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 4 of 95.
“Given the unbridled hype that accompanied the return of the Executive, I am sure that the gullible who expected 100 days to mark a celebration of delivery will be greatly disappointed. I cannot say that I am at all surprised, because we have been here so many times before. "Always high on promise but low on delivery": that is the epitaph of every Executive there has ever been in this place. Since we came back, there has been no legislation, no Budget, no Programme for Government and no strategy.”
“The Member mentioned childcare: would he like to comment on the fact that the Executive were allocated £57·2 million for childcare in Barnett consequentials, but, in their wisdom, or otherwise, decided to spend only £25 million on childcare? How does that show a priority for childcare provision?”
“It should contain unbridled condemnation of Hamas. In the absence of all those things, this is a tawdry motion that is not worthy of support.”
“That partisanship was carried further in the single Sinn Féin contribution. That contribution did not manage to make any mention — not a word — of condemnation of Hamas. There was not a word of condemnation of hostage-taking. Maybe that is no surprise, coming from a party that does not apologise for but supports the actions of the IRA in taking hostages. They could not even bring themselves to condemn the hostage-taking or to call for the release of hostages. Those same people talk about morality and lecture those of us who dare to speak against the motion. In the words of Ms Hunter, they question our morality. Well, sorry, but morality cuts both ways, and this is a motion that is crying out for the insertion of some morality in recognising the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself.”
“Yes, there is a call to stop arms sales to Israel, but not a word of rebuke for Hamas for bombarding Israel with rockets, night after night. There is no call in the motion for Hamas, a terrorist organisation, to give up its assaults or its dogma of dedication to the annihilation of Israel. There is no call to recognise the state of Israel. Rather, there is a quite partisan approach to the whole issue.”
“The motion is without a word of rebuke for Hamas. Not a word of rebuke for its actions since 7 October. Not a word of rebuke for the thousands of rockets fired into Israel.”
“How is Israel to defend itself if the House says, "You shouldn't get any arms"? The inescapable inference from the motion is that those who tabled it think that Israel should not be able to defend itself.”
“I cannot support the motion, because it is partisan and unbalanced. There is no recognition of the right of Israel to defend itself even after the most horrendous events of 7 October. Is there even a recognition in the motion of the right of Israel to exist, which would have to be the starting point for any solution? Indeed, the motion does worse than not accepting the right of Israel to defend itself; it, in fact, expressly wants to deny Israel the right to defend itself. It calls for:”
“Is the Minister still committed to raising £113 million of resources? With the Secretary of State's gazumping of some of the functions and powers of the Department with the iniquitous Irish Sea border, is there a knock-on financial consequence or will all those costs still come out of the block grant? How do her accounting officers deal with that situation?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask the Speaker to shed some light, before we proceed to a vote on the matter, on how it can be that something that does not breach rule 17 breaches rule 12, when, in fact, the complaint was not deemed admissible until three months later? How can the same comments breach rule 12 but not breach rule 17? How is that even possible? That is the basis on which we are asked to vote.”
“How dare the Committee presume what a Member would or would not do? It had no right to presume that Dr Aiken would not apologise and therefore no right to up the ante. <BR /> <BR />The manner in which the Committee treated Dr Aiken was appalling in both the procedural unfairness and the outcome. It prejudges an issue and says, "He would not apologise, so we will not give him that option. We will suspend him instead". Would any one of you want to be treated in that way? That is what you will vote for today. Shame on the Committee.”
“There is not a higher standard for him as a Chairman of a Committee than for him as an MLA, which is the basis on which he was being pursued. We are then told that the fact that he had previously served on the Standards and Privileges Committee made it an "egregious" breach. No, it did not. Again, that treats him differently from how any of the rest of us would be treated. He should not have been treated differently because he was the Chairman of the Finance Committee or because he had previously served on the Standards and Privileges Committee; he was entitled to exactly the same standards but was denied them by the Committee. Then, in a breathtaking procedural breach, the Committee says about the tariff that will be imposed, "Oh, we will not consider an apology, because he wouldn't apologise".”
“We end up in a situation in which the Committee had three separate inputs from the commissioner, one input from Dr Aiken and a denial to him of the right to know what the commissioner had said in rebuttal of him. How is that due process? How would any Member, if they were before the Committee, like to be treated like that? Yet that is exactly how the Committee treated Dr Aiken. It is a denial of basic fairness and natural justice, and the House should not endorse it. <BR /> <BR />We see that there is a further error when we look at paragraph 26, which states that Dr Aiken's role as Chair of the Finance Committee is a "key consideration". No, it is not: Dr Aiken is entitled to be treated exactly as any other MLA would be. It does not matter whether he is a Deputy Speaker or a Chair of a Committee.”
