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 48 of 95.
“Yes of course. The Member has emerged very well from his difficult background, I must say.”
“That is "Mr Europe" himself speaking. That is up —.”
“Jo Maugham QC has already been referred to by Mr Stalford. He is no friend of the Government. He is the founder of the Good Law Project that has brought many challenges over Brexit, but he said that:”
“The Act of Parliament that gave effect to this treaty was the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Section 38 could not have been clearer:”
“So here we are, the third successive week in which we have been debating a motion so that Sinn Féin and other Europhiles can beat their chests and vent their spleen about Brexit and, effectively, howl at the moon about the fact that we are leaving the EU. Three weeks of the same thing, interspersed only with the interesting fact that, last week, a Sinn Féin Minister proposed a Brexit-enabling Bill to this House. It was a welcome break in that particular litany of approach. <BR /> <BR />This is a motion built upon — let us use a kind word — a misconception. The misconception that international law, in some way, trumps domestic law and that, in some way, it trumps parliamentary sovereignty. It does neither. It is a fundamental rule of our constitution that no treaty can change our law without an Act of Parliament giving effect to it.”
“I draw the Minister's attention to not just the end-of-life situation but to the situation when newborns arrive. Surely the present restrictions on fathers are far too severe. They are admitted for the birth, pass through all the COVID protections and then summarily shown the door, effectively, and not allowed to see the newborn or the mother until they are released from hospital. Surely there needs to more flexibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />Yes, there is a role for a victims' commissioner, but it has to be defined in the context of the knock-on effect that it would have on existing structures elsewhere. Would we have two commissioners for the victims of terrorist crime in the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors and the commissioner for victims of crime? I do not know. We have, for example, a Historical Institutional Abuse Interim Advocate — yes, that is different, as there are unlikely to be many prosecutions hereafter — but would that advocacy role continue or morph into the role of the commissioner for victims of crime? Those are some of the questions that need to be addressed before we all rush to embrace a proposition that, on the face of it, is very attractive.”
“I understand that Women's Aid, through hostels and all sorts of things, does much more than what a victims' commissioner would do. To that extent, there is an obvious complementarity there. There is, however, also the possibility of duplication, and I go back to my point that duplication means wasted resources. I would therefore like to see very clearly, before we go down this road, an emphatic delineation of what it is that the victims' commissioner would do that others are not doing and of what others would not continue to do because the victims' commissioner would be doing it. Otherwise, we would be creating a bureaucracy that may not serve a great deal of advancement.”
“They may not be, in some cases, as generous as the organisations think that they should be. Again, where would they fit in? Would they be superseded by a victims of crime commissioner's office? Would any duplication or any funding be required?”
“I am not at all hostile to the motion, but I do have some questions about where, if we travel down this road, a victims of crime commissioner will fit in the existing infrastructure. The last thing that we need is duplication, because duplication means needless expenditure. Some of my questions relate to issues such as this: we already have a Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, so would that post be superseded by a general commissioner for victims of crime, or, indeed, would having a commissioner for victims of crime reflect the outrageous situation of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors also representing and including victim makers? <BR /> <BR />There are other areas in which advocates are funded by the state. A number of charities, such as Victim Support, the NSPCC and Women's Aid, all get generous grants.”
“In regard to transfer, will the Minister agree that the best long-term solution is to recommission the test as a Departmental test, and will he follow his heart and his head on that?”
“Indeed, there are many unseen support industries across Northern Ireland that feed into the product that is Northern Ireland Screen, and I am glad now that the funding is being put on a lawful and proper basis.”
“I too welcome the making of the order. I do that as the MLA who drew attention in the Budget debate to the fact that we had this anomalous situation where Northern Ireland Screen was not being properly funded on a statutory basis but in an obscure way through the black box system that operates under the Budget Act. Of course, it was being funded well in excess of the supposed limit on that mode of funding. Therefore, it is good that it is now being regularised and brought onto a proper statutory footing. I am still puzzled as to how it ever was in the position that it was and how, for so many years, under both Departments, it continued without the proper statutory basis yet continued to be funded. It is good that, at last, that has been regularised. It makes an important contribution to our economy.”
“I note that there are two versions of the statement. Perhaps the First Minister will explain that. Has what has been announced this morning yet been reduced to regulations? Are the regulations to deal with this now published, and do those regulations extend to conduct within the public houses, namely social distancing between different households? If they do, who is going to enforce that? Is that burden going to be on the publican or on someone else? If people are going to retire from the pub to a local house, how is enforcement to be undertaken?”
