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 50 of 95.
“That is the reality of it. The challenge to the House is this: is this debate just about "sound and fury, signifying nothing", or will Members do something about it? That is the challenge.”
“In a moment. <BR /> <BR />Look at the motion: the Assembly "expresses disappointment". I am disappointed that it was raining this morning. There is no censure in disappointment. Of course, that gives Sinn Féin more reason to laugh at the Assembly, because they know that the absurdity of the arrangements mean that they can. Three quarters of the Executive are disappointed in them, but they know that they can cling to office. Why? Because of the absurd situation of mandatory coalition, which robs the House of the right of true sanction and proper control and proper respect to all of those at whom Sinn Féin are laughing.”
“I will never apologise for attending the funeral of a friend". It is like the apology that we got about the Troubles: "We are sorry so many people died, but the IRA's campaign was justified". That is not an apology. It is the same weasel words here. <BR /> <BR />I said that they were laughing in the face of grieving families, but they are also laughing in the face of the Assembly, because they know that the Assembly has not got the will to do anything about it.”
“I have made it abundantly clear that we are here because of Sinn Féin's arrogance and refusal to face up to and apologise for putting themselves in a position where they declared to all that they were above the law. I have just recited the reason why Sinn Féin — Mr Sheehan included — think that they are beyond the law. Their loyalty is to a different law: that of the republican movement. <BR /> <BR />The people who made the law are the people whom we now find in breach. They say, "Oh, we have apologised". No, they have not. They are weasel words. At best, Ms O'Neill said that she was sorry that families across the country had been subjected to the difficulties of the regulations. She was sorry if they were hurt by that, but she was not sorry for doing what she did. She underscored that by saying, "I do not apologise.”
“Indeed, the Sinn Féin ideology is that they are a direct lineal succession of the provisional Government of 1916 and the 1918 Dáil. They say, in fact, that the IRA is the lawful authority.”
“Thank you. Yes, it is beyond doubt that Sinn Féin think that they are above the law. They give some weasel-word apology, some carefully crafted words in Connolly House that convey no apology whatever. Of course, we have experience of that. One of the Members listed in the motion is Minister Murphy. We all know the cruelty with which he treated Paul Quinn's family by refusing to utter the words. Why is that? It is for the reason that every member of Sinn Féin has refused to back off this issue. It is because the loyalty of the deputy First Minister and all the rest of them is not to these institutions; it is not to this place. Their loyalty is a fidelity to the republican movement. That is their first call of loyalty.”
“She made the regulations that said you could not attend the funeral of a friend. I will give way.”
“Sinn Féin, by their actions, never mind their words, have been laughing in the faces of grieving families across the Province, whether they were Protestant, Catholic, unionist or nationalist. Sinn Féin, in the office that they hold, decreed what the regulations would contain. They were very clear. Regulation 5(2)(g), which was in full operation in all its parts last Tuesday, is abundantly clear: you could not attend the funerals of your friends. The deputy First Minister told us, of course, that there were no exemptions to the regulations, yet she proceeded to tell us that she would never apologise for attending the funeral of a friend.”
“I respectfully suggest that there is no difficulty: if she is speaking as an MLA, she has five minutes. End of.”
“Given the joint nature of the office, how can Mrs O'Neill address the House as deputy First Minister, on behalf of that office, if she does not have the consent of the First Minister? Mrs O'Neill, in the House, has no power as deputy First Minister. Any power she has is solely the power of the joint office. If the joint office is not consenting to her speaking as deputy First Minister, she cannot speak as deputy First Minister. Is that not correct?”
“On a further point of order, Mr Temporary Speaker.”
“With respect, it is not for Mrs O'Neill to address that point. If Mrs O'Neill is appearing in the House on behalf of the Executive Office, custom and practice dictate that she can appear in that role only with the assent of the First Minister. Is she appearing on behalf of the Executive Office to speak for 15 minutes on behalf of that office? If she is speaking only on her own behalf, she should be restricted to 5 minutes and speak from the Back Benches, I would have thought.”
“On a point of order, Mr Temporary Speaker.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Temporary Speaker, how can it be that Mrs O'Neill is responding as deputy First Minister, speaking on behalf of the Executive Office? Should we infer from that that the First Minister has assented to that and that, when she rises, Mrs O'Neill is speaking on behalf of the Executive Office, which means that she is also speaking on behalf of the First Minister?”
“On a point of order, Mr Temporary Speaker. Does it follow that there is no ministerial response in the debate, as you have indicated that all other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes?”
