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 6 of 95.
“I join others on my behalf and that of my party and my constituents in North Antrim in offering the best wishes of the Assembly to Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales. It is always distressing when we hear news of someone who is in this position: battling cancer. Cancer is no respecter of persons — that is abundantly clear — but it is particularly poignant when it strikes a young mother. That strikes a chord with us all. <BR /> <BR />I trust and pray that the princess will enjoy a full recovery and that, at this difficult time, it is some comfort for her to know that, throughout our nation, there is a huge upswell of best wishes for her and her family. That is in sharp contrast to the spurious and distressing media speculation that was rife in the few weeks before the announcement.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the discussion during the debate from Mr Brown and others, could you clarify for the House the effect under regulation 18 of the Windsor framework regulations? Is the effect the same when there has not been approval for a motion such as today's, which has been declined on a cross-community basis, and when a motion has never been tabled? Is the net result the same?”
“We are here as lawmakers to make laws for our people in Northern Ireland. Under the protocol, we are inhibited from doing that. The majority in the House say, "What about it? Just nod it through". No. It is, above all, a democratic issue. We should not assent to laws that we do not make and cannot change. That is enough to guarantee my vote in the No Lobby.”
“It is certainly not about whiskey. Rather, it is craft matters that are covered. Where it impacts on us as part of the UK internal market, of which we are supposed to be part, is as follows. If enhanced protection is given to a product that has a GI, anything that competes with that product in the NI market, because we are regarded as part of the EU market, because this is EU law in that regard, is put at a disadvantage. That is why it would be disadvantageous to our general UK market and is capable of creating further restrictions and fettering of trade coming from GB. <BR /> <BR />With respect, the more fundamental question is whether it is right that we, in the House, sit like nodding dogs, nodding through legislation that we have not made and cannot change. What are we here for?”
“Let us be very clear, however: that was a watershed moment. That was when the DUP swallowed the camel of the protocol, and today it is implementing it. <BR /> <BR />In that context, yes, it is good to see this token resistance to EU law.”
“I am sure that Mr Kingston will take the rebuke for having misled me down that particular path.”
“— the need for all the checks that are there.”
“It includes the imposition, in annex 2, under article 5(4) of the protocol, of the customs code of the EU, thus making Northern Ireland subject to a customs code that decrees unambiguously that GB, as a non-EU member, is a third or foreign country. This is what the DUP is now implementing: a protocol that states that, under the customs code, GB is a foreign country, and hence the border in the Irish Sea and hence —”
“I recognise exactly what the DUP is doing. Under the Donaldson deal, it is implementing the protocol. By accepting annex 2 and its 287 unaltered and unalterable EU laws, it is now implementing, not opposing, the protocol. To be a Minister in this House, you must, by law, implement the protocol. That is the product of the case of Rooney v Poots. That was the ruling in the High Court. It is the product of the Pledge of Office that every DUP and other Minister has taken. They have pledged to implement the protocol as part of the law, and they are doing so today without one syllable of annex 2 having been altered. <BR /> <BR />What does the Donaldson deal include? This is the point to which I was coming. It includes the most constitutionally devastating part of the protocol.”
“Yes, we have all these measures on applicability resolutions for future EU law, and we have the Stormont brake, for what it is worth, for amendments to existing law, but, as Mrs Dodds pointed out this morning, we have the entirety of annex 2 of the protocol. There are 287 laws in annex 2 — I printed off the titles of them; pages upon pages upon pages — that are entirely beyond the reach of this House and that are applied automatically in perpetuity, with no consent ever sought or obtained from the House. The reality of the Donaldson deal is that not one syllable of any one of those 287 laws is disapplied; rather, those are now accepted in the Donaldson deal. They are not some incidentals. Amongst —”
“The Member, if he wants to learn from Mr Tice and Mr Habib, could do very well, because they have discovered emphatically just how pernicious and how constitutionally destructive the protocol is. If Mr O'Toole has seen the light in respect of these matters and wants to come on board on the right side of the argument, he would be very welcome indeed. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the progress that has been made. The watershed moment was in December 2020, when the DUP foolishly voted into play 45 EU directives. There was another detrimental watershed moment, and that was when, under the Donaldson deal, the DUP accepted annex 2 of the protocol.”
“It certainly is progress to have the DUP table a motion today disavowing alignment with the EU protocol. It certainly is progress that it has learnt, I hope, a lesson from December 2020, when all Members of the House, with the exception of Mr Wells and me, voted to impose 45 animal health and plant health measures, including the measure that you cannot have British soil brought into Northern Ireland. It is progress that the DUP has woken up to the issue and is now seeking to resist additions to the protocol.”
