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 30 of 95.
“— from Hillsborough. So, when we consider the hypocrisy —”
“<BR /> <BR />Then we had the murder of Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and his wife, Cecily. They were murdered at the border by a massive bomb. The couple were identifiable only by their dental records. Then there was an attempt to do the same with Judge Eoin Higgins, but they got the wrong family.”
“That was the deference shown to legal judicial figures, and now we hear talk about some special treatment for the misnomer of a human rights lawyer. You are either a lawyer or you are not. <BR /> <BR />Then, of course, we come to the murder in early 1983 of a man I knew, Judge William Doyle. What was he doing? He was at Mass. He was giving a 72-year-old woman a lift in his car after Mass, and they were both shot. He was killed, and she was seriously injured. Sixteen months later, we had the attempt to wipe out the entire Travers family. Young Mary Travers was shot, again coming out of Mass. Her father was filled with bullets, and her mother survived only because the gun jammed. What was the Sinn Féin response? It was to make one of her murderers a special adviser in the House.”
“Robert McBirney, another magistrate, was murdered on the same morning as Magistrate Conaghan. What did the IRA say about the two murders that morning? It said that they were murdered because they were:”
“The Inquiries Act applies universally and equally to everyone. If the Member is saying that we need some sort of special treatment for this member of republican royalty and that the law of the land needs to be changed specially for them, let us hear it. Just like the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, the 2005 Act contains those necessary protections. That is what anyone else in this country has to operate under. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beattie rightly referred to many legal figures who were murdered. I would like to remember some of them. I knew some of them. He mentioned the very first one who was murdered in Northern Ireland: Resident Magistrate William Staunton, a Catholic who had the courage to serve. Next was Judge Rory Conaghan. Both of them were shot in front of their primary-school children.”
“What did Mrs Geraldine Finucane do on 14 April 2005? She wrote to every senior judge in England, Scotland and Wales and urged them to not accept the appointment if they were asked to chair the public inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Those are the facts.”
“Of course the murder of Pat Finucane was foul and wrong, like every terrorist murder in the Province. Yes, there are things that set the Pat Finucane case apart, particularly when compared with the hundreds, nay thousands, of unsolved cases in the Province. <BR /> <BR />Here are some of the things that distinguish the Pat Finucane case. The family got a criminal trial. How many can say that? The family got international inquiries and the involvement of international judicial figures. How many can say that? The family got a prime ministerial apology. How many can say that? The family were offered a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. How many can say that? When they were offered a public inquiry, in which a judge would have had powers to compel witnesses and command the production of papers, what did they do? They rejected it.”
“Through this debate, I say to the Chief Constable: will you please reply to me about the 13 kids in Ballymena who were ill-treated in the sense that they were not fairly treated?”
“I think that I mentioned, the last time that we debated these regulations, a north Antrim coffee shop that had its outdoor facility at the rear of the premises closed when enforcement officers from the council took a totally different attitude from that which they had taken back in July. Yet, a few days later, I was walking past another well-known hostelry on the north Antrim coast, and I looked to see whether it had 50% of its roof covered — not at all. It is in the same council area, with the same enforcement officers, but a different law. That is how law gets brought into disrepute. <BR /> <BR />I will say to the Minister that, although it is not his direct responsibility, the message needs to get through that, if the regulations are to retain any traction of credibility and enforceability, enforcement needs to be even-handed.”
“Of course, it is necessary to enforce regulations, but they need to be enforced in a consistent and sensible manner. Where was the sense in keeping kids who were about to disperse for another two and a half hours in the very proximity that was the objection and the cause of the complaint? Where were the first three Es of the four? I have been in correspondence with the Chief Constable's office since the morning after, but I cannot even get an answer. Why is that? Maybe I should go to Mr Parr. He seems to have a particular take on regulations. Some of these matters are being dealt with in a really shameful manner. <BR /> <BR />I trust that the Minister will take back some of those issues and that we will begin to see advancement in how these matters are dealt with.”
“When parents started to arrive to collect the kids between 11.00 pm and 11.30 pm, the PSNI turned up and issued £200 fines to every kid who was 18, and to those who were still 17, they issued a community resolution notice to take home to their parents to require them to sign it. The kids who were about to go home at 11.30 pm were retained on the premises, in close proximity, until 2.00 am, one of the reasons being because the PSNI had to travel back to Ballymena to get the ticket books. Then, when they came back, a police officer sat in the middle of the group of kids with his mask down round his neck. There was no engagement, no explanation and no encouragement, just enforcement. <BR /> <BR />The House will not be surprised to hear that those families are beyond irate, and rightly so.”
