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 3 of 95.
“It reported that it could not proceed with the generational ban because of the same EU directive, yet Mr Chambers tells us, "Oh, the government lawyers and the DSO are content that it is not a problem". Those are the same government lawyers who told us that the legacy Bill was not going to be a problem and that the migration issue was not a problem, yet we have seen, not once but twice, what happened in the High Court, when two Acts of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom were struck down. Why? Because they did not comply with overriding EU law, subjugating the right of Parliament to legislate in Northern Ireland. It may well be that the Danes are right and that the Dublin lawyers are right that, because of our subjugation to foreign law, you cannot proceed in Northern Ireland with this Bill.”
“That is absolutely wrong. If we had got Brexit, we would not have this problem. We got the protocol instead, which keeps us subjugated to the EU and under its laws. The Member has not been listening, or, if he has been listening, he has not understood. Article 5(4) of his beloved protocol subjects Northern Ireland to this foreign law that we cannot change. That foreign law says that you cannot restrict the marketing of tobacco. It is the Alliance Party's protocol, which it demanded rigorous implementation of, that creates this dilemma. That is the legal reality. <BR /> <BR />It comes much closer to home, because the Irish Republic also contemplated a generational ban. Just last week, it indicated that it would not proceed but would instead increase the age limit for the sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21.”
“They did not proceed, because they believed, on their legal advice, that it was not possible to have a generational ban, because article 24 of the binding tobacco products directive, which equally applies to us, prohibits restriction of the marketing of tobacco.”
“The defining legal question is this: is a generational ban a restriction on placing tobacco on the market? There may be some guidance on that from what has happened in other countries. Back in 2022, Denmark, which is an EU member state, proposed a generational ban that is similar to this measure on those who were born after 2010, yet it withdrew the proposal because of conflict with the very EU law that also binds us. In an answer that was given in the Danish Parliament on 6 April 2022, the Ministry of Health said:”
“— for this purpose, we are regarded, sadly, as a member state —”
“Article 24 of the tobacco products directive states:”
“Whether we like it or not, that sets the legal parameters for Northern Ireland because of the protocol's hideous imposition of laws that we cannot change.”
“One of those laws, as the Minister knows — he set it out in an answer to me: AQW 6192/22-27 — is one of the more than 60 areas of EU law that bind his Department, namely the tobacco products directive.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to look, however, at an aspect that has been glossed over to this point and was briefly mentioned by Mrs Dodds and Mr Chambers: whether, if we assent to a national Act of Parliament to deal with this issue, that Act of Parliament will be permitted to be applied in Northern Ireland because of the overriding effect of the Northern Ireland protocol. Or are we headed down the road of further subjugation of democratic will by EU diktat? <BR /> <BR />As the Minister knows, under article 5(4) of the protocol, a series of some 300 laws and areas of law set forth in annex 2 to the EU protocol are made applicable to Northern Ireland.”
“I certainly agree that proceeding with the legislative consent motion is the most expedient way to address the issue. I also share in the consensus that the essence of the Bill is desirable. Smoking is an indisputable killer in our society, and, therefore, that which we can do to diminish the death toll from smoking we should do. That is my starting point in all this. <BR /> <BR />Vaping is a largely unregulated industry, and I am not sure, unless the regulations under the Bill come up to spec, that it will be greatly regulated by those provisions. It is, undoubtedly, the gateway to smoking, and, therefore, if we are going to deal with smoking, we need to deal with vaping. I trust that, going forward, that is how it will be.”
“Figures that were released in the House of Lords show that, in GB, between 2003 and 2016, 12,000 more divorce processes were commenced each year than were ever concluded. Is that not indicative of the fact that, very often, reconciliation can arise? If you create a system where is no window for reconciliation, there is no compulsion to reconcile. If it is a case of being out the door within six months, there is no prospect of reconciliation.”
“It becomes the ultimate inequality when one party, without consulting or paying any heed to the objection of the other, can impose divorce, and the objecting party can never even be heard. The law says that the declaration by the petitioner that the marriage has irretrievably broken down is taken as gospel. It cannot therefore be questioned, and the objector cannot say, "Hold on a moment. I want to be heard on this". That is the inequality.”
“However, for one person to say, "In spite of you, I will inflict divorce upon you" — this is for anyone who thinks that that will make the ancillary relief easier — it will build up great hostility and far more difficulties in all of that. Children who might never have known that their father or mother was minded to go for divorce suddenly have that thrust upon them. The House should be very careful before rushing into the fashionable idea of saying, "What is marriage? Forget about it. Walk in one door, walk out the other, and who cares?". That is the attitude of no-fault divorce, illustrated by its proponents in the House who were not even prepared to take an intervention.”