“The exact same information that caused rule 17 not to be breached was then held to breach rule 12. That is the point that I wanted to ask the Chair about, but she would not even take an intervention. Explain that contradiction. Why is it that information that does not breach rule 17 breaches rule 12? It is not rational. I will take any intervention from members of the Committee to explain that. There is no rational explanation for that. <BR /> <BR />There is then a gross breach of due process. Dr Aiken's single response was given to the commissioner for comment, but what she returned to the Committee was concealed from Dr Aiken. He was given no right to know what the commissioner said in response or to respond to that.”
“The Committee concluded that there was no investigation, because the complaint had not even been acknowledged — it was not acknowledged until 13 November 2020 — and that, therefore, there could be no breach of rule 17. The same Committee concluded, about the same complaint and on the same date, that there had been a breach of rule 12. What does rule 12 say? It says that you shall not:”
“Despite the magnanimity of Dr Aiken, there are matters about this report that need to be highlighted. The report is inherently contradictory and riddled with procedural errors. The Committee correctly rejected allegation 1. In fact, it rejected both the allegations made by Mr McHugh, but it rejected allegation 1 on the basis that no complaint had been deemed admissible at that point. The first allegation was of a breach of rule 17, which says:”
“According to the statement, trade flows are one of the interests of the East-West Council, yet I find not one reference to the greatest impediment to those trade flows, namely the partitioning Irish Sea border, of which the DUP now has ownership. Why is that? <BR /> <BR />Secondly, it is a body without a secretariat or a budget, and all the funding announcements are not its announcements but the product of other developments. Is it not the truth that it is just a talking shop to provide the DUP with a fig leaf for its somersault into being protocol implementers?”
“Who are they, when they have demonstrated the most partisan approach to the flying of the Union flag, to say that they want an even-handed, objective, enforceable and proper system, when, given half a chance, they are the very people at the front of the queue to ensure that the Union flag does not fly? That, of course, is because the Alliance Party is the ultimate chameleon anti-unionist party.”
“The Alliance Party objects, so who, then, are the Alliance Party to come to the House and pretend that they are coming even-handedly and objectively to find a solution when they are partisans in the matter?”
“For some of the people being commemorated at war memorials who had proper burials, the Union flag bedecked their coffin, but it cannot fly at the war memorial. Why? Because the Alliance Party objects.”
“I would like to see those who were sufficiently exercised to put them up taking them down. They are the people declaring that they want to show respect to the flag, and then they end up showing disrespect. That is where the first responsibility lies. <BR /> <BR />I am very cautious about the idea that we should give our councils the power to decide when flags can fly and when they cannot, given the experience of Ards and North Down Borough Council, Belfast City Council and other places. The Members who tabled the motion would be first in the queue to make sure that the Union flag comes down and does not fly, even where it is the most evident and appropriate indication of commemoration.”
“Well, I am so popular. I think that Mr O'Toole was first, so, on that basis, I will give way to him.”
“We know where that would go with the Alliance Party. It would be legions of call-ins at the first proposal that any flag should fly anywhere with it being a Union flag. We know the pedigree. We know the attitude. We know the despicable approach that has been taken to the flying of the Union flag.”
“Given that the motion was tabled by the Alliance Party, one's attention is inevitably drawn to its established anti-unionist credentials when it comes to our national flag, the Union Jack. Even though Ms Bradshaw told us that flags were suitable for commemoration, the Alliance Party objects to the flying of the Union flag at the most obvious site of commemoration, namely a war memorial. It has spent ratepayers' money on court actions and other things to object and call in and to try to ensure that the Union flag would not fly on war memorials. When the Alliance Party comes here with pious words and platitudes, I am sorry, but I am not buying it. <BR /> <BR />Then they tell us, "Oh, we need some lawful authority to apply. Maybe we should give some powers to the councils. Maybe the councils should decide where the flag should fly".”
“Paramilitary flags are flown for one purpose: to glorify the hideous acts of the terrorist organisations that they represent. That is as odious to me as it is to anyone else. Also, when a national flag deteriorates to the point that it is in tatters, it is a manifestation of disrespect that does great discredit to the flag and to those who put it there. <BR /> <BR />Here we are debating something after £800,000 of public money was spent on a commission that laboured much but produced nothing — not even a mouse. Indeed, maybe it typifies much of this place: deadlock and no solutions. Nothing at all. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance motion is, as Mr Beattie pointed out, flawed, because it adopts an incorrect position. There was no proposed code of conduct: there was the citing of a possible code of conduct.”