“We need guidance, indications and directions now, not then. I urge the Minister to address those things with considerable urgency. <BR /> <BR />Then there is the whole issue of disparity in enforcement, and it is back in particular focus this morning. We were told many times about the four Es: engage, explain, encourage and enforce, yet, I am presently dealing with a case in my constituency where, two weeks ago tomorrow, a family thought it appropriate to celebrate the 18th birthday of their daughter. So, they invited to a marquee that they erected in their garden 13 other girls who are in the same school bubble.”
“Yes, and that brings me back to my very first point about disparity. As I recall, in GB, schoolchildren are no longer required to wear masks. It is the same virus, and we are in a similar situation of threat, so why is it that schoolchildren here are still required to wear masks? <BR /> <BR />We have had some movement on the number of people who can meet and gather outside, and we have had talk about summer clubs and all that. However, is it permissible for youth organisations, for example, to organise weekends away? When will it be fully permissible? All those things, like the Twelfth of July celebrations, which I raised yesterday at Question Time, have a long organisational lead-in. It is not much use to tell a youth organisation in mid-July that it can now organise weekends away, because those events take time and effort to organise.”
“A mask is very uncomfortable to wear for any length of time. Is that necessary? Will that be addressed?”
“In the past, we saw how the Irish Republic authorities took action to inhibit travel from Northern Ireland. I do not think that we have ever seen anything the other way about. Is there an issue there? Are we yet getting full and proper cooperation from the Dublin Airport authorities and the Government in the South, through which, I imagine, those matters are channelled, or is there still a lag and a lack of clarity on those issues? <BR /> <BR />There are a number of other matters that we need clarity on. Yes, slowly but surely, we are definitely moving in the right direction. However, as we come into warmer weather, is it still necessary, for example, for churchgoers or others who go to indoor events, as they become permissible, to actually wear masks if they are socially distanced?”
“It is not as though the Executive cannot move at speed when they want to. This morning, we had a reminder of that when we heard that, one hour before the day of the Storey funeral, the Executive were able, apparently without health advice, to change the number of people who could legitimately attend a funeral. Yet, when it comes to the generality of these regulations, we are dragging our feet. Why is that? Many people would like a clear, convincing answer to that. <BR /> <BR />Is it because we are being held back by the Republic of Ireland — a place, it seems, a Member of the House from East Londonderry thinks that it is appropriate to visit for non-essential purposes? Why is it that we are being held back? Where are, and what will be, the protections for the people of Northern Ireland if there are upsurges in the Irish Republic?”
“We are told that infection levels are similar and that vaccination levels are similar. We have not heard about the R number for a while. Maybe the Minister will tell us exactly what the R number is currently, but, from what we know, it seems to be similar. Yet the pace of easements is totally out of kilter.”
“It is not the first time that the prevalent issue that is constantly raised with me by constituents is one that I have yet to hear answered satisfactorily in the House. The question is this: why is there such gross disparity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to the easements?”
“Then we discover that the rules were changed by the Executive the night before. That is another story altogether.”
“We had the despicable scene of our compliant Chief Constable toadying to all of that. What he did on that day means, in my book, that confidence in him is incapable of ever being restored. <BR /> <BR />Then we discover —.”
“When you hear that a gold commander ordered that a helicopter should not oversee the wake event, where hundreds of people were gathered, and that the video cameras were so far back that the footage was useless, the conclusion is inescapable: the streets of west Belfast were deliberately, consciously surrendered on the day of the Storey funeral. <BR /> <BR />The contrast is not with what would have happened at a loyalist funeral; the contrast is with what happened at the funerals of ordinary folk, who were deprived of the basic rights that attend a funeral and were required to obey. When it came to Sinn Féin, however, it called the shots. There might not have been any shots over the coffin on that occasion, but there were certainly shots called by Sinn Féin.”
“The report was a whitewash, and it was never intended to be otherwise. Anyone who listened to the interview of Mr Parr on 'The Nolan Show' this morning could have no doubt about that. Here was a man, under interview, who said some amazing things. Of course, the starting point of what is amazing is the primary conclusion that Sinn Féin might was more important on the day than the COVID regulations, which were not just secondary but a very distant third to the thought that might was right and might would prevail. This morning, you heard Mr Parr effectively say that matters were delegated to an IRA events company, the name of which he would not give. He would not say whether the company was licensed; indeed, he may never have inquired.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that all the regulations and directives listed in the protocol that touch on medicinal issues, which include veterinary medicines and medical implements, are beyond the amendment or input of this House and that all legislation touching on those matters as they affect Northern Ireland is now incapable of being made anywhere in the United Kingdom?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is to be used on a compassionate basis as a one-off. The principle is that, once we come to next January, we will be tied in irreversibly to the EMA and its approvals, and the approvals of the UK regulatory body will cease to control us. Is that not correct?”
