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 8 of 95.
“If you are within 7·5 km of one of those bogs, dear help you: you will have no chance of even modestly increasing your farming enterprise, even though you are moving to better housing with fewer emissions than you currently have. <BR /> <BR />I gave the example of the dairy farm and the poultry house. In that case, because of the layout of the farmyard, the farmer could increase his dairy herd through permitted development — asking no one — therefore increasing his emissions. When, however, he comes along and asks, "Can I please mitigate the increase in the poultry side through a reduction on the dairy side?", the response is, "No. We're not interested". <BR /> <BR />Unless and until those issues are addressed, farming will continue to be crucified by an insensitive, inflexible, overzealous agenda in the planning sector.”
“He is willing to offer a reduction in his dairy herd in mitigation so that he can get extra on the poultry side, but a silo mentality leads the planning department to say, "We're not interested in whether you diminish your dairy side. We are interested only in the fact that you are going to increase your poultry side". Where is the logic in the supposed mitigation policy that applies to ammonia? It is not there. <BR /> <BR />I find that to be very frustrating for so many of our farmers, particularly in North Antrim, where we have these precious bogs, about which the incoming Agriculture Minister will no doubt be more excited than he will about helping farming.”
“They seem to take great delight in frustrating the application and never reaching a decision, giving no thought to the fact that the motivation behind the application is that a second generation wants to join the farming enterprise and can do that only if planning permission is got. No regard is shown for their livelihood or anything else. The manner in which the ammonia direction is being abused to penalise planning applicants is beyond a disgrace. <BR /> <BR />I will give Members another case, concerning a farmer who is both a dairy farmer and a poultry farmer. He wants to upgrade his houses on the poultry side and needs planning permission to do so.”
“The devolution of planning has therefore brought about that chronic disparity, which is pleasing very few. <BR /> <BR />The great burden of what I want to say is about the farming community, however. Our farming community, particularly our poultry industry, is being crucified by an overzealous ammonia policy. That has become worse with the Department's move away from its consultation in December to make it even more extreme. I could cite multiple cases. In one case, a constituent of mine has been waiting for approval for a new broiler house for six and a half years. There has been ping-ponging between the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the NIEA and Planning NI.”
“In or about 10 years ago, the House exalted in the fact that it had devolved planning to local councils. I have to ask this: how did that work out? I must say that it has been a great disappointment. My experience, and that of many of my constituents, is that it has introduced chronic disparity into planning across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Take my constituency of North Antrim. The lower part of the constituency is under Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and, because it has a new area plan, a gap site is now one building. In the upper part of my constituency, a gap site is two buildings. I regularly meet planning agents who tell me, "I am having trouble with this application. If I had made this application in Mid Ulster, it would have been through long ago".”
“Will the Minister address the penny-wise/pound-foolish approach of providing a new school and then refusing, over successive decades, to attend to basic maintenance? I reference the school that I know best, Moorfields Primary School. It was a new school 15 years ago, fantastic. However, all basic maintenance has since been denied until we have reached the point where, eventually, it will cost far more to put in place the repairs than if they had been dealt with as they arose.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I raise the considered and irrefutable contribution of Lord Dodds, Lord Morrow and Sammy Wilson in Saturday's 'News Letter', when the spin and the myth from the DUP leadership about the Irish Sea border being gone, Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom being restored and the DUP's seven tests being met was well and truly exploded. The dissembling of the DUP leadership was demolished in that article. I encourage others in the House who share that trio's truth to speak up and not to hide their light under a bushel or be intimidated out of saying what they really think.”
“Of course, those crumbs did not meet any of the desires of those of us who have been sent here on a mandate equal to that of everyone else. Of course, in the Business Committee, it was made sure that there was no representative from this corner until that carve-up had been completed. The result, of course, in my case, is that I have been denied a place on the EU/Brexit Committee because deep-dive scrutiny is not what is required. It is the form rather than the substance of scrutiny that the protocol-implementing parties in the House wish to see. On that Committee or not, elsewhere, I will continue to shine a light on the dark deeds of colonial rule from the EU in this place.”
“Yesterday in North Antrim, we buried one of the greats of our education system. I refer to the sudden, sad passing of Mr Tom Skelton, the principal of Dalriada School in Ballymoney. Mr Skelton epitomised everything that a headmaster should be through the leadership, the vigour and the vision with which he led Dalriada. The indelible mark that he has made for good on so many generations of children will live long after him. I want to put on the record our sympathy to his wife, his four children, his sister and the wider family. We have truly lost a great in North Antrim. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the discrimination against minority voices in the Assembly in regard to the Committee allocations. Last week, we had a carve-up by the main parties and then an offer of the crumbs to the four of us in this corner of the Assembly.”