“Whatever their use at the peak of the pandemic, and even that, I do not think, was huge, they are characterised at the moment by gross underuse. I have GPs telling me of doing four-hour shifts and seeing no patients, yet they are paid, out of hours, £100 an hour. Moreover, support staff have to be paid as well. Where is the medical and financial sense now in continuing with that? <BR /> <BR />Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that one GP reported to me that a representative of the BMA said to those GPs that the centres are being kept open purely for political reasons. Is there any truth in that?”
“How can the Minister talk about equality, racial or otherwise, when, just this day last week, she was demonstrating that she and her friends think that they are more equal than others and that they have the capacity and the right to break the laws that they themselves make? Would it not be a good start to equality to subject yourself equally under the law?”
“Unless, of course, there is another agenda, which is to keep that £29 million for something else. Translink has already had something of that order but needs more money. Does the Member think that there might be prioritisation going on in which the haulage sector is the loser?”
“I do not want to get involved in the ping-pong as to which Executive party is to blame, although I have my view about that. Surely, it is a collective failure of the Executive, because these may well be cross-cutting issues. The haulage sector, about which I am particularly concerned, has been hung out to dry by the failure of the Executive parties to apply for a pot of money, which is sitting in Finance — at present, it is £29 million — and there has been no collective decision to make an application for it. Is it not, therefore, an Executive failure, never mind individual Departments?”
“Why does she think that she is above the law? Is it because she has a higher loyalty, which is to the republican movement?”
“The deputy First Minister holds office only because she took a solemn Pledge of Office that created an obligation to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed. The law, as far as last Tuesday's funeral was concerned, was unmistakably clear: there only could be attendees from the household and the close family of the deceased. <BR /> <BR />The deputy First Minister then compounded that breach by arrogantly declaring that she would never apologise for attending the funeral of a friend. Yet, the law that she made — the law from which, she said to every citizen, there was no exemption — was that you could not attend the funerals of your friends.”
“I would like to hear the other junior Minister in replying give us some indication of what that terminology is meant to convey. Since this will be the only practical occasion when we will debate the Bill because there will be no Committee Stage, I think that it is important that we get that answer.”
“What does "more than incidentally" mean? This comes about in consequence of judicial review. I cannot think of wording more likely to provoke judicial review applications than a dispute about whether or not something is more than incidental. It is not defined in the Bill, save clause 1(9) setting some parameters by saying that the statutory responsibility to consult another Minister is more than incidental. That apart, there is no attempt at defining, maybe because it cannot be defined, what is more than incidental. I am just cautioning that that seems to me to be likely to lay a vast opportunity for challenge when decisions are taken not to heed and to not to join with others in making a decision. It is a huge area for challenge as to whether or not the role of that other was more than incidental.”
“I have one area of concern in respect of the Bill. It is right that we should respect the principle that if you have a Minister who has oversight of planning, it is that Minister who should make decisions that are within their ambit. I will stray slightly to say that I found it rather ironic that the Minister who moved the Bill was one of the first people out of the traps to welcome the Buick judgement when it was issued in quashing the Arc21 decision. There you are: what a tangled web we weave. The one area of concern that I have is clause 1(8), which states:”
“I will be mercifully short, and, if you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the issues in the Bill.”
“I have not heard any explanation proffered as to why this necessary legislation — I accept that it is necessary — was not brought sooner. We have known about this for a very long time. Why is it that, in the last week in Stormont, a Bill is suddenly being brought when it could have gone through the processes much earlier?”
“For the avoidance of doubt, I was expressing utter disbelief in the affirmations and the obfuscations of the junior Minister. Is it in order for a junior Minister to come to the House and engage in weasel words and obfuscations on an issue such as this?”
“Really, it is time the Executive dealt with that. I trust that they will.”
“It is not the first one that has been made without being laid — I grant you that — but it is the one made in the shortest time with the most obvious political ramifications. So, many questions. <BR /> <BR />I come to an issue about marriages. I have raised it many times. I raised the issue of indoor weddings last Tuesday and the fact that indoor weddings are still prohibited. Yet, from today, you can have an indoor piercing carried out. You can have a ring put through your nose, but you cannot have a ring put on your finger indoors. What sort of logic governs the Executive's timescale in this? I make a further plea: why oh why, if you can have religious services, if you can have funerals, if you can have Bible readings and all those things — we saw many of them yesterday across the Province — why can you not have an indoor wedding?”
“Regulation 5(2)(g) is emphatic in its terms. Is that why amendment (No. 9) was made and published at great haste late into last Monday evening: so as to provide a fig leaf to Sinn Féin? Were the DUP complicit in that? Did they not see what was happening? That, the very next day, a gruesome hero of republicanism was to be buried? Did they fall blindly or not so blindly into the trap of providing a fig leaf for Sinn Féin, even though that is all that it is? It is utterly bogus. It does not exculpate them from the breach of the law. The public, who have been watching on in amazement, will want to know what was the haste and urgency that the statute required to make that amendment before it could even be laid in the House.”