“Those unitary decisions, touching upon immigration and borders, are central to the Bill, and all those who paraded themselves as the people who would never accept those implications of Brexit will be among those who today will go through the Lobby, if a vote is called, to vote for the Bill. That is good, and I look forward to further reality in the House.”
“How luxurious is the irony that it is a Sinn Féin Minister who is bringing to this House that very proposition; that this House should consent to legislation in Westminster that does that very thing? That is progress, it is good and it is the first dose of reality, and it will not be the last, touching upon Brexit. Some say, "Vote down this Bill". Well, if you vote down the Bill, you vote down the survival of the rights of Irish citizens to social security. Is that what they want? I do not know. <BR /> <BR />Let us be very clear; Brexit always was a national issue and it always meant that this nation of the United Kingdom was going to have to take some unitary decisions.”
“This is the first debate touching upon Brexit issues in which I have sensed any reality coming upon this House. It is very well having all the bravado of opposing a Bill such as this in Westminster, and the SDLP and the Alliance Party preening themselves as great Europeans who are defending the principles of free movement and berating the idea of the United Kingdom controlling its own immigration policy and its own borders. Yet, here they are today. Courtesy of a Sinn Féin Minister no less, this Assembly is about to, quite correctly, endorse the fundamental principles of Brexit, namely that the United Kingdom should control its own immigration policy and its own borders.”
“Does the junior Minister think that it would help towards a shared and inclusive society if his party — not least the questioner, in this case — put an end to tweeting the glorification of terrorism, which, in many cases, was crassly sectarian in itself in the choice of victims by the IRA? Would he like to give a lead by indicating that his party will now eschew such glorification of terrorism, or will we be subject to more of the same?”
“I assume that all the money announced today is not COVID money. The capital money, for example, seems to be a reallocation of money that was surrendered. Can the Minister give us any indication of how far there has been departure under Barnett from the pigeonholes in respect of which the COVID money was allocated to how it is being spent? I would like some picture of the disaggregation.”
“Minister, you said that the Department conducted a full inquiry. In your statement, you said that the issue was raised in 2012. However, you told the House that you cannot tell us by whom, or with whom, it was raised in 2012. If you know that it was raised in 2012, surely you must know who raised it, and with whom and with what consequences. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, is there any DNA which will have to be removed from databases as a result of this?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that I had apologised to Mr Gildernew about the false allegation. I believe that the record will show that I withdrew it and apologised.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Each Member who spoke declared whether they were speaking for or against. Standing Order 17(5) refers, although not exclusively, to the desirability of a "balance of opinion". How can there be a balance of opinion with 11:5?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why were 11 Members who support the motion called to speak and only five who oppose it? Bearing in mind the exhortation of Standing Order 17(5) to reflect "the balance of opinion", how does 11:5, plus the 12th Member about to be called, do that?”
“Will the Minister give way? The Minister said that all this, Province-wide, limited restriction is about suppressing the spread of the virus, but how and when do we ever get off this roundabout? Is this virus going to die out? Are we going to have to wait for a vaccine? Or does there come a point when we face the fact that we are going to have to live with a virus which, frankly, is not adversely affecting the greater number. Certainly, it is serious for some, but not in the proportions of the past.”
“If I understood the Minister's response to Ms Sugden correctly, when it comes to a domestic home that is used as a B & B, that service can continue and guests can still come to that house. However, that person's neighbours and wider family cannot come to the house. Is that correct?”
“On the same theme, Minister, I would certainly encourage you to take that step on the diquat. Denmark, Finland and Austria have all given approval. What is the timescale for you reaching a conclusion? Time is now of the essence as far as potato harvesting is concerned.”
“I am grateful, because it is important that there is absolute clarity about this. Is the Minister saying that the bubbling from six o'clock is exclusively for the purpose of giving support and not bubbling just because you want to visit the person? Is that right?”
“Mr Storey's point is well made. It cries out for an answer. I do not hear one. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental at the end of this is that, in a society that is threatened, as we undoubtedly are, there has to be a bounden, compelling personal responsibility on every citizen. Every citizen is capable of catching the virus, and therefore every citizen must take their own defences. Of course, those who do not threaten everyone. The Minister has an uphill battle of a home-grown variety in the Executive: home-grown by the deputy First Minister and home-grown with muddling regulations.”