“However Mr Pengelly was appointed, does the Minister agree that he needs to look at the adequate provision of preschool places? There are parents in the village of Kells being told that the nearest available place is 15 miles away. Does he agree that Mr Pengelly should look at why the Kells and Connor Pre-school was restricted to 42 places when it had 65 applicants, which has left dozens of children with nowhere to go.”
“If this is the biggest step change in capital planning for a generation, when will the hugely oversubscribed Castle Tower special school in Ballymena receive what it needs in terms of additional purpose-built buildings?”
“Can a car owner who holds an exemption certificate but regularly drives their vehicle to GB and is concerned about prosecution opt in and seek to have an MOT test?”
“With the Executive short of money, does the Minister know or care what the North/South institutions cost? Will she supply that information? Does she know or care about the fact that none of the North/South bodies have a balanced workforce? They all have an inadequate number of people from a Protestant background? Does that matter?”
“Sorry, that is not good enough, because the scheme, as articulated by the Department, is to meet the "needs of each area" with the provision of targeted places. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Education Authority that there needs to be an adjustment and a revisiting of specific areas where the need has not been met. I have been in touch with Mr Pengelly, and I trust that he will take the issue on board. The Education Authority was, I have to say, accommodating when a similar issue arose in Cloughmills, and I look for the same approach in respect of Kells. We cannot have a situation where two dozen families are left out in the cold when another 10 places could be provided if the Kells facility were granted the norm of 52 places. I hope that that will happen, because the stress and dismay that the issue is causing local families need not happen.”
“I want to raise a constituency issue: the disparity and gaps in preschool provision in parts of my constituency. I refer in particular to the situation that prevails in and around the village of Kells. Historically, the provision was largely met by the Kells group, which has long existed, and what was colloquially known as the "Country Garage" preschool facility. It, unfortunately, closed, meaning that, this year, there were 65 applicants for the Kells provision, yet only 42 places were provided, even though it could cope with 52. That means that two dozen families or more in and about the village of Kells have no provision. They have been told that there are places in Crumlin or Rasharkin.”
“When the Minister goes back to the Treasury looking for more money, will it not have her measure as someone who is prepared to come back to this Government without one penny of extra money and has briefed her Executive colleagues that she has no expectation of that? Is that because the Sinn Féin strategy is to make demands so that it can blame the British Government? Is that really what this is all about?”
“It seems to me that the Minister does not exude much interest or enthusiasm for InterTrade UK, but, if he ever gets around to discussing it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, will he at least advocate that it be headquartered in Northern Ireland in a progressive commercial town such as Ballymena?”
“What about taking interventions? Is that too hard?”
“The DUP made that mistake on 8 December 2020, when they blindly and foolishly and in the face of warning embraced 45 EU laws, including the one that says you cannot bring British soil into British Ulster. They voted that onto the statute book. Sadly, today, we will have a repeat performance. <BR /> <BR />One will be interested to see, if we get a vote, who does not vote for this. As I have pointed out, I noted some notable absentees from the divided DUP Benches. I wish they had the courage to vote against — stand up against — EU colonial law and the obscenity and affront that it imposes on a supposed democratic Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is a situation in which Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, is being subjected to colonial EU law, law that we did not make and cannot change but that today we are invited to endorse slavishly. We are asked to endorse colonial rule from the EU. It made the law. It is its law, not ours, and we cannot change it. Regardless of the merits or demerits of the content, it does not deserve democratic assent from anyone who holds to the fundamental democratic principle that, when you live in a place, you should be able to make your own laws, not be subjugated to the laws of a foreign power. I will not give my consent today. I was not sent here to consent to colonial EU rule, and I certainly will not consent to it.”
“What then? What if GB goes to 90%? Hapless Northern Ireland, supposedly an integral part of the United Kingdom, remains trapped by the EU law and subject to the 95% delineation. There is no assurance of parity. The only assurance is of subservience to a foreign Parliament. Sadly, unsurprisingly for some but surprisingly for others, that is the position to which DUP Members and Ulster Unionist Members in the House have got themselves. They are embracing a situation in which, if any such product were to be produced in Northern Ireland, it would not be labelled as produce of Northern Ireland. Article 4 of the regulation makes it clear that it would have on it the EU logo and EU labelling, underscoring the fact that we are subservient to EU law.”