“9) regulations do? They allowed, instead of 10, 30 people to participate in an outside gathering. When did they come into effect? You might have thought that they could have been laid in the House before they came into effect. Oh, no. They came into effect 90 minutes later — at 11 o'clock last Monday night — before they were even laid in the House, never mind debated. Why was that? Maybe we have the answer in the utterly bogus excuse proffered by Sinn Féin as the justification for being at that funeral: they sought to self-isolate the cortège from the funeral and sought to suggest that the cortège was only 30, even though they had elbowed family members out of it to keep it at 30 so that they could be there themselves. "The cortège was only 30: therefore they did not break the law": utterly bogus. Totally spurious.”
“We will, no doubt, be treated in the winding-up speech today to a recitation of all sorts of weasel words, but the reality remains that this is an Executive populated on the Sinn Féin side by Ministers who believe themselves to be above the law: the very law that they make. I cannot imagine a more shattering position for any Government to be in than for those who make its laws to set themselves up as being above those laws and then come to the House with the pretence that they need to have it approve regulations that, when it suits, some will not even obey. What a sham. <BR /> <BR />The other junior Minister, Mr Lyons, told us about other amendments that have since been made. One is the amendment (No. 9) regulations. The amendment (No. 9) regulations were made at 9.30 pm on Monday evening last. What did the amendment (No.”
“What was she saying? She was saying that, whatever about her Pledge of Office or whatever about unequivocally by word and deed supporting the rule of law, there is a greater loyalty that she has, and that is to the republican movement. That is the Achilles heel — in fact, it is far more — of the Executive and the Assembly. We are now in a situation in which the Executive's credibility has been shredded by themselves, by an integral part of the Executive. All that the Executive parties can say is, "We're very disappointed". That is what they will tell us tomorrow in a motion: "We're very disappointed". No condemnation, no demand for resignations, just, "Isn't it disappointing?". How pathetic.”
“We had Michelle O'Neill, effectively the joint First Minister in this part of the United Kingdom, saying, "I'm sorry if people were hurt, but I didn't cause it". What a sham of an apology. Then, of course, lest anyone be in any doubt, she copper-fastened it by saying, "I will never apologise". So much for saying sorry about anything when you immediately take any shred of contrition, of which there was none to start with, and underscore it by saying:”
“Unequivocally in word and deed. Last Tuesday, we saw deeds that were in flagrant breach of the very rule of law that applied at that time to funerals. Why was that? I will say it again: they told us that there would be no exemptions. However, when fidelity to the republican cause demands homage to people such as Mr Storey, that trumps everything, which is what we saw last week. <BR /> <BR />As for supporting the rule of law unequivocally in word, in addition to the sham situation of this debate, we have had the sham apology.”
“The answer is that there is a greater loyalty when it comes to Sinn Féin members of the Executive; the greater loyalty is not to the Executive or to any system of government, it is fidelity to the republican movement and to paying homage to the gruesome heroes of that movement. That is the greater loyalty that trumps obeying their own laws. <BR /> <BR />That is what we saw last Tuesday. We saw Ministers openly and unapologetically, after demanding loyalty to law from everyone else, setting themselves above the law. Those are Ministers who took a pledge of office that included an obligation to:”
“Yet today, in a display of incredible hypocrisy, the House will be treated to a junior Minister responding to the debate on regulations that he does not honour. How low can this place sink? That is why I said that it is a sham. <BR /> <BR />Fundamental to the contract between Government and the governed is that the Government that make the laws keep the laws before they expect the people, for whom they are also made, to keep them. Yet, here we have a situation where we have Ministers in the Executive, who sit around the Executive table and make these laws, when the opportunity requires them to, flagrantly breach them. Where is the loyalty? Where is the collective responsibility?”
“This is a sham debate because we are debating regulations made by an Executive, when that Executive, collectively, do not believe in regulations in some respects. The sham is further underscored by the fact that the debate will be responded to, on behalf of the Executive, by junior Minister Kearney, who, when we debated these matters last Tuesday, when he ought to have been here to move or to answer, chose instead to breach the regulations by attending the funeral of a person who was neither a member of his household nor a relative. When the regulations were abundantly clear in regulation 5(2)(g) that no person should attend a funeral of someone who is not of the same household or a relative, junior Minister Kearney, with his cohorts, decided that that law was not for him.”
