who died as he lived: giving his life to serving his constituents. It is very poignant that those are the very circumstances in which he was murdered. Of course, he is not the first, but, hopefully he will be the last. I recall the murder of six MPs in this generation. Recently, we had Jo Cox. Before that, we had Airey Neave; Sir Ian Gow; Sir Anthony Berry, who was murdered in the Brighton hotel bomb; and, of course, from our Province, Rev Robert Bradford. It will be 40 years next month since Nora Bradford was widowed by the brutal acts of IRA terrorism.”
“I do not think that the Member can say that it is about providing for all. The very purpose of the Bill is to expunge protest and influence in the zones, which provides only for the Member's world view and expunges any other view that anyone could express in those zones. There is no balance in it.”
“The protection in that regard is conditional on whether the person is there at the invitation of a protected person. If the daughter invites the mother to go with her, she is a protected person, but, if the mother goes in pursuit of the daughter to influence her to not have the abortion, she is not a protected person.”
“I do not think that the Member can say that the point is to avoid undue influence when that is not the terminology of the Bill. The Bill uses the simple word "influence", which is much more than undue influence.”
“Is there a point of principle here for the First Minister that is more important than holding office?”
“Perhaps the Minister could urge Mr McGuigan to keep up, because on 25 September Her Majesty's Government announced an extra 500 visas for HGV drivers. Is there any allocation to Northern Ireland? How will we see a ripple effect from that?”
“Clause 6(2) refers to anyone who seeks to influence someone who is in one of these zones. That could well be the mother of a child. If it happens in the zone, you are not allowed to influence, no matter how motherly that influence might be.”
“To add to the Member's opposition to freedom of expression, is he now proclaiming opposition to the privileges of the House?”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, freedom of expression has to embrace the expression of the unpalatable and the palatable equally, otherwise it is meaningless. The logic and purport of the Bill is to suppress freedom of expression and to drive it from the public forum on the basis that it is disagreeable to the views of others. That is totalitarianism. That is not the liberty that many in the House proclaim a belief in from time to time. <BR /> <BR />I cannot support the Bill. It goes far too far and is far too oppressive of the rights of freedom of expression and protest, all in the interests of excluding anything but the pro-abortion view.”
“One of the reasons for that is that there is no limitation on the potential extent of the censorship zone. There is none whatsoever. It could embrace a whole town, if that were relevant. <BR /> <BR />This Bill is an open invitation to the House to create censorship zones, because the people who would be within those zones want to express values and views that offend the Bill sponsor. Through the Bill, they wish to decree that views that are disagreeable to those such as the sponsor are so wrong that they must be forcibly driven from the public square. The essence of the censorship or exclusion zones is that those views are so disagreeable that they cannot be heard or even be displayed on a poster lest they have the effect of influencing someone. That is a flagrant attack on liberty and freedom of expression.”
“The Bill really wants to establish censorship zones within which only the sponsor's approved set of values can be articulated. We do not need the sort of society where we are so oppressive of others' opinions that you created zones within which only the approved set of values can be expressed.”
“It is already there in article 9. In fact, for that, you can get a heavier sentence than what this Bill proposes: you can get six months in jail. Why does the Bill reinvent the wheel on those issues? <BR /> <BR />I remind the House that other responsible legislatures and Governments who have looked at the issue have come to a different conclusion from this private Member's Bill. The Home Office, having examined the issue in great detail, decided in, I think, 2018, that this was not the way to go. Scotland, which is often held up by some in the House as a great example of how to do devolution, decided not to have protection zones. We set a dangerous precedent in trying to impinge on other people's opinions.”
“It is already a breach of the law to engage in offensive or malicious communications under the Communications Act 2003, never mind the public order definitions that also cover those manifestations. <BR /> <BR />We have the 1997 Protection from Harassment Order and the disorderly behaviour and public order offences in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and all of that. Article 9 of the 1987 Order makes it an offence to use:”
“We have had justice amendment Bills before the House. Why did none of the Members, if they are exercised about this issue, table an amendment to the Harassment Order to remove the course of conduct requirement? That was the simple answer, and it would have had universal application, not just in respect of these protected premises. That was a far easier route to follow and one that was far less objectionable. <BR /> <BR />Of course, I also remind you that there are powers under article 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 whereby the police, in the proper circumstances, can forbid public gatherings at locations. Why are we reinventing the wheel?”
“A simple answer to that is to remove the course of conduct requirement in the Harassment Order. If that is the problem, that is the solution, not a Bill that carries us way into the realms of making it unlawful to try to influence someone. That is the real nub of the objection to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We have harassment laws. You can get a harassment injunction. You can have a restraining order under the Harassment Order, which is for future attention, to curb how someone can act in future. Those things, among many more, already exist.”
“It is clear that that is there to try to paper over the fact that the Bill is an all-out assault on freedom of expression and an all-out assault on the right to protest. The proof is in clause 8(2), where it says that the Department "must" make the order. Never mind what it has to have regard to notionally; it "must" make the order. The Bill is fraudulent in that respect in pretending that, in fact, the functions are exercised subject to clause 9. They are overridden by the compulsion of clause 8(2). That is the reality. <BR /> <BR />On that point, are we in a situation where we have no law to deal with this? We are not. I have already made that point in interventions. On the question of harassment, points can be made that there has to be a course of conduct, which is defined in the 1997 Order as more than one occasion.”
“There it is in black and white. The Bill is about expunging and oppressing protest. The Bill, for all the fancy words of clause 9 about having regard to the right to protest, is in the business of the very opposite.”
