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 5 of 95.
“<BR /> <BR />It is something that one will watch with great interest, noting that the Rwanda Bill purports to disapply portions of the European Convention on Human Rights but does not disapply any portions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which, of course, applies here. Hence my conclusion that we are likely to see great disparity in the approach and great detriment to our supposed position as an integral part of the United Kingdom.”
“The logic and legal pathway that gave rise to that would equally apply to the provisions of the Rwanda Bill vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the special arrangements that exist under the charter of fundamental human rights. Of course, the legacy Act case is under appeal, but, subject to that, it seems to me that, by virtue of the fact that article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has a special protection for asylum seekers, we are on course for the distinctly unacceptable possibility that the Rwanda Bill's ability to remove asylum seekers will not apply with the same force and effect to Northern Ireland, creating a further border, this time an asylum immigration border, and underscoring the iniquity of the Union-dismantling nature of the protocol.”
“Last night, the Parliament of the United Kingdom completed the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. I do not think that it will deliver the stopping of the boats, but the issue of primary concern to me is in respect of Northern Ireland. That question is this: will the Bill even apply in its full reach to this part of the United Kingdom? I raise that question because of the fact that, under the protocol, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to this part of the United Kingdom and this part alone. <BR /> <BR />We have already seen how the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 was struck down by our High Court because of incompatibility with the protocol.”
“It is quite clearly what the Alliance Party calls a progressive agenda, which it knows will offend parents, offend governors and offend the ethos, so the answer is to expunge all of that and railroad it through. No, thanks. Not in my name.”
“No, I will not give way, because I have no time to hear something that is not going to inform the debate. <BR /> <BR />Let us be very clear. This is an agenda by the Alliance Party to enforce its world view on those who dare to disagree. You would think from listening to some in this debate that we have never had a safeguarding policy in schools. All the issues have been addressed. Every school has a safeguarding policy that is capable of addressing the complaints and the issues that have been raised, yet you would think that we do not even have those. <BR /> <BR />Not for the first time, the Alliance Party, the great illiberals of our society, is in the business of it-knows-best. Only that party knows what is right, and it will ram it down everyone else's throat.”
“That is the purpose, for the sake of promoting their narrow agenda, of the motion. <BR /> <BR />Take abortion. Sadly now, under the regulations, abortion has to be taught as a right. So, again, parents will be set up against pupils.”
“The motion is about expunging that right. Not for the first time, those who hold themselves out as the great liberals in fact turn out to be the most illiberal and the most totalitarian, and that is what we are seeing here today. <BR /> <BR />Let us take some insight into this. They are going to have this standardised approach to RSE. So when they come to talk about transgenderism, which the Alliance Party likes to promote and defend, and a child asks about puberty blockers, are they to be told, "Yes, you can have puberty blockers. Yes, you should have puberty blockers"? What are they doing? They are sowing the most immense discord between child and parent, the parent whom they have shut outside the door. The child goes home and tells them that. What do you think they are doing? They are bringing untold division to education.”
“Those are the targets of the Alliance Party today. Parents: get them out of the situation. Governors: get them out of the situation. School ethos: remove it. Why? Because it wants to enforce its own agenda. In doing that, it is quite happy to brazenly disregard the human rights of parents. As has been quoted here today, the human rights of parents in education are set out in the relevant protocol of the European Convention, which says:”
“Contrary to what Mr Tennyson says, the motion from the Alliance Party is not about education. It is about indoctrination. It is about a free course for indoctrination on the Alliance Party's pro-abortion agenda and its transgenderism agenda. If you want to indoctrinate, what do you need to do? You need to get rid of the obstacles, and that is why the motion is specific and determined to expunge parents' rights, to expunge governors' rights and to expunge regard to the ethos of a school. <BR /> <BR />Let us remember what the statutory position is in relation to education. It is that the board of governors and the principal have the statutory responsibility to deliver the minimum curriculum content, but that they also have autonomy over who is involved in curriculum delivery, and when and how, aligned with the ethos of the school.”
“Why are you trying to defy the appropriate human rights?”
“If I understand the motion correctly, it wants to remove any reference to parental rights, any reference to respecting the ethos of a school and any reference to the rights of governors to have a say in this matter. If I have misunderstood the motion, no doubt the Member will correct me. In doing that, are you not flying in the face of the very European Convention on Human Rights where, in protocol 1, article 2 on education, it states:”
“The implementation regulations give the Secretary of State power to issue instructions or directions. Have any such instructions of directions been issued, and, if and when they are, how will the Assembly know that?”