“The ancillary relief follows from the divorce. Under the English legislation, you could be married today, initiate divorce tomorrow and, within six months, be divorced. The ancillary relief, the disposal of the assets, is next attended to. Do you think it will be an advocacy of contentment and ease of those ancillary relief processes to have a wife who did not want to be divorced and is probably on the lesser share of the ancillary relief to suddenly find that she has to face that, with the house that she thought was giving her cover gone? You are putting that woman in an impossible position. <BR /> <BR />Again, I come back to the point. If both of them want to say, "We want to disavow our vows; we want to end the marriage", that might be one thing, at a secular level.”
“Why? Because the Assembly thinks it is a great idea to have no-fault divorce and enable that infliction upon families and children.”
“The biggest scoundrel who has ever been in a marriage, the biggest philanderer or the cruellest individual who has mistreated his wife and children for years, can suddenly present as a petitioner, claiming the marriage is irretrievably broken down, and the court is obliged to accept that without ever hearing from the innocent party or ever proceeding to make an adjudication. That is a step far too far. I can understand it, from a legal point of view, if both parties to a marriage mutually want to make an application that their marriage is over, but the real menace in this is that the innocent party can have divorce against their will put upon them. Marriage break-up is the greatest cause of poverty in this country. A wife could find herself suddenly, against her will, divorced, maybe homeless and with her children falling into poverty.”
“that can come from either party or both —”
“Divorce is a devolved issue and is entitled to be treated by the Assembly as it so wishes, but the fundamental is this: a party in a marriage could find themselves, under no-fault divorce, divorced without the right to ever object. Remember that section 1 of the English legislation says:”
“Marriage is a coherent thread keeping society and families together so it, inevitably, follows that, when you embrace easy, no-fault divorce, you cheapen marriage. Marriage is based on solemn vows, and no-fault divorce demeans, diminishes and disregards those vows. It can inflict upon an innocent party in a marriage the greatest possible hurt. They who took their vows seriously could be faced with a situation, under no-fault divorce, where, in spite of that and contrary to their wishes, they can be divorced without the right to ever be heard. That is the point that cuts to the very issue affecting innocent parties.”
“I am obliged to the Member for giving way. Can he think of any legal arrangement whereby someone objects to the dissolution of that arrangement but is denied the right to object and the right to have judicial arbitration or decision-making on their objection? Is there any other legal arrangement where that applies?”
“On the subject of unanswered questions, I will ask the Minister about value for money. I believe that the most recent project assessment review of Casement Park was in 2019. It raised red and amber signs about its viability. Have any more recent assessment reviews or value-for-money inquiries been carried out into Casement?”
“Given the loose definitions that attend this subject and the aggressive agenda of some who promote it, does the Minister accept that, in taking any action, it is vital to fundamentally protect religious freedoms, including the right to propagate and defend scriptural stances?”
“Given that the regulations give no function to the selected medical practitioners to determine the date of implementation of an award, yet that is what the Policing Board has been allowing them to do, surely, as a Minister with some oversight of and interest in that, she should be raising with the Policing Board why it is placing a reliance on the selected medical practitioners, who do not have the powers that they are exercising.”
“Instead of someone whose dog is stolen being able to look forward to a Crown Court disposal that has an available sentence of up to 10 years, the totality of the sentence available is now five years. I do not get how that is increasing the protection. Arising out of that, I have this question for the Minister: when the legislation comes in, will it still be possible to be charged with the theft of an animal under the Theft Act, or will it be possible only to be charged under the new legislation? Will the prosecuting authorities have the option to choose whether to prosecute under the Theft Act or under this legislation, or does this legislation rule out the other? I hope that the Minister will answer that question shortly.”
“Indeed, included in the powers abducted from the Department are those that touch on the animal health and welfare of dogs and cats, which are no longer within the Minister's purview. Under some secret, undeclared declarations and instructions, he has been stripped of those powers. It is perhaps a pity that he does not have a remedy that exists for a Minister whose powers are abducted. <BR /> <BR />We are told that the LCM will strengthen and improve the protection for dogs and cats. One of the points that puzzles me is that it is a criminal offence to steal a dog or a cat. The available penalty under the Theft Act 1968 is 10 years, yet we are going to pretend that we are increasing the protection for pet owners by decreasing the available penalty.”