“Before this rewrite of history goes much further, can the deputy First Minister remind us whether it is not the case that Sinn Féin, Alliance, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP were all, for many months if not years, urging a return to the Executive without a financial package?”
“Before the Member gets as far as "constructive", he should look at the definition of "opposition". It means to oppose, not to acquiesce, support or sustain. That is the first action of the leader of the Opposition: to sign a motion and to table an accompanying amendment that supports, sustains and does not oppose the fallacious deal, which is being packaged up, and which, before we get to the end of the first week, is falling apart in its own glaring inadequacies.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are parties here today that would have come back for less. They were so keen to get back here that they would have come back for nothing. There are some who wanted to pay to come back here, and they paid by their principles. The DUP leadership paid with their principles on the Donaldson deal to get back in here, but every one of you is here on the basis of accepting a financial offer that you know, that everyone knows and that you have to write up yourself as being totally inadequate. <BR /> <BR />We then have an Opposition, and what do they do? They sign the very same Government motion. Is that the way that opposition is going to work in this Assembly? Are they to be cheek by jowl with the Government? There is no amendment pointing out the folly of accepting that which falls short: none whatsoever.”
“You came back into an Assembly knowing that you had not got long-term stability, and you were content to work on that basis. You then go on to tell us that you are over £100 million short, even on public-sector pay. You need £690 million, you have only got £584 million, so what are you doing here, having accepted a deal that sells short our public-sector workers? You then point out that there is nothing in it for capital funding. It really is quite incredible that the parties came back here on the basis of that offer and the first item of business is to try to deconstruct it. <BR /> <BR />We heard from the Sinn Féin contributor the attack on Mr Sunak. That surely could not be the same Mr Sunak as the one who Miss O'Neill was hugging yesterday, could it? This Assembly is in a parallel universe.”
“— but that was the basis on which you came back —”
“Each party that came back to Stormont came back on the basis of the financial deal that was offered. It is quite clear when you read the letter from Sunday that it is a deal that does not match up to anything. On the very first page, it says:”
“I am struck by how short a time it took for the Assembly to get back into its parallel universe orbit. The very first debate is about taking apart a financial deal that all these parties accepted. That was the basis on which they came back to the House.”
“I begin by commending those who made their maiden speeches for their thoughtful contributions. I noted that all except one Member paid tribute to their predecessor. It was disappointing that Miss Forsythe could not find anything worthwhile to say about a man who served 24 years in the House, namely Mr Jim Wells. Everyone else was able to pay tribute to their predecessors. I trust that, at some point — even now — Miss Forsythe will make good on that oversight.”
“Today one thinks of his wife, his children, his sister and his mother while remembering the indelible manner in which he conducted affairs in the House.”
“Of course, she showed her propensity in the past to have an attraction to titles, because, when she became a Minister, her first appointment was her commander from the IRA in the jail, a murderer, as special adviser until, thankfully, we were able to put an end to that obscenity, and here she is now: Principal Deputy Speaker. It really is a farce. I hope that this appointment does not end in the same ignominy as that of the previous Sinn Féin Principal Deputy Speaker, Miss Ruane, who even her party could not get out of office or get her funds in that respect. <BR /> <BR />However, it reminds me that the previous Principal Deputy Speaker was a man of panache and ability. I am referring to the late Christopher Stalford, who filled that office, whatever the title, and the Chair with great ability and humour.”
“This is a wholly farcical position. It exercises no greater authority than a Deputy Speaker. Of course, it was brought in in 2011 to stroke some egos so that the two big parties could demonstrate their superiority over the lesser mortals in the smaller parties. They puffed themselves up and decided, "We need a Principal Deputy Speaker, and we'll get a nice plaque and put it on the door of a swanky office and pretend that this is a really forceful, important office". What a farce, and here we go again, appointing a Principal Deputy Speaker as a moment to show the lesser parties that they are lesser and that the egos of the big parties are here to be stroked. <BR /> <BR />Today, it is Miss Carál Ní Chuilín.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a matter of far less significance than the issue that we have just discussed, but it is, I think, appropriate that I raise it. How are the dignity and expectations of your office compatible with your public venting of your desire to "clean" my "clock", which has the colloquial and indisputable meaning of indulging in physical violence? How is that compatible with the dignity of your office?”