“I also welcome the progress, in a sense, that it represents for the DUP, because the last time that we debated the applicability of EU laws in the House was on 8 December 2020, when we had a DUP Minister, quite astoundingly from my point of view, propose the imposition of not one but 45 different EU directives into our domestic law. What Mr Lyons said on that occasion was:”
“Even today, we cannot change that which is before us. That is why I describe it as EU colonial rule. They made the law. It is their law, not ours. It is a law that we cannot even change. Regardless of the merits or demerits, it does not deserve democratic assent, because to give that consent is to consent to colonial rule. I welcome the token resistance that it represents in that regard.”
“<BR /> <BR />Coming to the debate itself, I welcome the token resistance to EU colonial rule. For me, the fundamental issue, whether there are merits or demerits in this proposition, is the constitutional issue that we are being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change.”
“The Member misunderstands the regulations. The motion can only be brought initially by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Failing that, it can be any Member, including the Member for South Down Mr Brown. "Mr Brown can table a motion", the regulations might as well say. However, Mr Brown chose not to table a motion, because, despite all he says here today, Mr Brown was not in the least exercised about this. He was happy to see it fall, and then suddenly, when a motion was brought, he discovered an interest in this and an enthusiasm for it. He had no courage of his convictions to table the motion in the first place, and therefore, under regulation 18, he was prepared to see it fall. He is really in a pretty untenable position as far as his approach to the debate today is concerned.”
“When I finish the point. Mr Brown tells us how foolish we are not to approve something that he had no convictions about, because he did not bother to table a resolution to approve it. I will give way.”
“Mr Brown has tempted me into some preliminary remarks before I come to the substance of what I want to say. We have just had 10 minutes of exposition of the value of the geographical indicator legislation and a tirade against anyone who could ever be opposed to it. The astounding thing is that the proponents of it were prepared to see it fall, because they did not table a motion to approve it. If they had read the Windsor framework regulations, they would know that regulation 18 says that, if no motion of approval is brought, the regulation in that sense falls. The effect of voting it down today is the same as never having brought an approval resolution under regulation 18.”
“Can the Member advise the House precisely the stage that the legal proceedings have reached? Are pleadings closed? Has there been a review of the case before the judge? At what stage are we?”
“Does the Member agree that, given that the walls of this place are bedecked with portraits of the great and the not-so-good, it really is a shame that the head of state is not included in the display? Is the Assembly ashamed of that situation? When will it be addressed so that, in this devolved Assembly, there will at least be a portrait of His Majesty displayed?”
“I want to ask about another renewable scheme, namely the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. When can one expect the publication of the consultation report? Is there any hope of a realistic tariff for the users that is comparable to what exists elsewhere, or will we continue the folly of sending back money that has been unspent in that scheme?”
“There is one certainty with this legislation. If it were to be applied, you would discover that, under article 48, any Northern Ireland produce qualifying under it would not bear a Northern Ireland label; it would bear an EU label. That further illustrates the extent to which we have become captured by the EU. That is an unacceptable reality, is it not?”
“Then, there are some who are so foolish as to believe that there is no sea border. Sadly, it continues to exist in all its ugliness and its partitioning of this United Kingdom.”
“We know, for example, that, with the bluetongue designation, there are cattle for Northern Ireland, bought in Scotland or England, sitting there for months on end unable to be brought into Northern Ireland because EU law says otherwise. Yet, cattle bought in France can be transported through GB and come in unimpeded. Why? It is because GB is regarded as a foreign country, whereas the cattle coming from France are regarded as coming from another part of the EU. <BR /> <BR />I also had a case recently of someone who shows birds across the water. When he arrived back in Belfast, he was pulled in and all his birds were sent back to England to be quarantined for six weeks. His birds, which came from Northern Ireland and were taken to a weekend show in England, were sent back at his expense to be quarantined in England.”
“I also got an answer from the Agriculture Minister last week telling me that 151 DAERA staff are employed at the border posts, that he needs more, and that he is recruiting another 28 staff. What are they doing? Let me give you some examples. <BR /> <BR />I have a constituent in Cullybackey who breeds budgies. Every year or so, he brings in a new budgie from England to vary the strain. Now, what does he have to do? He has to have a veterinary certificate in England for the budgie. He has to have a veterinary certificate in Northern Ireland when the budgie arrives. He has to fill in all the paperwork, and he has to pay all the fees. Who would have thought that the EU single market is so fragile that the import of a budgie from Cheltenham to Cullybackey puts it at risk? <BR /> <BR />What else do those DAERA staff do?”