“What representations has the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland made to DEFRA about the matter? Indeed, has the Secretary of State issued any directions under the relevant implementation regulations? Is it not abundantly absurd that cattle can be brought from France through Great Britain to Northern Ireland unimpeded but that cattle cannot be brought from GB to Northern Ireland?”
“Following the disastrous Scottish legislation, can the Minister be clear and not evasive that where, for example, a biological man self-proclaims himself to be a woman, and a person calls them out by properly naming their biological sex, will that person, under her hate Bill, be committing an offence? In other words, will what is called "misgendering" — what I call telling the biological truth — be a crime?”
“I support the motion, and I oppose the excusing amendment. I trust that that will be the will of the House, although I doubt it.”
“<BR /> <BR />It really is incumbent on us all to face the realities, and, if, as seems indisputable, the upsurge in south Armagh coincides with the liberalisation of the presentation of the police in that area, that too needs to be faced. However, running away from it is the standard approach, instead of addressing and reassessing that approach. If you have a situation where the number of liveried vehicles suddenly increases and the number of soft vehicles suddenly increases and, at the same time, the number of ramming incidents equally increases, frankly, the conclusion is pretty inescapable. It really is burying our heads in the sand to say, "How dare you suggest it is something to do with the south Armagh policing review?", when the coincidence of time and effect is dramatically writ large in front of us.”
“When we debate something such as this, my thoughts go to the family of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who, 11 years ago, died in an horrendous incident when the vehicle in which she was travelling was rammed. Sadly, things have been getting worse. I listened to Mr Buchanan recite the statistics, and they were not only chilling but very striking in what they convey about the upturn, which, by virtue of the sheer scale from 2022 to 2023, cannot be coincidental. That is a pretty inescapable inference from the rise in the number of incidents. Whether Mr McNulty likes it or not, the fact that south Armagh heads the league table with Londonderry and west Belfast speaks a message. Yet, there are some who want to hide away from that. It is a bit like hiding away in an overcrowded toilet where a murder takes place.”
“It is clear that none of that was nullified by the useless Donaldson deal.”
“<BR /> <BR />Now, what will be imposed on business is the fact that, under EU law, the very checks on goods coming into Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom — Great Britain — will now be charged out to business. When I raised this with you in your previous role as the Agriculture Minister, you replied to me, sir, confirming that that was the intent of the OCR and that, in due course, that is what would happen. Well, we are now fast approaching that point, and it really is beyond a scandal and a shame that businesses trading with Great Britain will have charged to them the checks that are being forced on us by the protocol.”
“They were advised that, come the autumn, the Government will start imposing the requirements of the Official Controls Regulation (OCR), which, of course, means that the Government will charge out for the checks that are conducted on sanitary and phytosanitary matters. There is no doubt that the OCR applies, because it is listed in annex 2 of the protocol as one of the applicable and pernicious EU laws that we are subject to, and it details mandatory fees and charges and provides that competent authorities shall collect those fees or charges for the official control checks that they perform at the points of entry on the first arrival into the EU's sanitary and phytosanitary regulatory zone, of which, sadly, we are now the front line and a part.”
“Last week, I made reference to the fact that the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee had had its scrutiny powers stripped out, leaving it impotent. Just how impotent it is was further underscored on Thursday when it was revealed that it had not even been informed of laws that were coming in to apply from the EU. Not only have we the scandal of being ruled by laws that we do not make, we now have the scandal of being ruled by laws that we do not even know about. It does not get much more colonial than that. <BR /> <BR />Today, however, I want to draw attention to the fact that, on Friday, there was a briefing to senior environmental health officers across Northern Ireland who operate the ports under the protocol.”
“Will the Minister explain to the House why he has chosen to put the fixed commencement date of May 2026 rather than having the quite regularly deployed clause stipulating commencement at the Department's discretion? Why is he not amending the Act to impose such a commencement clause?”
“Given the Minister's effusive endorsement of the project since coming into office, has he not prejudiced his ability to bring objectivity and independence to the ministerial decisions that he will be required to make?”
“Of course, that fits with the fact that that all arises from our subjection to a foreign EU customs code that operates on the basis that goods coming from GB are coming from a foreign territory into EU territory, namely Northern Ireland, hence the necessity for customs paperwork. <BR /> <BR />One will watch with interest to see whether the bold promise of zero checks and zero paperwork will be met. One will also look to see how the 5% minimum set forth in EU legislation will, allegedly, be overcome, or was it all just so much spin and hype? That seems to be the fundamental defining hallmark of the tainted Donaldson deal.”