“I have just a few short comments to make. I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that the greatest legislative output of the Assembly since its coming back — the Assembly that, we were told, was so needed — is the nodding through of Westminster legislation. A bit like nodding dogs, indeed. It is nodding through legislation that we could make here but that we will not bother to do because it is easier just to nod through some Westminster legislation. Since coming back, we have now done that more times than we have legislated on anything ourselves. <BR /> <BR />The LCM is about the abduction of dogs and cats. Abduction is probably a subject that lies close to the Minister's heart, because he has had many of his powers abducted in recent days.”
“Considering that the Minister was not at the meeting, I do not see a lot of point in asking her about what happened there. However, I will ask her a question that she was meant to have answered in the Assembly process last week but has failed to answer. What is InterTradeIreland costing the Northern Ireland block grant, particularly now that we have had that colossal increase in staff? What is the cost of that body?”
“Those directions have not been published, but they must be published, and I call on the AERA Minister to publish each and every direction that has been issued that gazumps and takes away his powers. The public are entitled to know, and, presently, we are being held in total ignorance of matters that touch upon so many aspects of the daily lives of our people, particularly those in the farming community.”
“Now, on top of all that, we have the gazumping of DAERA's powers by the Secretary of State on a vast range of animal health issues. That is all part of the DUP deal, yet, in 'Farming Life' on Saturday, I read William Irwin, a Member of this House, denouncing that transfer of powers. No doubt, that was from a press statement written by the same press office that, on a daily basis, defends and upholds the dud deal. <BR /> <BR />The DUP needs to own what it has done here, and we need to have openness and transparency. A vast array of DAERA powers have been removed from scrutiny in this House and from exercise in this House to hide them from public view. That happened because of directions issued by the Secretary of State.”
“I suppose that it is obvious: being caught out on the lie that the Irish Sea border is gone.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been a deliberate blackout, because these are protocol implementers who love darkness rather than light. This is what the DUP has brought us: it has not got rid of the Irish Sea border, just hidden it from public scrutiny. What is it afraid of?”
“I wish to raise the veil of secrecy that has descended over the operation of the Irish Sea border. Before the implementation of that aspect of the laughably called 'Safeguarding the Union' paper, it was possible to ask and discover the number of checks on goods coming into Northern Ireland. I asked such questions. I discovered, for example, that, in January, there were 5,948 documentary and seal checks on agri-food and that there were 6,095 such checks on other goods. When I next asked, I was told that, following the implementation regulations, DAERA was no longer in charge and could not give the figures. When Baroness Hoey asked the same question in the House of Lords, the Government refused to answer, saying, "We do not disclose this information".”
“This is a joint venture with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. What is the ratio of the cost breakdown? Indeed, what is the anticipated cost?”
“In paragraph 45, we see platitudes about seeking simplification, but are the rest of those paragraphs not a chronicle of bureaucracy? I read about a number of conditionalities, new sustainability standards, compliance with multiple schemes and plans, farming for carbon and other qualifying hurdles. Are you not, in all of those schemes, still in the business of trussing up farming in more red tape? Is there no desire to cut, rather than increase, red tape?”
“Yes. When drawing the matter to the attention of the Speaker, will you draw attention to the untenable proposition of the Justice Minister that she can come to the House at her whim and talk about operational matters, but Members are not allowed to ask her about operational matters?”
“Usually, the Minister hides behind the rubric of operational matters. Today, her refuge is the terms of reference of the MOU. However, she is the Justice Minister: in that capacity, in this forum or any other, has she raised with her counterpart the Dublin Government's attitude to the Omagh bomb inquiry, their refusal to have an inquiry or the inadequacy of their legislation, which was illustrated by the Kingsmills inquest, during which it became clear that evidence was taken in secret and in the absence of victims' legal representatives? Has she ever raised those matters? If not, why not?”
“in the United Kingdom. Mr Brooks of this House, in an article penned under his name in the 'News Letter', told us that it had ended dynamic alignment. Yesterday, however, paragraph 65 of the judgement expressly declared that dynamic alignment with EU law continues. We had Jeffrey Donaldson and the Secretary of State waving the document in Hillsborough Castle. <BR /> <BR />It was the DUP's document, but the wheels have now come off it. My call to the DUP today is to disavow this Union-dismantling document. It was a contrived fable and a dangerous deceit, and it needs to be disavowed by any unionist.”
