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 38 of 95.
“Surely the problem is that it is a failed course of action.”
“It offends all the senses that I have on this matter to say that you can create an offence carrying 14 years' penalty, even though you did not achieve any of what you set out to. You are treated as if you had. <BR /> <BR />That is my difficulty. I know that it is not something that appeals to the House and that the Committee and the House have a much more flexible view of the sanctity of criminal law, but I do not want this occasion to pass without, again, putting that on the record.”
“I say unnecessary because that situation is already covered by the law that applies to attempts. So, the abuser who attempts to abuse and, because of how stoic the victim is, does not succeed can still, under our law, be guilty of an offence that carries equal punishment. That is because, under our legislation, if you attempt the crime and have the guilty mind to try to do it but do not succeed, you can be guilty of attempting the crime and for it collect the same penalty — in this case, 14 years. <BR /> <BR />Therefore clause 3, I repeat, does not add anything necessary to the criminal calendar, because the offence of attempting domestic abuse can equally carry 14 years.”
“Yet, what clause 3 does is to extract from this criminal offence the actus reus of product, because, incredibly, it says — the House does not agree, but it is my view that it is incredible — that an offence of domestic abuse, which is already defined in clause 2, can be committed whether or not an abuser succeeds in abusing and that the abuser's behaviour can be abusive whether or not it has any of the relevant effects, provided that some notional, reasonable person thinks that it should have caused an effect and should have caused harm. Then, even though it did not and even though the reasonable person was wrong, this Bill says that the offence is complete; the offence is made out. <BR /> <BR />That jars with me in the manner in which I have previously explained. To me, that is as preposterous as it is unnecessary.”
“So, I am in no way immune to the realisation of just how hideous domestic abuse is, but that understanding of all of that does not diminish something that is very important to me: my respect for the rule of law and for the fact that, in society and in the canons of the law, we must uphold certain standards. <BR /> <BR />As I have said previously when addressing the House, at Second Stage and Further Consideration Stage, I fear that, in clause 3 of the Bill, the House and the Justice Committee have taken a very wrong-headed approach; an approach that diminishes the standards and expectations of the criminal law because it totally demolishes the fundamentals of what is a criminal offence. We have talked before about the mens rea — the guilty mind — and the actus reus — the production of the product of the crime.”
“I intend to be brief, and I am sure that I will be. Not for the first time, and possibly not for the last, I will enter a voice of dissent, not to the entirety of the Bill by any means but to a specific issue that I have addressed before. It is not because I have any naivety or lack of understanding of how odious domestic abuse is. Indeed, you could not be involved in as many prosecutions involving this very subject as I have been and not realise just how invasive, insidious and, yes, odious these crimes are. Indeed, I would just say, as a legal practitioner, that I can think of few more difficult cases to do and to be asked to do than one involving domestic abuse or child abuse. They are harrowing in every aspect and harrowing too for the legal practitioners, because, as a human being, you sense, you empathise and you feel.”
“Is the Minister working to mitigate the protocol or to liquidate the protocol? If she supports article 16 invocation, has she, as Minister for the Economy, officially, formally asked Her Majesty's Government to take that step? Has she had any further thought on the need for a UK trade body?”
“While the Minister is absolutely right to call out the pan-nationalist front for its demands for rigorous implementation of the protocol, does he too, though, not have a credibility problem? He is the Minister who told the House on a number of occasions that he had no intention of facilitating infrastructure at the border, yet he is the Minister whose Department has built the infrastructure for the Irish Sea border. Having built the border, what does he now intend to do to get rid of it?”
“When it suits the deputy First Minister and her party, they like to embrace the mantra that the Belfast Agreement must be respected in all its parts. Given that the equilibrium of east-west and North/South relationships has been trashed by the iniquitous protocol, why should anyone, such as the First Minister, who values and seeks to maintain the Union of the United Kingdom continue to operate the "North/Southery" when a coach and horses has been driven through the east-west relationship?”
“— you utterly thwart the building of an all-Ireland economy, because you know and I know what the next step is.”
“As the lead party of unionism in the Government, the burden upon you is immense to make sure that, at every turn, in every small and every large measure —”
“No, it invited me to vote to leave as we joined, as one nation. One of my great sadnesses is that, although the Irish Sea border is being delivered by the betrayal of Brexit, it is a DUP Minister who is building the infrastructure. <BR /> <BR />Although the DUP today in Westminster will vote in principle and correctly against the deal, in this House it has been voting to implement the protocol. I say this to the DUP, pretty directly: there is a huge onus upon you to ensure that the ambition of this protocol, of building an all-Ireland economy, is thwarted at every turn. You have heard it today; that is the ambition. It is self-evident; it always was the price for Europe to sacrifice Northern Ireland.”