“One of the headline sales pitches for the tainted Donaldson deal was, "Zero checks, zero paperwork". In that regard, the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations were trumpeted as being the passage to that. Those regulations, which give the Secretary of State power to issue instructions to DAERA, came into effect last Friday. We still await the publication of those directions, which was promised in the legislation. <BR /> <BR />When one studies the regulations, it seems clear that the promise of zero paperwork is undeliverable. The regulations give power only to instruct DAERA, but DAERA is not the responsible authority. According to DAERA, HMRC is responsible for paperwork and customs declarations.”
“Presumably the liaison panel advises, and you decide. Given that the Cass report highlighted the irreversible harm from the use of puberty blockers, can you assure the House that there will be no return to their destructive use?”
“Does transitioning not have to start closer to home in the Executive Office? Is there any sign of the Minister's partner in the Government's transitioning towards being able to condemn IRA murders? We have just had another example of the failure to condemn after the focus on the horrendous Kingsmills massacre. Surely that is a baby step, but a necessary step, for anyone in the Government?”
“The Minister rather avoided Mr O'Toole's question, so I will ask him a question that I think that he can and should answer: will the legislation contain express provision to enable actions that are struck out for limitation infringement to be re-litigated?”
“That, I trust, will have the support of the House.”
“No alternative to taking 10 men off a bus and shooting them down like dogs because they were Protestants? I salute the courage and the campaign of the survivor, Mr Alan Black. <BR /> <BR />There are also criticisms to be made of the coroner's inquest. There was an appalling failure to name the dead perpetrators, Colm Murphy, Seamus Heuston, the ringleader, and Patrick O'Kane. There was an appalling treatment of the secret evidence taken in Dublin: the Irish Government, although they demand full transparency in Northern Ireland, have legislation whereby evidence is taken in secret, and then a summary, not even the actual evidence, is published by the coroner to provide and maximise the opportunity for a cover-up in all of that. In those circumstances, it is quite clear that a public inquiry is now required.”
“I am also glad that the coroner called out the fact that the appalling situation at Kingsmills was under the control and direction of the IRA army council. That is the same IRA army council that oversees and directs Sinn Féin, according to police intelligence, and the same IRA army council, therefore, that oversees and directs the First Minister, hence why, as its puppet, she can never condemn the IRA and, indeed, tells us that there was no alternative.”
“In the annals of the IRA's brutal campaign, Kingsmills stands out for so many reasons, but it is the ultimate epitome of the IRA's evil, sectarian murder campaign. I welcome that, on Friday, at the conclusion of the long-running coroner's inquest, the coroner called out the IRA as those who were responsible for that wicked deed, even though it had tried to obfuscate and pretend, by the use of false names, that it was someone else. <BR /> <BR />I am also glad that the coroner called out the IRA's blatantly sectarian motivation and its attempt to frustrate, through non-cooperation, the coroner's process. Yet, on Friday, Mr Gerry Kelly, a Member of the House, had the brazen effrontery to say that the Kingsmills victims were entitled to the truth — the truth, which his IRA has withheld all these years.”
“Thank you. Is it not a requirement of Standing Orders that financial votes are on a cross-community basis? I have heard no finding that that was so.”
“— such is the farce and the shambles of this place.”
“We will get a Budget that will have no alignment with the missing Programme for Government —”
“No doubt, that is because the Executive have no confidence that they will be able to produce a Budget before the end of July, which is when the normal Vote on Account would run out. Therefore, they have given themselves the greatest possible headroom.”
“Yet he is paid £146,000 a year. Where is the accountability? We need not look to Stormont for accountability, but Stormont and a former Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs told us that the reform of local government would save £400 million. Where is it? It seems that the big savings that were promised turned into big salaries and big rate rises for our ratepayers. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which I have been referring to, had a council rate rise of 10% this year. That is maybe no wonder, given that it is paying a non-attending chief executive more than the Prime Minister is paid and paying a director over £1,000 a day. Where is the financial accountability in all those things? <BR /> <BR />Then we come to the Vote on Account. Of course, that is at the huge level of 65%.”
“For two and a half years, instead of employing somebody through regular procurement processes, somebody has been employed at over £1,000 a day as a director in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. Then we wonder why we are short of money. <BR /> <BR />If you look at all those chief executives, you will discover that some of them are paid almost as much as the Prime Minister. Some of them have not covered themselves in glory, like the chief executive of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, Mr David Jackson, who has been the object of a number of adverse findings and whose council has been subject to a special audit adverse findings. I declare an interest as one of the complainants against him. He was found responsible for a number of issues, not least the infamous £1 land deal of that particular council.”
“<BR /> <BR />Look today at the 'Belfast Telegraph' article on the squandering on excessive salaries in the upper echelons of local government. We discover that every chief executive in local government in Northern Ireland is paid more than the First Minister or the deputy First Minister. Indeed, one of them, who did not do one day's work in the year in question because she was on suspension, was paid £188,000. The former chief executive of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Anne Donaghy, was paid £188,000, and, in the same council, we have the scandal of a director, employed through an agency, getting paid over £1,000 a day. The council, in its foolishness, has just extended the contract for another 18 months.”