“There is no scope to be influenced by the right to protest about the manifestation of religious belief. That is expunged by clause 8(2). It is only in clause 9 for presentational purposes. If ever there was any doubt about that, paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum could not be clearer:”
“We are told in clause 9 that the Department, in making its censorship zones etc, must have regard to "the right to protest". However, clause 8(2) states:”
“I have no issue with that. It is clear to me what the law means when it says cause "alarm or distress": it means "cause alarm or distress to a third party". Of course it does. That is not the issue here. The issue on that particular is that we now have this undefined perception of harassment that clearly does not mean "alarm or distress". If it did, the Bill would not have been drafted in that tautologous way. If it simply means "alarm or distress", you do not need the word "harassment". Clearly, it means more than "alarm or distress", hence the use of the word "harassment". What is that meaning? I do not know, because we are not told in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I want to draw attention to one or two other things in the Bill. Clause 9 relates to the exercise of functions. This relates to the Department of Health:”
“No doubt, when the Bill sponsor is winding, she will tell us what harassment is, if it is not causing alarm or distress, which is the only definition of harassment in our law. If we are bringing in a new definition, what is it? It needs to be spelled out. The House is entitled to ask and to know the answer to that question.”
“Let us deal with harassment. You draw me to a point that intrigues me about the Bill. Clause 1(2) talks about "influencing, harassing, alarming or distressing", and, again, clause 6(2) talks about "causing harassment, alarm or distress". Harassment is defined, but not in this Bill. Harassment is defined in the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. What is harassment? Causing alarm or distress. So what does the Bill mean when it says "harassment, alarm or distress"? Is it just being tautologous? What does it mean when it says "harassment", since the very word "harassment" in our criminal law is already defined as "alarm or distress"? Yet, additionally, we have some ill-defined, undefined harassment in the Bill. When you go to the interpretation section, you see that "harassment" is not defined.”
“No, I do not. If the content of Holy Scripture is harassment, maybe it bears out the point that Holy Scripture should be a conscience-pricker in many avenues of life.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is vindictive against freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not just the right to express the palatable; equally, it is the right to express the unpalatable. Yet, the person who reminds the users of the facilities of what, in their view, is the cardinal and sacred position that "Thou shalt not kill" is the person who, in this case, is criminalised.”
“The direction of travel of the Bill is that it will soon be criminalised to have any view contrary to abortion, but let us take the example of someone who has a religious conscientious conviction about abortion. They decide that an abortion clinic is somewhere that they will go not to shout, not to lobby, not to block people but to hold up a poster. That poster might simply have the immortal words of the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill". Under the Bill, because that is capable of influencing someone and causing them, as the protester intends, to stop and think, "Do I want to kill the baby in my womb?", and because it has the capacity to cause them to be influenced by that, the protester, doing nothing but holding up those few words, is a criminal. That is a preposterous proposal, yet it gives us an insight into the Bill.”
“Had the Member been listening, she would have heard me criticise those Members of the Northern Ireland legislative Assembly who abuse the very principle and ethos of Baby Loss Awareness Week in aid of the destruction of babies. That is what I criticised. <BR /> <BR />Think of another situation with regard to what the Bill actually means.”
“Yes, the distressed mother of the 14-year-old who is pregnant and goes for the abortion is criminalised because she has the intent to want to influence her daughter not to do it. How can that be right? Yet, that is what the draft law would do. Let us not forget that the protected person can, of course, be a minor or an adult. The draft law is directed at that 14-year-old girl as much as it is at the 24-year-old woman, yet we are picking on mothers who may be distressed by that situation and want to bring motherly influence to their daughters. If they follow them down to the clinic, pleading with them not to have the abortion, they become the criminal. There is nothing upright, proper or legitimate about that approach.”
“that is the person who is not a protected person, the defendant; "D" the defendant —”
“Think about that: the House is being invited to legislate that something that may — it does not have to, but it may — influence another person should be criminalised. Think of the distressed mother whose 14-year-old daughter finds herself pregnant and goes to a clinic to get an abortion. The distressed mother begs her not to go through with the abortion. This draft law says that the mother is the criminal. That is not where the state should go with regard to this matter. <BR /> <BR />If there is any doubt about that, turn to clause 6. Clause 6(2) states:”
“Let me read that again, focusing on one word:”
“No, I need to make some progress. I am generally generous with allowing interventions, but I want to start. I have not even started my comments to any extent on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I am not distracted from the fact that the Bill, like any Bill, requires rigorous scrutiny as to what it really seeks to do. One does not have to read very far into the Bill to detect the direction of travel. Clause 1(2) states:”
“If a lady is going in to seek advice about complications in her pregnancy, she would be going to her GP or a hospital. I do not think she would be going to an abortion clinic.”
“I consider all those things, and I consider that it is.”
“I am being surrounded by requests. I will certainly. I will start with the lady, if that is not offensive.”
“Those persons would not be protected by the Bill. The Bill's definition of "protected person" are those going into the facilities or accompanying those going into the facilities, so the point that the Member raises is a non-point in the context of the Bill.”
“I wish to begin by refuting the suggestion that to oppose the Bill is to endorse harassment, abuse or violence. It is none of those things, and I absolutely throw back that slur, which has been cast at those of us who would dare to question the need for and the content of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In that same vein, we have had many diversionary emotive presentations in support of the Bill, even to the point of calling, in aid, a distortion of Baby Loss Awareness Week. We are talking about abortion. We are talking about the ending of babies' lives, yet there are those in the Chamber who have sought to call, in aid, Baby Loss Awareness Week, which is about those who lost babies not through choice.”