“Well, I think that that says it all. That congregation will be those who will wring their hands, lament and pretend that they are upset that their citizens cannot readily access goods through Google or any of the other suppliers or that their companies cannot readily import. They will say, "How terrible", but they are the originators. It is they, in this House, who egged it on, who had to see it done and who will now impose that price on us all. <BR /> <BR />My other sadness about this is that the DUP is a party that knows the issues, although the Irish Sea border is the product of the betrayal of Brexit. Let me say, this is not the Brexit that I voted for. My ballot paper did not ask, "Do you want GB to leave the EU and leave Northern Ireland behind, abandoned in the EU's customs union, single market and VAT regime?".”
“That is why they salivate, but it is the people of Northern Ireland who will suffer immensely in consequence of that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Make no mistake about it: the protocol is a dire consequence for every citizen in Northern Ireland. We will all live through its dire consequences. Therefore, we have to ask the question of how it arose. Well, the truth is that it arose because nationalism, aided by their little helpers in the Alliance Party and some useful idiots in commerce, so baulked at the very thought of an extra camera on the land border that they pushed the border to the Irish Sea. Some — Mr Beattie used the word — will now "salivate" at the consequences. They do not care about the consequences for the people of Northern Ireland. Rather, they see it as an advance towards partitioning the United Kingdom and unifying the island of Ireland economically.”
“Friday is 1 January, which will be 220 years from the activation of the Act of Union. Article 6 of the Act of Union was the fundamental building block and foundation of the Union. It was to the effect that there would be free and frictionless trade across and within the entirety of the United Kingdom, from which every citizen could benefit. Sadly, on this 1 January coming, article 6 of the Act of Union will be trashed by the protocol, which creates friction in trade within the United Kingdom and causes the creation of an Irish Sea border to aid that friction. Of course, that brings with it the odious imposition of laws that we never made, that we cannot change and that will be supervised by a foreign court in a foreign jurisdiction.”
“Not for the first time, we have a passing of the parcel between two Departments, the victims of which are the many farmers who have been waiting for months or years for planning approvals. The situation is at its most farcical for those who want to replace old houses with more environmentally friendly houses with lower output, yet they are the very people who are failing to have their needs met. When will the Executive get a grip on that issue?”
“Within the terms of reference, however, as was just referred to, the transfer system is now subject to review. Was the Minister worked over in the Executive by the anti-selection brigade? Is that why the transfer test is in the review? Is the panel's independence called into question by virtue of the fact that its interim report goes secretly to the Executive and the Education Committee, although, no doubt, we will all hear about it on the BBC? Is that an indication that the Executive want to shape the outcome of the review rather than truly submit themselves to an independent review?”
“I want to probe why the terms of reference have been considerably expanded beyond what is in 'New Decade, New Approach'. The document summarises the focus as being on:”
“Does that mean more staff and more cost for InterTradeIreland? Given the perilous state of our trade and the threats to it with our main market, would it not be better now to refocus and create an "InterTradeUK"? Would the Minister work for and support such a body?”
“I return to the question of the centenary. Unfortunately, much of the promotion has to rely on Tourism Ireland by virtue of the subordination of Tourism NI. Why, then, is there no mention in the statement of discussions about the centenary? In checking what the board of Tourism Ireland's attitude might be to such matters, I ask why the board minutes do not appear on its website.”
“I cannot remember whether it was eight or 10, but did we not appoint part-time judges for a period of three years back in January? If they count pro rata, we are then already touching the quota. If an uplift in the quota was needed in order to appoint part-time judges, how did that happen, or is an uplift not needed to appoint part-time judges?”
“If my information about the vacancy is correct, the appointment that is to be made — I am not faulting the person at all professionally — will mean that there are four persons from the Catholic community and none from the unionist, Protestant community. Is that healthy in terms of ensuring respect across the community? If diversity applies, why does it not apply in the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland? All of that is said without questioning the professionalism or dedication of the members; it is said in the context that this is a divided society and there is therefore a legitimate expectation that the Court of Appeal should reflect the entire community.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister mentioned diversity. That causes me to draw attention to the composition of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. It is permitted to have four holders: the Lord Chief Justice and three Lords Justices. At present, there is a vacancy. However, at present, the court, in its community background, is exclusive to the Catholic community. If that situation existed in reverse, there would be uproar from some quarters. There would be cries of "Sectarianism", cries about human rights and cries of "Imbalance". Yet, we have a situation where, in our Court of Appeal, there is not one member — it is the highest court in this jurisdiction, subject only to the Supreme Court — from the Protestant community. We talk about diversity, but does the Minister have a view about that?”