“Last week, we had the news that £192 million is to be spent building border posts at a border that, some tell us, does not exist. It is clear that the propaganda that all that was at the border was what was always there for phytosanitary checks and to stop smuggling etc is patently false, otherwise £192 million would not be spent building border posts.”
“How does the Minister think that those who need a fully funded childcare scheme and, indeed, other strategies would feel if the Executive were to prioritise tens of millions more for Casement Park while such strategies go underfunded?”
“I will ask the same clarification question of the Alliance Party on zero-hour contracts. In the days when he was a Minister, Dr Stephen Farry held a consultation on zero-hour contracts and concluded that they should not be banned but that their exclusivity should be reformed. Is that still the Alliance Party's position, or, in supporting the motion, is it now pursuing the abandonment of zero-hour contracts?”
“Before the Member concludes, I would like to get some clarification on the issue of zero-hours contracts. When we last debated the matter, on 31 January 2022, his party, through Mr Peter Weir and, if I recall correctly, Gordon Lyons, were supportive of the principle of zero-hours contracts but accepted that the issue of exclusivity needed to be dealt with. Has the Member's position now changed to one of, as the motion suggests, opposition in its totality to zero-hours contracts?”
“Maybe the Minister can tell us what action programme she has to deal with the rates that are never paid, so that there might be greater equity for us all.”
“What is the net cost of the concessions that are being made and, therefore, what is the net income of the increase? <BR /> <BR />Where, in all of that scenario, is the frightening and truly shocking level of write-off of unpaid rates? Unpaid rates seem, with a shrug of the shoulders, to be simply written off far too easily. That raises a point of agitation for many constituents who struggle and are anxious to pay their rates but then read in the press that so many million pounds of unpaid rates have been written off. They rightly query that and say, "Why am I the fool paying my rates if many others just get them written off?". Where is the vigour and the rigour in reducing the unpaid rates in the Province, which would be a benefit to us all?”
“The Executive are simply storing up more difficulties for themselves going forward. The Minister told us that the Treasury is now saying that the £113 million and the repayment of the overdrawn money can take place over a 24-month period. She was careful to not tell us whether that has been accepted by the Executive. She simply said that that was the offer. Perhaps, when she responds to the debate, she will indicate whether that is now an agreed position on the matter. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also told us that she was going to reinstate the Back in Business scheme, which is probably good, but she has not told us the net cost of that. We are increasing rates, according to need, apparently, but then we are going to diminish them through various schemes.”
“The district rate has been set to make a political point and not to deal with fiscal reality or responsibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is pretty clear that there is a degree of grandstanding going on with a view to putting off the hard decisions. I forecast that that will be the trademark of this Executive: putting off hard decisions about financial matters. If, in the meantime, they can do a bit of Brit-bashing, so much the better as far as the Minister, her party and, sadly, her partners in government are concerned. They are learning and deploying a lot of Brit-bashing tricks from Sinn Féin. Mind you, all those parties tripped over themselves to get back in here with a financial package that they now decry as wholly inadequate. I remind the House that some of those parties were prepared to come back to the Assembly with no money on the table, such was their enthusiasm. Some of them were prepared to pay with their principles to be here.”
“I detect a significant degree of grandstanding by the Executive in respect of the Rates Order. They trumpet the fact that they are retaining rates at inflation, but they are the same parties who, in our councils across Northern Ireland, voted well-above-inflation increases in the district rate. Few of them, if any — the exception, perhaps, being Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council — struck a district rate that was below inflation. Many of them struck a rate far in excess of inflation. Who voted those rates through? Members of the same parties who are in the Executive, who tell us that it is a virtue to grandstand at inflation rate when, for example, in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, the DUP and the Alliance Party joined together to vote through a district increase of 9·78%, almost 10%.”
“On a point of order. Will you advise the House as to why we are not simply moving on to the next business?”
“Has Libraries NI nothing better to do with its money than to engage in such promotion of the trans agenda? <BR /> <BR />I call on the Minister for Communities to take an interest in the issue, investigate it and take a stand on it.”