“The transparency with which the matter was dealt with was highly commendable. I trust that its effect will be that people go to seek help. They may have neglected symptoms but will now take it upon themselves, as they probably did after the King's prostate situation, to ensure that they put their health first and foremost. <BR /> <BR />I join as many in the House as are conveying thoughts, prayers and support to His Majesty and his family at this time.”
“There is palpable shock and empathy across our nation at the news that His Majesty The King has fallen victim to the pervasive and dreadful disease of cancer. Of course, it is a reminder to us that cancer is no respecter of persons. Therefore, our first and primary thoughts, undoubtedly, are with the King himself, the Queen and his immediate family, who have all to shoulder the burden. Of course, as has been said, it is something that has touched many families, yourself included, Mr Speaker, and, indeed, the family of the previous Member to speak in the debate. It, therefore, creates a common feeling among so many. <BR /> <BR />As you have properly conveyed to the King the best wishes, thoughts and prayers of the Assembly, we trust that he will see a speedy and effective recovery and be enabled to continue to rule over us.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the Pledge of Office. Can you confirm whether the Pledge of Office includes a pledge to operate and work the recently announced east-west council, because I do not think that it was in the text. Secondly, when the Pledge of Office commits Ministers to implementing the law, in light of the judgement that was held in the case of Rooney against you, can you confirm that that means that there is a statutory obligation on each and every Minister to implement the protocol?”
“This is the woman who now has oversight of victims policy. Let it never be forgotten that we now have a First Minister under the direction and control of the IRA army council. That is not just my belief but the unaltered police assessment of the nexus between Sinn Féin and the IRA. Such a puppet will never be a First Minister for all. <BR /> <BR />Behind all the pious, honeyed words of today lies the real Sinn Féin view that this brings it within touching distance of an all Ireland. That is how it will abuse and misuse the office in this place and, no doubt, in Washington, when the opportunity arises. We have a Sinn Féin First Minister but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA/Sinn Féin.”
“Now comes the consummation of the Donaldson deal, with the DUP enthroning a Sinn Féin First Minister, with the unelected bridesmaid as deputy. David Trimble had his "Well done, David" moment of endorsement from IRA leader Gerry Adams. Now the leader of the DUP has his "Well done, Jeffrey" moment, as he gives us a First Minister who wallows in the glorification of terrorism and tells us that there was no alternative to the murder of our kith and kin: no alternative to La Mon; no alternative to Enniskillen; no alternative to Teebane; no alternative to Kingsmills or to Markethill; and no alternative to the incineration of a young woman in Ballymena in my constituency, Yvonne Dunlop, whose vile murderer, McElwee, Miss O'Neill celebrates every year. This year, she will do so as First Minister. Well done, Jeffrey.”
“Mr Speaker, as a Member, I respect the office of Speaker, and, accordingly, since you now fill it, I wish you well in that regard. To the disappointment of the protocol implementers, I will be here as a thorn in their side, as I have had to be in the past. When it comes to that, Mr Speaker, I will probably test your patience and certainly test your impartiality, but, when I test you, just remember that it was 1,000 TUV transfers that elected you to the House on the fifth count in South Belfast.”
“So, from Mr Seismic to Mr Speaker: oh, the irresistible lure of office for those whose principles are expendable. For Mr Poots, the speakership is the fruit of the poison tree, and no good can come of it.”
“It turns out that, for Mr Poots, seismic means the promise — not even the delivery — of the reduction of green-lane physical checks from 5% to zero. That is not even in the legislation that was passed this week. For Mr Poots, that is seismic. Wow. To everyone else, it is closer to infinitesimal.”
“That is exactly what it is. The Windsor framework was not good enough to bring the DUP back to vote in a Speaker, nor is this deal, and to roll over now and become protocol implementers is beyond comprehension. I accept that there are many in the DUP — some of them are on the Benches today — who are very unhappy with this course of action and agree with many of the things that I am saying, and I urge them to continue to stand strong. I suggest that the moment that we vote to elect a Speaker, that is a vote to proceed to implement the protocol. That is a step that should not be taken. <BR /> <BR />Of course, as it turns out, there were many for whom opposition to the protocol was just bluff and bluster, and none more than Mr Poots. This is the man who told us that there had to be seismic changes to the protocol.”
“If the Irish Sea border was gone, we would be dismantling, not continuing to build, border posts, yet millions of pounds are being spent in that pursuit. Under EU legislation, Northern Ireland is still determined as EU territory. None of that has changed. <BR /> <BR />On article 6, despite the weasel attempts in the Donaldson deal to diminish its importance, it is still in suspension and, with it, so is one of the twin pillars of this Union. Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom is not restored. We are still constitutionally a condominium, ruled in part by UK laws and in part by foreign laws that we do not make, and all of that with a partitioning border down the Irish Sea. <BR /> <BR />It is little wonder that this morning, in 'The Belfast Telegraph', Sam McBride described the deal as "the Windsor Framework in drag".”