“Here we are, debating something for which the money has been spent. It has all passed. Of course, some of the money was spent in a way that totally disregards the processes of the House, because almost £24 million was spent on black box, meaning that there was no statutory authority other than the Budget Bill, which has long since gone. The Department for Communities spent £11 million and the Executive Office spent almost £11 million on no statutory authority other than the Budget Bill. The advice is that you cannot spend above £1·5 million, if I recall correctly, other than on statutory authority. Yet the House spends £24 million without statutory authority, but, then, we seem to live in an environment where spending money is not a concern.”
“I am sorry, but, when I read section 64(1), I do not read, "The Minister of Finance shall, before the beginning of each financial year, lay before the Assembly a draft budget, unless the circumstances prevent it": it is a mandatory requirement. When I asked her what the legal consequences were for her and for the Assembly and the Executive of failing to live up to that statutory obligation, there was no answer. Perhaps there will be an answer to that question — perhaps I expect too much — in the round-up to the debate. I suspect not.”
“Yet, the Department chose not to produce it for the Budget debate and to have us debate the Budget blind to the figures. Then, belatedly and retrospectively, they produce a document that they could have had before us at the proper time, because it is the document that supports the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />We know, however, not least from today's Question Time, just how cavalier the Minister's attitude is to the law. When she was asked why she had broken the law at section 64(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which says that the Minister must lay a draft Budget Bill before the close of the financial year, she had no answer other than to pathetically say, "We must consider the circumstances that we are in".”
“This is, essentially, a farcical debate, because the first Supply resolution that we are discussing is for a financial year that is over. The whole purpose of the processes of the House is to sanction expenditure before it happens. Today, however, we have spent three or four hours debating expenditure that is already closed: a Supply resolution that refers to the 2023-24 Budget year. <BR /> <BR />When we had the debate on the Budget Bill a few weeks ago, the Minister came up with the lamest of excuses: she did not have time to prepare the Supplementary Estimates. That just does not bear scrutiny. These Estimates are not compiled by the Minister; they are compiled by her civil servants, who were not away for two years. They were working and had all the data on their system to produce this at speed.”
“The Minister has not answered the question. What are the legal consequences of her flagrant breach of the statutory duty under section 64(1) to lay a Budget? What example is it to set our citizens if we say to them, "The Minister can defy the law, but you must obey the law that this Assembly made"?”
“Will the Minister explain to the House what is the legal effect, if any, of passing retrospectively Supply resolutions for moneys that have already been spent? Is there really any purpose in a resolution such as this at this point?”
“Do victims' issues feature in the strategic priorities? If so, why does the First Minister, although deploying weasel words about regretting all deaths, persistently refuse, thereby insulting IRA victims, to condemn Provisional IRA murders, including those recently highlighted in the Kenova report? Were those murders wrong?”
“That section now is deliberately and consciously excluded from applying to all protocol measures. Clearly, Sir Jeffrey and the DUP negotiators did not want scrutiny of what is now their protocol. Shame on them. It seems that the protocol implementers do, indeed, love darkness rather than light.”
“<BR /> <BR />To add insult to that constitutional injury is the fact that the latest regulations pull the teeth of the Assembly and its Windsor Framework Committee by removing the right to call for papers and to call Ministers and persons. That means that proper scrutiny is impossible and the Windsor Framework Committee is in danger of becoming a mere sham as a result. In legislating for the Windsor Framework Committee, much was made of its scrutiny powers by those who advocated it. Now, at a stroke, the scrutiny powers have been removed and all under the same DUP deal. <BR /> <BR />I fought long and hard to get section 11 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 through the Assembly, under which Committees were given the tools to do the job of scrutiny.”
“The Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024 are a product of the tainted Donaldson deal. They require further comment and exposure. As we await the Secretary of State's directions to DAERA under the regulations, it seems clear from their content that those directions will not apply to documentary checks at the Irish Sea border, thus exploding the DUP/Donaldson myth or boast of zero paperwork. There are over 6,000 documentary checks each month because of the requirements of the EU customs code, which was imposed unaltered by the protocol on the premise that all goods coming from Great Britain are coming from a foreign country, in its terms, into EU territory. Herein continues the greatest constitutional obscenity of the tainted Donaldson deal.”
“Those media outlets need to look at themselves and at how they fuelled groundless speculation and added, no doubt, great distress at a time of particular turmoil in that family. I trust that, on that front too, our media will learn a lesson in respect of this matter.”