“— that they would rather sacrifice the lives of their constituents than face the realities of the protocol.”
“— and that is courtesy of those who want the rigorous implementation of the protocol. It truly is bad for your health. <BR /> <BR />Thanks to the rigorous implementers, that is the way that they want it to be. Tragically, sadly, their pro-EU ideology is such —”
“However, it does much more than that. As I said when I intervened earlier, 16 critical EU regulations and directives are implemented by the protocol. That means that never, ever, under the protocol, can any public representative from Northern Ireland have any say in shaping, changing or amending any of them. The transfer of sovereignty that has happened under the protocol means that those laws, which touch on medicines — nothing is more critical to our people — can never now be made in Belfast or London but are to be made in a foreign jurisdiction that is subject to the oversight of a foreign court. That is the protocol in action. You see it in action in what it is doing to our health. It is a death-delivering protocol for cancer patients —”
“I trust that those who vote for the rigorous implementers will see what rigorous implementation means. It means that they put their ideology above their constituents' health. That is what it comes down to: above their health. Shame on them for taking that attitude.”
“The people in Scotland have access to Tagrisso. Why? Because they are not bound by the iniquitous protocol. The people of Northern Ireland, including the people in west Belfast who might be suffering from lung cancer, will not have access to it, thanks to the protocol and its rigorous implementation, which Mr Sheehan and others support”
“I make the point because it is absolutely accurate”
“I will not give way because I will get no extra time. <BR /> <BR />Why is that? Because the protocol places us exclusively under EU law and within the orbit of the European Medicines Agency, which has not approved that drug. Therefore, the hapless people of Northern Ireland, courtesy of the protocol and thanks to the rigorous implementers, are in a position where a life-saving drug like that cannot be afforded to them. I hope that the rigorous implementers are proud of themselves —.”
“There should be some reflection on the number of minutes given to those in favour of the motion as opposed to the number of minutes given to those who are against it. <BR /> <BR />The motion is a moment of truth for the rigorous implementers of the protocol — Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party — because they are the people who demand rigorous implementation. We are seeing what rigorous implementation means for their constituents and for mine. Under the protocol, the person who is suffering from lung cancer cannot, unlike his fellow citizen in the United Kingdom, have access to a vital life-saving drug like Tagrisso. Why?”
“I am sure that the Member has read the protocol. If he has read annex 2 of the withdrawal agreement, he will know that paragraph 20 imposes 11 EU regulations, all of which control medicinal products, and that paragraph 21 imposes five EU regulations that deal with medical devices. With or without grace periods, that is the heart and core of the protocol vis-à-vis medicine. That will not change unless the protocol goes.”
“In this distortion of reality, does the Member not recognise that Great Britain has free access to, for example, Tagrisso, which is a treatment for lung cancer? Northern Ireland does not, and why? Because of the protocol. Not Brexit, but the protocol, because the protocol keeps us within the ambit of the European Medicines Agency.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, after the close of the Matters of the Day, I intervened to ask you to examine the comments of Mr Carroll. Having listened to the tapes, I am totally satisfied that he did not, as I alleged, use a swear word. I completely misheard him, and I have apologised to him. I also apologise to the House for wasting time in that regard and withdraw any suggestion that he used a swear word.”
“Does the First Minister think that we have seen delivery under New Decade, New Approach of the commitment to have utterly unfettered trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? Can she confirm, for the public's information, although this is probably a matter for her successor, that no Government legislation can be brought to the House without the consent of the First Minister and the Executive and, therefore, without the personal endorsement of the people in that position?”
“Given the approach of the Twelfth of July celebrations in this centenary year, and given the very long lead-in time required organisationally, what certainty and guidance can be given to those who are organising the demonstrations?”
“I ask you to look at Mr Carroll's speech in Hansard.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member who is speaking in the House to use swear words?”
“In my book, a sovereign state like Israel has every necessity to defend itself when terrorism is brought to its territory by rocket attack. The way to end that is for Hamas to stop its aggression.”