“That should lead a Member such as Mr Gildernew to be unequivocal in condemning the gathering on the pitch in Healy Park, the gathering in the pubs, the singing of the songs and the spreading of the virus.”
“Sorry. My apologies. It is a different place. However, it was still a public gathering. Was it sensible to be at a public park? I do not know what happened at Dungannon Park, but we certainly know what happened at Healy Park. The Member is quick to defend the GAA. It was GAA supporters who gathered on the ground at Healy Park. It was GAA supporters — part of the outreach, I suppose — who went into the pubs of Dungannon to sing IRA songs. There was not much social distancing there. Therefore, although I misspoke about which park the Member was at, I make the point that, if we are going to talk about personal responsibility and leading by example, that is exactly what we should do.”
“The Member says that he was not there. Why, then, did he tweet the following:”
“I am not sure that you can do that twice and hold public credibility. <BR /> <BR />There has to be a particular focus on two things. Those who are evidently vulnerable need that ring of steel of protection, and those who flagrantly breach the law need to find no mercy, be that in the Holylands or Healy Park, which, I note, the Chairman of the Health Committee boasted of attending on Sunday. He talks about example and common sense. I am not saying that he was out in the middle of the pitch, but he was there. Then, he comes to the House and tells us about leading by example.”
“Should the proportionality not be between the number of deaths and the number of hospital admissions — remember that the restrictions were initially to protect our health service — and the severity of the restrictions, instead of the severity of the restrictions being linked to the number of cases? <BR /> <BR />That brings us to another issue. When we hear all the statistics promulgated and are told that, in so many weeks, there will be so many cases, are we getting the worst-case scenario again? Remember that we got the worst-case scenario six months ago: 15,000 dead. We were never told what the best-case scenario was, and, to date, we have worked out much closer to it than to the worst. Are we again getting the worst-case scenario with concealment of the best-case scenario?”
“If the deputy First Minister is right in her interpretation of regulations that, it seems, she drafted, that is equally absurd. It is the absurdity of those aspects of the regulations that undermines their credibility. <BR /> <BR />The third thing that undermines the stickability of the regulations is whether there is the necessary proportionality between the regulations and the reality of the disease. Surely, the restrictions that you bring in should be proportionate to the number of deaths and the number of hospital admissions, not the number of cases. Happily, there are many people who, while not happy that they are contracting COVID, are happy that it is not overly affecting them. There are many cases, but there are very few, relatively speaking, hospital admissions and, happily, even fewer deaths.”
“The second reason that the regulations are undermined is the inherent absurdity that lies within some of them. We had an example again last night. You cannot go to your children's houses or your parents' houses, but you can go to a pub. You cannot meet those whom you can trust as to how they conduct themselves, but you can meet in a wet pub with 100 people whom you know nothing about. That is so inherently absurd that it undermines the message. Of course, when I listened to the deputy First Minister this morning, for what it is worth, she seemed to be telling us that students who party all week in the Holylands can go home at the weekends and live in the family home over the weekend but the grandparents of that family home, who keep themselves to themselves and are no risk to anyone, cannot go to the same home.”
“<BR /> <BR />Then we are surprised that there is a leakage in public confidence, and slippage in adherence to the very regulations from that source. That is the first remediable reason — but, as yet, unremedied reason — why any regulations on COVID are fundamentally undermined.”
“Unless and until that issue is addressed, regulations from that source will never carry any credibility. I pity the Health Minister in those circumstances because he is doing his best but doing so with an Executive who have undermined him, through the deputy First Minister, from those early days. No matter with what diligence and sincerity the Health Minister seeks to convey his message — and I do not agree with it all, by the way — much of it is washed away by the actions of a deputy First Minister who gets into her official car, whose junior Minister gets into his official car, whose Finance Minister gets into his official car, whose Communities Minister gets into her official car, and all, at public expense, travel to a funeral where the law is to be flouted.”
“It is not just she who suffers the lack of credibility; in consequence, the regulations that she makes suffer a lack of credibility because she is the law-giver. <BR /> <BR />We all know that Michelle O'Neill has no apology to make for breaking the regulations. She has had ample opportunity on no fewer than two occasions. I presented her with the opportunity in the House yesterday to apologise for breaking the law — but no, she has a higher loyalty to something much more nefarious. That is the first fundamental underminer of these regulations, and it is not going away. Sinn Féin may wish it away, they may try to talk it away, but it is not going away. <BR /> <BR />The abiding issue when it comes to the saleability and credibility of these regulations is that she who made them did not keep them.”