“When you explore, you discover that that is exactly what is happening. Books such as 'Introducing Teddy', which is said to be for children aged up to five, has cartoon characters switching gender. Another book, '10,000 Dresses', aimed at ages five to six, has a little boy being told by his mother that boys do not dress up in dresses. The mother is then vilified in that book, to the point that the child runs away. That book is for five- and six-year-olds. <BR /> <BR />Why is Libraries NI in the business of corrupting young people through a trans agenda, which, in later years, could lead some of them to the horrendous experience of puberty blockers, untold physical damage and psychological damage, and then a desire to try to reverse all of that? Really?”
“Libraries NI, like many other public bodies, proclaims that its resources are tight and that it is short of money. I was therefore very disappointed to discover from the exposé in yesterday's Belfast 'News Letter' that Libraries NI has thought it appropriate to spend thousands upon thousands of pounds on books promoting the trans agenda, with toddlers no less. <BR /> <BR />Part of the headline in the 'News Letter' article was:”
“The Minister knows what his responsibilities are, but has he costed them for meeting the 2030 targets? If so, what are those costings?”
“It may not be the Minister's proposal, but he is the one who will make the decision. In that context, can he can think of any justification for paying less than the market value?”
“Is there any relief on the holiday pay issue that has arisen from court cases that said that holiday pay had to be based on year-round overtime? Some officers have been waiting for those holiday pay payments for many years.”
“The Minister brings an order that expires in 10 or 11 days. She indicates that she anticipates that there will be primary legislation in the long term. Does that mean that, under the Coronavirus Act, we will be subject to another extension in a few weeks?”
“Why is it that Sinn Féin, to this very day, will not face up to that and tell us whether the murders that their IRA committed were wrong?”
“Was it wrong for the IRA to murder, not just these people but all those whom they murdered? Weasel words that evade that question are quite appalling, and that is what we have had. We have had it here again today. We had the Sinn Féin Member saying that they want to heal wounds but never answering the question of whether it was right to cause those wounds. That is the question for which there must be an apology — the causing of the wounds, the execution of the murders. Were those wrong? That is the question that I have yet to hear an answer to from Sinn Féin. Until we get an answer to that, this is all just so much hypocrisy, failure and attempts to divert attention from the core issue. Terrorists chose to be terrorists. When they chose to act as terrorists, in murdering their own or anyone else, there can be no justification for that.”
“The vast plethora of words in the Kenova report must not blur the fundamental reality that it was an IRA bullet in the back of the head of every victim mentioned in this report. It was the IRA that decided that those people would be put to death — executed, in its terms. There is no escaping, nor should there be any obfuscation of that reality or any attempt to spread the blame by some sort of phoney equivalence. It was the IRA, through Scappaticci, whom they took in. He may then have taken them in, but it was his bullets and his henchmen's bullets that delivered multiple dead bodies. <BR /> <BR />It comes nowhere close enough to say, as the First Minister has said, that she is sorry for all deaths. That is not the question. The question is: was it wrong?”
“The Minister will be aware that, in England, there is a live judicial review of the measures that were taken there. How far has what has emerged in that review informed the Minister's approach? When he refers to "legislation" in his statement, I take it that he is referring to secondary legislation. Will that be by negative or affirmative resolution, and what is the timeline?”
“Because, under article 2 of the protocol or Windsor framework, Northern Ireland, alone in the United Kingdom, is retained under the control of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In consequence of that, rights that were offended within that by the Legacy Act are incompatible with it. Therefore, those portions of the Act were struck down. That is a colossal constitutional assault on the integrity and independence of the United Kingdom and, of course, more particularly — we will see it again in the Rwanda Bill — evidence of the special and diminished place that Northern Ireland has been put in in the United Kingdom by virtue of the fact that it is the supremacy of EU law, not British law, that rules in these matters.”
“The fact that it was struck down because of the primacy of the protocol is of immense constitutional significance and brings home to those of us who care the subservience of the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland to EU law. <BR /> <BR />It also, of course, dramatically debunked the fake news of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, who told us when he did his dud deal that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom had been wholly restored and that he accepted what was in the Command Paper when it affirmed that the Windsor framework applied only to trade. The High Court has clearly demonstrated that, far from applying only to trade, it applies to all these constitutional issues. Why?”
“Last week, in our High Court, we had a very significant judgement. I refer to the striking down of a key part of the legacy Act. <BR /> <BR />Where the constitutional significance of that arises is in the reasons why the High Court took that decision. It took it because of the court's acknowledgement of the supremacy of the protocol in our law. This was not the striking down of some statutory instrument or even some Act of this House; it was the striking down of an Act of Parliament.”