“I trust that I was doing that, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The point that I am making is that, when a sovereign state is subjected to a relentless terrorist attack, it has a duty to its citizens to defend itself. <BR /> <BR />I note that, when she was making her opening remarks on the topic, the Member who brought it to the House did not have one word of criticism about the firing of 3,000 rockets and more by Hamas. We were told about the poverty of Gaza, which cannot be gainsaid, but Hamas authorities obviously prioritise the acquisition of thousands of rockets over dealing with the socio-economic issues in that area. Instead of investing in those issues, they would rather invest in rockets. Let us get real about the situation.”
“As a small state, Northern Ireland knows what it is like to be subjected to perpetual terrorist attacks over many years. When I listen to the debate, I wonder what people expect Israel to do when it is subjected to 3,000 rocket attacks. What is Israel meant to do? Sit back and take it? Thankfully, it has good defences, which have neutralised many of those rockets and their murderous intent. Any sovereign state has an absolute right to defend itself when it is subject to attack like that, and therein is the —”
“— to rewrite the history that is the truth of the past.”
“No one who joined the security forces chose to be a murderer, yet terrible things happened, and, when they happen, they leave a desperate scar on society. <BR /> <BR />That scar also plays up to what many other innocent victims have never had recourse. They have never had due process. The victims of La Mon, Teebane and Kingsmills never had public inquiries or fulsome inquests. They certainly never had trials. They too need to be remembered, as does the pain and hurt that they continue to bear, with little sign that anyone will bring respite to them. <BR /> <BR />Undoubtedly, things happened in the past that were wrong in every way, but that is not an excuse for those who brought this Province to that point of uprising and tumult —”
“The sheer tenacity of the Ballymurphy families brought them to the point at which they had recourse to due process. As a group, they obtained the verdict that their loved ones were innocent. It behoves us all to accept the verdict, and it was a long time in coming. Of course, the manner of their dying will remain a very heavy burden for many. <BR /> <BR />It would be wrong, however, not to note the very tumultuous circumstances in which all of that happened. Although much has been said of an adverse nature about the security forces, the reality is that, in so many instances, they stood between this community and the horrendous death and destruction that was intended by the terrorists. Bombers who went out to bomb and murderers who went out to murder chose to be terrorists.”
“I welcome these investments. I want to ask an AFBI-specific question. AFBI's laboratory testing is very important to our food exports etc. To date, it has been fully accredited to the UK accreditation system. However, courtesy of the iniquitous protocol, the EU is now dictating that the UK accreditation service is no longer acceptable. That has caused AFBI, according to its board minutes, to consider linking to the Republic of Ireland for accreditation. Would that be acceptable to the Minister?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you say, Mr Speaker, we are about to hear a statement from the Agriculture Minister. Of course, we were able to read that statement, effectively, in Saturday's 'Farming Life', and, today, we have had the Economy Minister in the media announcing what she is calling an economic vision for a decade of innovation. Why is it that the way that we now seem to do government is that the Assembly is an afterthought, or not thought of at all, when it comes to ministerial proclamations?”
“those being the costs and the actions taken under the action plans. You are being asked again to sign a blank cheque. The cost of the office has no cap, and the commissioner can be as highly paid as anyone in the Civil Service. They can acquire property: clause 6(7). They can issue financial incentives: clause 3(7). I remind the House that, no matter how punitive and unworkable all this ultimately turns out to be, you cannot, because of clause 11(2), reduce the targets. <BR /> <BR />I say to the House, although it will not heed me — most Members, I dare to say, not having read the Bill and not having read the Climate Change Committee's letter, will still troop through the Lobby to set on its way legislation that will devastate much of our basic industry and write a blank cheque — that that is not the right way go.”
“Here we are in the House, saying that we will all sit back and be perfectly content that a commissioner whom we cannot remove from office unless there is a two-thirds majority and who can be appointed in perpetuity every five years, which conflicts poorly with international standards, will be given powers to "dispose of property or rights" in a sector that is dominated by the private sector. Are we serious? Maybe, before the debate ends, somebody will tell me what clause 6(8) means and, if I am wrong, put me right. <BR /> <BR />On the question of cost, what a farce. When you go to the explanatory and financial memorandum to get an insight into what the policy in the Bill will cost, you are told this:”
“There is no limit on staff and no ability to control the expenditure. What of the Northern Ireland block grant? Where do you think that money is coming from? It is coming out of the block grant. Of course, the Bill also includes the right to pay incentives. On the powers of the commissioner, clause 10 gives sweeping powers to the commissioner to compel the delivery of information. That is a largely unaccountable person being endowed with those huge capacities. <BR /> <BR />I come back to this point about clause 6(8) that I was distracted from: what are the rights that a commissioner thinks they can dispose of?”