“This is a day of glee and gloating for republicanism as the DUP leadership returns, after its seismic climbdown, to implement the Union-dismantling protocol. Despite all the fake news and attempts to spin defeat as victory, this is a climbdown of monumental proportions. It is quite clear that not one word of the protocol has changed — not one word. Northern Ireland remains under the EU's customs code, which decrees GB to be a foreign country. That is of momentous constitutional significance in itself. We continue to be ruled, in significant part, by foreign laws. In annex 2 of the protocol, all 287 of those EU laws remain in place in perpetuity, beyond the reach of the Stormont brake, and therefore under the supervision of the European Court of Justice. <BR /> <BR />We still have an Irish Sea border.”
“There is not a word about decoupling in the motion that has brought us here. It, too, is but an attempt to add to the Secretary of State's blackmail of public servants, who are deserving of parity of pay with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an equal citizenship right, just as the right to be governed as a full part of the United Kingdom is an equal citizenship right.”
“The ultimate irony is that the greatest threat to the Belfast Agreement today are its supposed supporters, who are demanding that we end power-sharing, get unionists out of government and move on without them. That is the position that is articulated to the House. <BR /> <BR />The hypocrisy also extends to tomorrow. I heard media interviews with the Alliance Party and others in which they said that we must decouple the public-sector pay issue — so we must — but then they sign a motion that gets them onto the Secretary of State's bandwagon of blackmail.”
“Make no mistake about it: the demand to get this place going is to break unionism, to see the DUP back in government, as I said, tail between its legs. That is a price that cannot be paid. <BR /> <BR />The hypocrisy does not end there. It extends into —”
“By forcing the DUP back into the Executive with its tail between its legs, to accept that never again will Northern Ireland be a full part of the United Kingdom; never again will we be ruled solely by British laws; never again will there not be a partitioning border in the Irish Sea; never again will we go forward as a proper part of the UK. Instead, we will be ruled by colonial laws on many of our goods that we do not make and cannot change, and we must accept that, under the EU customs code to which we are subject, GB is a foreign country; accept that the suspension of article 6 is permanent, undermining the basis of the Union; and accept the stepping stone building towards an all-Ireland economy. If that is the price, it cannot be paid today, and I say to any thinking unionist, "It can't be paid tomorrow or any other day".”
“Some of them have told us that the way forward is to get unionists out of government — to abandon unionist/nationalist power-sharing — to get the institutions up and going. Why? Because we must have the institutions to implement the protocol. That has become the abiding and real determination. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental motivation of those who brought us here today is to break unionism. That is their motivation. It saddens me that the compliant Ulster Unionist Party is so soft on the dire constitutional consequences of the protocol that it is like putty in the hands of the protocol implementers. That is a great sadness. The motive is this: break unionism. How?”
“Just make it work"; "But I have to find out what's wrong with it"; "No, no, just make it work"; "But I have to open it up to see what needs fixed"; "No, no, just make it move". That is like this place: just get the institutions going without ever asking or addressing the question, "Why have the institutions failed?". Of course, they have failed fundamentally and unavoidably because of the protocol upsetting and dismantling the constitutional equilibrium of the very Belfast Agreement that some claim to support. <BR /> <BR />Some are now so sold on their blind allegiance to the protocol that they are prepared to damn the institutions in order to save it. In fact, some have so worshipped at the shrine of the sacred cow of the protocol that they are now prepared to slaughter the sacred cow of power-sharing.”
“I begin by joining in the tributes to the late David Hilditch and saluting his 25 years of unstinting service to the people of East Antrim. I convey my continuing sympathy to his family and friends. <BR /> <BR />This recall reeks of insincerity. The pretence is that the motivation is to get this place and the institutions up and running again. Yet, there is a studious avoidance of this question: why have the institutions failed? There is no facing the cause of the collapse of the Belfast Agreement institutions, namely the protocol; no facing of that at all. It is a bit like the tantrum child whose favourite toy stops working. His father says, "Well, we'll try and fix it"; "No, just make it move.”
“it comes to this: under the protocol, Northern Ireland is within and subject to the EU's customs code, which means that GB is decreed a foreign country whose goods must be checked and that we are subject, colony-like, to laws that we do not make and cannot change. Unless and until those sovereignty issues are addressed, this place is doomed, and so it should be.”