“We have been told that there are "no downsides". Sorry, but there is a huge constitutional downside. Those who have rolled over and assent to that are showing their disregard for that constitutional affront and, of course, for what, we were told, was their unalterable position. They say, "If you don't vote for it, there will be divergence". No, there will not be. We know from the explanatory paper that the British Government will assent to it anyhow, but we will give them cover. <BR /> <BR />What about tomorrow? What if GB decides, as part of further deregulation, to deregulate organic pet food to a standard below 95% and goes down to 90%? Remember, the British Government are conducting a review of all their legislation on organic products. No publication of that is expected until the end of 2025, but the legislation is subject to review.”
“We were told that it should not be applied to this part of the United Kingdom as we are not part of the EU. Today, however, the DUP or, at least, the DUP Members who are here — there are some notable absentees — has come to the point of telling us that the only way to attain parity with Great Britain is to vote through this EU law. Think of it: the only way to get parity with Great Britain is to vote through an EU law, because that law just happens to bring the EU into line with Great Britain. It may well be sensible for the EU to reduce its unattainable 100%-organic requirement. It may well be sensible for it to come into line with the 95% requirement that prevails elsewhere, but, when it comes to Northern Ireland, it should be the Assembly or, at least, Parliament that makes that decision, not the foreign EU Parliament.”
“which was repeated by the then leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and by multiple Members of the House — that EU law was a red line?”
“That is so constitutionally absurd and such a constitutional affront that, frankly, I cannot and will not support it. Is it not the ultimate absurdity to be told in the debate by the DUP — the party that told us, in the words of Sammy Wilson:”
“<BR /> <BR />Some do not want to face up to that constitutional affront. Some, of course, embrace it, because they want to see Northern Ireland being subjugated under the EU. Those who claim that they do not are not facing up to the situation in which a pretty mundane law can only ever now be made by a foreign Parliament. It cannot be made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Northern Ireland Assembly; it can be made only by a foreign Parliament. <BR /> <BR />The motion is well named as an "applicability motion" because, by our slavish acceptance of it, we assent to the applicability of the appalling and absurd situation in which only a foreign Parliament can legislate for this area of law in Northern Ireland. That is what the Assembly is being asked to assent to.”
“The primary focus of the debate to this point has been on the content of this EU law. I want to shift the focus to the much more important issue of the constitutional affront that the motion is. That constitutional affront can be summarised in this way: the motion amounts to an acknowledgement of and assent to the fact that, on what is patently a devolved issue — namely how we prepare animal foods — only the EU can now make those laws for us. The Assembly cannot legislate on the issue. The Westminster Parliament cannot legislate for this part of the United Kingdom on the issue. Only a foreign jurisdiction — the EU — can formulate and pass laws that touch on the issue. Of course, it is not just this issue; it is every issue that is recited, to the tune of hundreds of laws, in annex 2 of the protocol.”
“Indeed, if they had not been so intransigent, they would have had infrastructure that would have aided in dealing with this situation. Now they are paying the cost.”
“I hope that he meant it, because he failed lamentably in securing our borders over Brexit when he partitioned the United Kingdom with a regulatory and customs border down the Irish Sea. That is a template that every unionist should warn him not to even contemplate in further placating the intransigent Irish Government, because, no doubt, they would love to see immigration passport checks and the rest of it at the Irish Sea border. I trust that the Prime Minister, when he says that he is in the business of securing the borders of the United Kingdom, means it and it is the border that is the international frontier that will be secured. <BR /> <BR />Whatever the problems of the Irish Republic, they are largely of their own making.”
“Maybe, today, they wish that there was a border, because, then, there could be the restraints that they ask for. You reap what you sow, and the Dublin Government are reaping what they sowed in this regard. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:”
“I want to raise the controversy that the Dublin Government have whipped up about unwanted migrants crossing into the territory of the Republic, it is said, from Northern Ireland. There is a rich irony about that complaint, because the same Justice Minister and the same Government vehemently opposed the very idea of so much as a camera on the international frontier. At the time, Helen McEntee said:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the resignation of Mr Brown, will you clarify something for the House? Since Mr Brown was the object of an ongoing complaint before the Commissioner for Standards, is that complaint now aborted as a result of his resignation, or does it continue? If it continues and if it were to have adverse findings, how would any such strictures be applied to him?”
“Given the Minister's commitment to the Casement Park Euro project, what will be the actual physical legacy for football from the Euros?”
“I would like to ask the pro tem Minister to be absolutely clear on something that he said a few minutes ago. He is not suggesting to the House, is he, that, if the Department finds that it can do it quicker than the two years, it will do it? I ask that because the terms of the Bill are clear: it does not come into effect until May 2026, so there is no option, surely, to do it sooner, even if you could.”