“The Minister points out that the order increases the saving but not the number of appointments. I presume that the situation will prevail that, for any additional judges above 10, a business case will need to be approved by the Department. However, an increase of 50% is substantial. <BR /> <BR />I did not follow the Minister when she said that it would enable the appointment of part-time judges. Back in January, we appointed, I think, eight or 10 part-time judges, so that facility exists. What is the juxtaposition between the order and the appointment of extra part-time judges? <BR /> <BR />Some of the legacy issues giving rise to increased pressure are being dealt with by County Court judges. Is the Minister minded to increase the number of appointments in that domain and, if so, to what extent?”
“The Minister seems to be confirming that going to church may, in fact, do you some good.”
“<BR /> <BR />Going forward — whatever forward entails — I trust that the Minister and the Executive will temper these issues with a greater degree of what would appear to many to be common sense than heretofore.”
“What is the rationale and the reason for putting that punitive measure upon churchgoers? That is something that we need to hear from the Minister. <BR /> <BR />The only other comment that I want to make is that the regulations that have just passed drew their own opprobrium. In my constituency, I can think of a couple of devoted toyshops. That is all that they do: they sell toys. They were forced to close, but you could buy some of the same toys in Tesco. Why was there this disparity, which, in fact, punished the small independent trader and advantaged the large supermarkets and international traders? That caused a good deal of resentment, particularly amongst those who had spent money and scarce resources on preparing and readying themselves, only to be slapped in the face with these regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />Now, when churches are reopened, it is in circumstances where there is an added restriction, which did not exist before, in that you now have to wear a mask, not just going to and from your seat but while you are in your seat throughout the service. Why is that, because the social distancing within the buildings is the same as it was before? To my knowledge, there has been very little indication that churches have been a significant problem, so why this added, suddenly announced, restriction? It is one thing, in terms of comfort and durability, to wear a mask going in and out of a shop or going in and out of a church, but it is quite another thing to be asked to wear a mask for the total duration of a service where one generally is not moving about.”
“There is one issue that I want to draw the Minister out on, if I can. Under these regulations, churches were closed. There was very little indication in the public domain of scientific or other advice indicating that churches were such a problem that they had to be closed. I want to know why it was that, essentially without notice and apparently without much indication of churches being a difficulty, and in the face of many indications that several churches were taking conscious, effective steps to reduce their numbers, to have social distancing and to do all the right things, nonetheless they were visited with a punitive measure that would have come if they had done nothing. Why were churches closed during that two weeks? What was the advice that gave rise to that?”
“It does not reflect well on this House and on those who set the business of this House that this is the persistent arrangement that we have in respect of these regulations. I will, therefore, keep my own remarks quite brief.”
“Some Members have rightly said that there is something farcical about this debate. Here we are, a legislative Assembly, being asked to approve legislation that is already dead and gone. It does not matter whether or not we approve the legislation. That is the very essence of the farce. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the regulations could have been before us last week with the others that we debated. I would have thought that the regulations that are now ruling us could be before us today. As a Member pointed out, the current regulations will run their course during recess, and we will be invited to debate them at the end of January. That is why a debate such as this is fast losing traction. It is why far fewer Members are speaking today: they recognise the futility of the exercise.”
“Surely the Minister is trying to kick up dust to obscure the reality. The reality of this statutory instrument is that it would not be before us but for the protocol, and it would not be before us but for the fact that the protocol now says that, in these matters, GB is a non-EU third state, a third party. What this regulation is doing, and what the Minister is defending, is making it a criminal offence to trade, on this subject matter, with GB. That is the crux of it. The Minister can duck and dive as much as he likes but he is asking the House to criminalise this specific trade between GB and Northern Ireland at the behest of a protocol that he is now implementing.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionists and Mr Wells see the issue. I continue to be appalled that those who should know the issue refuse to see it and will promote the very protocol that they claim to oppose.”
“Why is a DUP Minister bringing to the House a motion on a statutory instrument to criminalise this obtuse but, in principle, important area of trade in the United Kingdom? That is what is being done. There is no wriggle room there. There is no dodging that. That is the emphatic import and effect of the statutory instrument. It is not technical; it is not non-policy. It embraces the most pernicious of policies: that Northern Ireland should not be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom but should be treated, in goods, as an integral part of the EU. Everyone who goes through that Lobby today is voting for that. Do not say, "Oh, it's only technical": it is not. Do not say that you did not understand it — you do now. It is with that understanding that the House will make its decision.”
“The protocol is the driver of the statutory instrument. Its destination is to criminalise trade on these issues within the United Kingdom, because it regards the rest of the United Kingdom as an alien place — a non-EU third country — whereas we are regarded under the protocol as being under EU jurisdiction. That is what this pernicious statutory instrument is doing. <BR /> <BR />Some on this side of the House will enthusiastically vote for it, because, of course, they want to divide the United Kingdom. Of course they want to hive us off from the rest of the UK. Of course they are content to criminalise and inhibit trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. There are some in the House, however, who know better but will do worse.”