“Any nation, after six months, would have difficulty in holding matters together in respect of the draconian measures to which we have been subjected. I do not think that there is anything surprising about that. Of course, the aggravation is quite distinct in this part of the United Kingdom as to why it is difficult now to hold things together. <BR /> <BR />There are three reasons. The first was touched upon. Put simply: once more, yesterday, we had a law-giver giving out the law who is a law breaker. Dress it up and duck and dive as much as you like but that is the inescapable reality. When Michelle O'Neill stands behind any podium, particularly upstairs, and pontificates about what needs to be done, and what regulations are going to be made, she utterly lacks any credibility.”
“Will the Member tell us which paragraph of the Belfast Agreement the Bill infringes? The Member has obviously never read section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 or she would have known that the agreement was passed subject to the sovereignty of Parliament.”
“However, she sat silent when I challenged her: which part of the Belfast Agreement does this proposal uphold? Not a single one. I say to the House, therefore —”
“What is here is a supposed recognition of the integrity of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, yet everything about the protocol — everything — is in the business of destroying that integrity. That, of course, is why Sinn Féin is an enthusiast. <BR /> <BR />When I talk about the hypocrisy of all this, something is brought home very strongly to me. I hear the mover of the motion — a convicted bomber — talk about the rule of law, about things being "unconscionable" and about human rights. A bomber, talking about that which is unconscionable. Really? Talking about human rights. Really? That is the hypocrisy that reeks from the mover of the motion, who is one of the most avid demanders of the Belfast Agreement in all its parts.”
“Chapter and verse: which clause or paragraph says that you cannot have regulations between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Which clause says that you cannot have a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Which clause says that you must trash article 6 of the Act of Union? None of them — not a single one. Yet the proponents tell us, "You have to protect the precious Belfast Agreement", when it does not say a word about any of these things. That is the most disingenuous spin that there has been in the whole Remain debate: to dress up and pretend to the ridiculous point where presidential candidates repeat the same lies and where a Member of the House, Mr McHugh, tells us that the American Government are guarantors of this agreement. None of that is here.”
“Very well, Mr O'Toole. Give me the paragraph. I am not looking for hyperbole. I am looking for facts. I am looking for the cold data. Give me chapter and verse of what you proclaim says that you cannot have regulations between Northern Ireland and the Republic.”
“Let us just take that. I have the Belfast Agreement here. I would like to ask a question of all these proponents of the Belfast Agreement, belatedly Sinn Féin — of course, it did not support it initially — the SDLP, which is always very up front in its support, and the Alliance Party likewise: can any of them point me to a single paragraph in this document that says that the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland could not leave the EU? Can anyone point me to a single paragraph in this document that says that there could not be regulations between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? I am waiting.”
“Let us just pause and remember what the balance is: £11 billion a year of goods from GB to Northern Ireland; £2 billion from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. Yet the proponents of the motion — Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their lackeys in the Alliance Party — want to strangle business in Northern Ireland. They want to make life difficult. They want, in fact, to submit Northern Ireland to hundreds of laws over which we have no say and about which we cannot even debate. They want to submit us to a foreign court to which we have no input. That is the essence of what those who peddle the motion support. Of course, they cloak it quite disingenuously as support for the Belfast Agreement.”
“The key question for everyone who is supporting the motion is not whether they can get over their ideology and get over 2016 but whether they really care about the people of Northern Ireland. In supporting the protocol, they are supporting that which will crucify business in Northern Ireland. They are supporting the imposition of exit declarations on everything that passes from Northern Ireland to GB and tariffs on everything that passes from GB to Northern Ireland.”
“Given that one of the Minister's predecessors, Danny Kennedy, was starved of funding to cut the grass verges adequately or fix the potholes, and given what she has just said about matters being able to be done subject to funding, has she any fears that she might obtain the same treatment as a single member of the Executive?”
“The Minister said that undermining the public message in respect of COVID was not discussed at the meeting. Since then, of course, we had the scandal of the golf dinner in Dublin. Does the Minister think that those who attended that and apologised were right to apologise, and, if they were right, why has she not apologised?”
“In discussing COVID, did the Council discuss the undermining of the public messaging? In that regard, as a token of her sincerity, did she apologise for attending the Storey funeral? Even now, does she yet apologise for attending the Storey funeral?”