“I thought that I was speaking on that topic, because I was talking about the function whereby the ombudsman can initiate investigations. I was giving Ms Kelly some advice as to what she might initiate an investigation about. The point is there. It is crying out for investigation. <BR /> <BR />When the Commission come to reply, could they also tell us what progress they have made in the appointment of a Standards Commissioner for the House, which is a long-outstanding vacancy?”
“Belfast City Council needs to be strongly held to account in respect of its administration of that matter. How is it that eight families, on Tuesday, were denied the privileges, the rights and, it turns out, the overnight change in the law that no one was told about? How is that eight families were denied all that, and one family was afforded those special treatments? That, surely, is a matter of maladministration.”
“I suggest to Ms Kelly that the first investigation that she should initiate is one of recent events in Belfast City Council, where there appears to have been gross maladministration in the selective preference given to one applicant family in the use of the crematorium over others.”
“I am not very familiar with the history and work of Margaret Kelly, so anything that I say is not to be taken to reflect upon her capacities and abilities. I did not hear about anything in her background that indicated that she has legal expertise. I think that, given that, very often, the ombudsman's function involves quasi-judicial functions in reaching judgements, assessing evidence and all of that, it might have been advantageous to have had someone of such a background. We have not been told, and I would like to know, how many applicants there were for the post and how many were interviewed. <BR /> <BR />The ombudsman has a right to self-initiate investigations.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it within the functions of the Speaker of this House to use social media to advertise and promote funeral arrangements in circumstances in which prevailing Executive guidance at the time prohibited such promotion and advertising?”
“It is the absurdity of that which brings regulations, such as this, into disrepute, but it is as nothing over the self-inflicted disrepute into which these regulations have been brought today by the deputy First Minister.”
“We have reached an utterly illogical position. You can use a church for a funeral. You can now go to it for an act of community worship, or use it for childcare, but you cannot get married in it. That act of worship is excluded. I say to the junior Minister that the Executive need to urgently address the glaring — glaring — inconsistencies in these regulations. <BR /> <BR />What have they got against marriage? What is it about marriage, that you cannot be married in church? There is no justifiable shadow of a reason why that should be. You can now have religious services, Bible readings, all of that, with no limitation on the numbers, but the one thing that you cannot do is get married. You can have your kids minded in childcare, but you cannot get married. <BR /> <BR />That is absurd.”
“It does not say "at" the place of worship; it is "in" the place of worship. What does that mean? We have been told in guidance and everything else that you can have only outdoor weddings — fair-weather weddings, as I have called them. That in itself is a burden too far. I do not see any logical, compelling reason for the provision that weddings can only be outdoors. Yes, I understand a limitation on numbers, but I see regulations that state that a place of worship can be used for funerals, inside; can be used to broadcast from; and now, under the amendment (No. 6) regulation, can be used to provide childcare but cannot be used for a wedding.”
“which, I do not think, will be affected by the 30 provision —”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to turn to some of the specifics of the amendment (No. 5) and amendment (No. 6) regulations and deal specifically and primarily with the issue of marriage. The amendment (No. 5) regulation introduced a revision of the amendment (No. 4) regulation, which, you will recall, related to dos and don'ts and what must be open and what must be closed. It deals at paragraph 6 with places of worship. The amendment (No. 5) regulation put into regulation 4(6) the subparagraph stating that a place of worship may be used to:”
“He is not here today to answer the debate. Is it embarrassment that keeps him away? Is he running away from the questions as to why his leaders were in flagrant breach of the regulations today? Is that why it has been left to junior Minister Lyons to handle this alone? It is an appalling indictment of not just the dysfunctionality but the double standards of this miserable Executive, that they say to ordinary folk in the depths of grief, sorrow and despair, "You cannot go to your friend's funeral. You cannot be there". As Mr Chambers told us, even a widow cannot go to the crematorium, but Michelle O'Neill and the rest of them however can go in the throngs unlimited to the funeral of a terrorist. That is a commentary in itself on this Government and their regulations.”
“should be there. Yet, today, in flagrant defiance of her own guidance, she takes herself, as a joint leader of the Government, to west Belfast to breach the very guidance that she puts upon the rest of us. That is why I say that the Executive, today, shredded their own guidance. The Executive, today, have lost all credibility when it comes to saying to ordinary people, "Do what we say". It is not a case of, "Do what we do" but "Do what we say". That is the inescapable, orchestrated, predetermined message from Sinn Féin and its leadership today. It is not, "Do as we do"; it is, "Do as we say". That is contemptible. Utterly contemptible. <BR /> <BR />The junior Minister has had to come today and tell us why these regulations are so essential to us. I notice that he is getting no help from junior Minister Kearney.”