“It is in suspension, and that is a fundamental assault upon the Union in which many of us on this side of the House believe. That is compounded by a ruling given in our own courts: the case of Rooney against Poots, just a few weeks ago. In that case, it was ruled that any Executive and the Ministers within it, by law, have to implement the protocol and the Irish Sea border. That is why no unionist can put their hand to the implementation of the self-destruction of the Union in which they believe, and that is why this place is in the condition that it is in. <BR /> <BR />As for the EU talks, they are not going to resolve this issue, because the sovereignty issue is not even on the table. Unless and until the sovereignty issue is addressed.”
“When the highest court in the land decrees that a key component of the Acts of Union is in suspension because the protocol is superior and supreme to it, there is a constitutional crisis and a dismantling of the Union that no unionist can ignore. What is the Union? The Union is a political union and it is an economic union. The political union from the Acts of Union lies in the creation of a single sovereign Parliament, and the economic union lies in the creation of a single economic unit within which there is to be free and unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we now know, courtesy of the Supreme Court, that that key component — article 6 of the Acts of Union — has been subjugated.”
“I join in the condolences to Alex Easton. It is good to see him here today in the difficult circumstances in which he and his family have found themselves. <BR /> <BR />Dáithí's law indisputably needs to be completed, and, until it is completed, I certainly urge as many citizens as possible to opt in to the donation service. However, Dáithí's law can only now be completed in the only operative legislature that is capable of doing it, and that is at Westminster. I urge the Secretary of State to stop politicking and get on with that mission. If Sinn Féin is sincere and so aghast about boycotts, let it be there to help vote this through. We will see then the depth of its sincerity and concern about Dáithí's law. <BR /> <BR />As for this place, I fear that the Supreme Court has helped to seal its fate.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Will the Acting Speaker address Mr Aiken's point? Do Standing Orders not now provide that an intervention can be in the language of choice of the intervener? It is not at the discretion of the Member speaking as to in which language they are addressed: it is at the discretion of the intervener. Is that not the reality? Why do we need to equivocate about it? Why can we not have a ruling that that is the situation?”
“— the Assembly, quite rightly, is going nowhere.”
“It is not going to happen, because we are defending the very fundamentals of the Union when we resist and reject the protocol. Let us be clear: a protocol that requires unionists to operate an Assembly and to conduct themselves as Ministers on the basis that GB is a foreign country is not going to operate with the consent of unionists. If there are others — be they the Government, the EU, the American president or other MLAs — who want an Assembly to operate, they need to recognise and accept that reality. It is not going to operate on the basis that GB is a foreign country, that article 6 of the Act of Union has been disapplied and that we are being disenfranchised from within the Union that we believe in. Unless and until those who fail to face up to that reality do face up to it —”
“The Member is absolutely right, but those are now the ground rules of the operation of devolution in Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental premise upon which devolution now has to operate, and it can never be bearable or acceptable to any unionist. The sad truth is that the protocol achieved what the IRA in all its murderous campaign could never achieve: a border in the Irish Sea, and the suspension of a significant part of the Act of Union. Whether it was its murder 39 years ago of the very talented Edgar Graham — 39 years ago today — or the callous kidnapping 50 years ago today of Jean McConville, for all that murderous attack, the IRA never achieved what the protocol achieved. <BR /> <BR />Then there are those in the House who think that unionists should just suck it up.”
“That, of course, is the fundamental reason why no unionist can ever operate institutions that, by law, would be required to implement such a protocol, to accept that GB is a foreign country, to accept that there must be checks on its goods and to accept that we must be subject to foreign laws that we do not make and cannot change. That is the fundamental essence of the reason why the protocol can never be accepted.”
“It means that it sets it aside, overrides it, subjugates it — we can all understand that — but what does it do? It takes that key component of the Act of Union, the economic union, sets it aside and says that it no longer applies. There no longer is a single market in the United Kingdom. There no longer is the freedom to trade unfettered between and within all of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it goes further than that because it says that GB is now a foreign country whose goods must be checked when coming to Northern Ireland.”
“Whether it was the 1707 Union with Scotland Act or the 1800 Act of Union, those created a Union of the United Kingdom based on two premises: a political, parliamentary union where a single sovereign Parliament was created; and an economic union that created a single market and a single trading area, which was the United Kingdom. That, of course, was premised on article 6 of the Acts of Union. <BR /> <BR />Last week, I sat in the Supreme Court listening to an His Majesty's Government barrister — barristers only speak upon instructions — argue that the protocol disapplies article 6 of the Acts of Union and, in so arguing, confirm everything that we have ever said about it. What does disapply mean? It is pretty obvious what it means.”