“Just read the explanatory note for the statutory instrument:”
“What that is declaring is that, courtesy of the protocol, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are now so separated that the rest of the United Kingdom is a non-EU third country — an "alien jurisdiction" in the words of the order — and that we are no longer integral in the United Kingdom and are now criminalising trade within the United Kingdom. Why are we doing that? Why is a DUP Minister asking us to do that? Because the DUP is now a promoter of the protocol. Without the protocol you would not have the order in front of you. <BR /> <BR />The junior Minister managed to speak to us for 10 minutes or more and never mentioned the protocol. Why? It is because they do not want the public to know that they are in the business of legislating under and for the protocol. You cannot hide it.”
“So, up to this moment, if a fish farm or a pet shop — the most likely relevant bodies for legislation such as this — had a permit covering the translocation of one of these species from anywhere else in the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, it would not be a criminal offence, because the United Kingdom, through its permits, was governing that arrangement. This regulation removes the caveat about the rest of United Kingdom. It now makes it a criminal offence to trade on an item such as this within the United Kingdom. That is no technical or non-policy issue; that is a fundamental outflow from the protocol.”
“Principal Deputy Speaker, this is not a mere technical matter. This is not something that does not make a policy change; in fact, the regulation asks the House, I believe for the first time since it came back, to criminalise an obscure aspect of trade within the United Kingdom. The issue may well be obscure, but its significance is in inverse proportion to its obscurity. What the statutory instrument seeks to do is to make a fundamental change to the previous order. The previous order, of course, is the 2012 order, and what did it say? It said that it was a criminal offence:”
“The First Minister knows, and indeed has propounded, the very destructive nature of the protocol to the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Why then is her Agriculture Minister building the very infrastructure for the Irish Sea border at our ports over her "blood red" lines"? Why did she and her MLAs vote last Tuesday to bring in, in perpetuity, 45 EU directives and regulations so as to help implement the protocol?”
“What exactly does that mean? For example, does it mean that bodies such as sporting organisations, which have ready access to various aspects of public money, will not be eligible? What are we talking about when we say that they "would not normally" be able to access public money?”
“I ask the Minister to amplify one sentence in his statement, which is:”
“Why is it that two and a half months have passed before the Assembly has the privilege of hearing this statement? <BR /> <BR />It refers to the radiotherapy treatment at the North West Cancer Centre for citizens of Donegal, and the coronary service provided for citizens of Donegal at Altnagelvin Area Hospital. Can the Minister remind the House of the funding arrangements that pertain in that regard, and are they being met?”
“I note that the statement does not start with the usual recital made pursuant to section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act. The reason for that, presumably, is that it is in flagrant breach of section 52C of the Act, which requires such statements to be made:”
“That is why I will use every opportunity in the House to oppose the iniquity of that protocol and will not roll over and be enslaved by EU rules and regulations. Anyone who cares anything about the integrity of the United Kingdom should do likewise.”
“We really are at the point where the United Kingdom's future and the deal that it gets affects us all; therefore, we should all have common cause in seeking the best outcome for the United Kingdom. Whether you were pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit, the challenge of the moment is getting the best deal for the United Kingdom. I am saddened that, for some, this Matter of the Day is just another device to have a go at the British Government and all that goes with it. <BR /> <BR />Of course, we must remember that, whether it is a good deal, a bad deal or no deal, we in Northern Ireland are sadly still left with the iniquitous protocol and have to live with the dreadful economic and constitutional circumstances that it creates.”
“Given that the outcome of these matters will affect each and every citizen and constituent of ours, is it really too much to hope that everyone will hope for, look for and support a good outcome for the United Kingdom? Instead, alas, I detect that there are some who are hoping and looking for a good outcome for the EU, and they are prioritising the advantages of the EU over our own country. At this critical time, that is quite shameful. <BR /> <BR />There are others — we just heard one of them — who cannot get over himself or the outcome of the referendum and still wants to fight a lost battle.”
“If new artefacts are found, will those, too, be hidden away in storage at a cost of £12,000 a year, or is that reserved only for existing artefacts? When will the Commission catch up with our history and agree to an exhibition of artefacts that it owns in order to coincide with the centenary of Northern Ireland?”
“Extra resources in this area are very welcome. However, does the Minister agree that there needs to be better alignment between the release of resources and further improvement of the statementing process? The current targets are still disappointing. You can have all the resources that you like, but if the kids are not statemented, you are not marrying the two, and that is where the solution lies.”