“We had DUP figures protesting the providence of 'Safeguarding the Union'. Gavin Robinson told us that it was:”
“I and others told the DUP that that was not so, and now the High Court equally says that it is not so.”
“In that document, which the DUP brought and sold to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a blatant lie in paragraph 46, where it states:”
“Yesterday, in our High Court, there was a judgement of immense constitutional significance. It was constitutionally significant in that an Act of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom was overruled and set aside because of the supremacy of EU law, which is bestowed by article 2 of the sovereignty-grabbing protocol, subjecting Northern Ireland alone in the United Kingdom to its supremacy, its laws and its rights. The consequence, of course, given the subject, is that Northern Ireland will now become a magnet for illegal migrants, flooding into Northern Ireland to escape the potential consequences that lie within the Rwanda scheme. <BR /> <BR />The political consequences also extend to the fact that yesterday's judgement saw the wheels come off the DUP's 'Safeguarding the Union' document that brought it back to the House.”
“"Begging-bowl politics" is the beg-and-blame approach of Sinn Féin. It would not matter how many billions we were given; there would never be enough to squander, because, from its perspective, Northern Ireland cannot be seen to work. That is what the begging-bowl politics are linked to, and that is what the DUP has, sadly, played a supporting role in.”
“Is that the best that the Minister can do? Can he not tell us who is controlling documentary checks, as opposed to physical checks? Physical checks are covered by the 2024 regulations, but documentary checks are not. Surely, we cannot have that vacuum. If they have not been removed from him or from HMRC, is HMRC where they still rest?”
“Although some of the Minister's powers on the important issue of veterinary medicines have been gazumped under the DUP deal to return to the Assembly by the implementation regulations, he is the Minister of Agriculture. Surely, with that hat, he is making representations on the whole issue of veterinary medicine. What has he done on that issue since he came to office?”
“and, if so, why is she still supporting the Windsor framework?”
“The Minister and her party chose to go back into government without the resolution of the veterinary medicines issue on the premise of some promise in the 'Safeguarding the Union' document, but, today, in the High Court, we have had an even greater implosion of a promise in that document. That promise was that the Irish Sea border applied only to trade, but, today, the Rwanda Act has been struck down because of the supremacy of EU law. Does she agree with Lord Dodds, who said:”
“I most certainly will. There will be a 100% return to the GAA on every concert or outside event that is held in Casement Park. There will be no return to the Executive, which may have put in hundreds of millions before this is over. There will be no return whatsoever. It is an asset that bestows that money-spinning opportunity on the GAA with no legacy whatsoever for football. That will be the abiding legacy of this hopeless, failing Executive.”
“Another BAFTA, with the DUP as the best supporting actor. Implementing EU colonial rule? First-class serfs when it comes to that, with any chance of scrutiny scuppered by expunging the Assembly's scrutiny powers over the Irish Sea border. Meanwhile, we have that most false of all false promises that brought the DUP back here. "Zero checks, zero paperwork" rings out as a seismic reminder of just how dishonest that party was prepared to be in order to get back into this failed Executive. <BR /> <BR />When a Programme for Government comes, no doubt it will exalt the Casement Park project, which is spending endless money with no return for the taxpayer. It is an asset to the GAA, but there is no return to the taxpayer through its future use.”
“Then there is openness and transparency. "What is that?", Ministers might say. "What is that strange foreign idea — openness and transparency? Away with that. We do not want any of that. We are the people who told the civil servants this: do not take notes, because they will only be FOI-ed." <BR /> <BR />Of course, it is not all failure. On photo ops, it is an A*, with the unelected deputy First Minister winning the BAFTA for excelling at camogie. The Opposition should not be surprised that there are no policies, strategy or Programme for Government. My goodness, when you have endless photo opportunities to attend to, you have no time for those lesser things — of course you have not. <BR /> <BR />The Executive also excel at begging bowl politics — 10 out of 10 on that score. Blaming the Brits?”
“Yes, there are plenty of aspirational motions and demands for money, but there is nothing of substance from those who call themselves a Government. Maybe there is no surprise in that, because, when you look at the unredacted, undeleted messages of Mr David Sterling in the COVID inquiry — he was maybe in a better position than most to see how our Executives work — you will find one of the things that he said of the previous Executive, which had the same people and the same parties. He said that they were not capable of analysing and understanding complex issues. Yes, they are good at fiddling the minutes but hopeless in government. That is the essential verdict from that source.”