Jim Allister
MP for North Antrim · Traditional Unionist Voice · United Kingdom
“Once more a Committee—and therefore this Parliament—has been asked to approve a regulation that has the effect of departing Northern Ireland from the UK legal framework governing the subject matter.”
“In fact, batteries made to United Kingdom standards will become illegal in a part of this United Kingdom, to the extent that a criminal sanction of imprisonment could be imposed for using a battery that meets UK standards.”
“It requires that in developing any regulations, these draft regulations included, the Government should have special regard to “the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the…internal market”. They are not maintaining an integral place if they are applying different rules—foreign rules—to a part of the United Kingdom.”
“Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office talk rather glibly about these matters, but the lived reality of the supply chain is very different: a full international customs border that is now inflicting damage on the import of steel; tightening import control system 2 checks; a parcels border; a plants border; and £192 million spent on bu…”
“I certainly recognise that, once again, Northern Ireland is being used in the reset as a cover to realign the whole United Kingdom with the EU. That, of course, is the gameplan of this Government, and this is but a small example of how they are going to deploy it.”
“You subject yourself to a similar disenfranchisement of your own electorate so that they do not elect the people who make the laws that govern them.’” That will be the ultimate outcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Jim Allister, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“The right hon. Member is absolutely right. If one wanted to realign the United Kingdom with the EU, the easiest passage would be by statutory instruments. That is why that is the chosen mechanism here. I have one final point. This Parliament traditionally and properly makes the law on criminal offences. We set the tariffs. Sometimes we say what the minimum penalty for a criminal offence is, but we always say what the maximum penalty is. We say what the content is of the criminal offence—what are the actus reus and the mens rea. But amazingly under clauses 3(9) and 3(11) and clauses 6(9) and 6(11) of the Bill we are going to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. Surely we have lost the run of ourselves if we think it is appropriate to make criminal offences in that essentially uncontrolled manner.”
“Courtesy of what is being approved tonight, there will never again be a debate, a discussion, a Delegated Legislation Committee or a debate on the Floor of the House about new measures, because that right is being surrendered as well. That was confirmed by Lord Hunt in the other place. I say to the members of this Committee—although I know that, whipped as they are, they will not do it—that this is a step they should not take. They should have some thought for their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, and stand up for the right that they should be governed by laws that this Parliament can make and that this Parliament can change, and not subject them, colony-like—because that is what it is, colony-like—to the laws of others.”
“The Government’s answer to all of that will be to just align the whole of the United Kingdom to the same EU standards, as we will see tomorrow with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and as we are seeing through their approach to these regulations. What was the point of Brexit? The whole point of Brexit, we were told, was that we could be master in our own house and make our own regulations, but now we will simply reregulate back into line with the EU. That is a very retrograde step. One other very important thing about the regulations is that they provide that there will be no further debate about such matters when it comes to further new regulations. All there will be is a statement by a Minister that they have come into effect.”
“A convector tumble dryer operates at lower ambient temperatures, so many of them are in garages attached to houses, whereas a heat pump tumble dryer would not operate in those colder temperatures. We are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, “You cannot any longer have a British-made convector tumble dryer in your garage. Why? Because the EU says you can’t.” Think of the magnitude of the absurdity of that: citizens of this United Kingdom are being dictated to not by the democratic mandate of this House but by the undemocratic control of a foreign Parliament. That is the abiding absurdity of the regulations.”
“We are imposing on Northern Ireland regulations upon which we will not consult, because we have already sold the right to consult and the right to make any decision other than to impose them. It is not just a constitutional issue; it is a practical economic issue. It applies to the vast range of energy-related products, from smartphones through to tumble dryers. Take tumble dryers as an example. There are basically two types: the convector or vented tumble dryer, and the heat pump tumble dryer. Under the regulations, it will become illegal to have a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland, or for a retailer to sell one. It will be impossible for a manufacturer in Great Britain to complete an order for a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland.”
“It would only show up the impotency of Parliament and the institutions in the United Kingdom, because the right to make these laws has already been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. The view of the Government is that there is no necessity or point to consulting, because their hands are tied. However, if there is a suggestion that similar regulations might be imposed in Great Britain, there has to be a consultation. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that there will be such a consultation—why? Because that is the normal process. We do not impose something without going through the due process of consulting about it. But what we are doing here tonight is the antithesis of that.”
“The fundamental principle of this nation, and indeed of any democratic nation, is that people live under the laws made by those whom they elect. These laws, however, are made by those elected not by anyone in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but by people in 27 foreign countries. That is the absurdity of what has been imposed in these regulations. That issue is of immense constitutional significance and, in truth, it is why there is no consultation. There is no consultation about whether these laws should be applied to Northern Ireland for the simple reason that, if there were a consultation, and if that consultation suggested that they should not be applied, it could not be adhered to.”
“We have an absurd situation, illustrated by these regulations, whereby seven new EU regulations are being enforced automatically upon citizens of the United Kingdom, and the very Parliament of that United Kingdom is prohibited from changing, amending or disapplying them—or doing anything other than applying them—because the lawmaking powers on these issues have been surrendered to the EU. That is all set out in graphic, frightening detail in annex 2 of the protocol, where we read 289 areas of law where the United Kingdom can no longer make laws for Northern Ireland. These regulations represent one of those ambits or areas of law. Of course, that has many ramifications, including the important democratic fact that it disenfranchises the people of Northern Ireland.”
“The essence of these regulations is that a part of this United Kingdom should be subjected to regulation governing energy-related products, not by the laws made by this Parliament, nor even by the laws made by the devolved Stormont institutions, but by laws made by a foreign Parliament and initiated by an unelected foreign institution—namely, the European Commission. Those are the laws that would be imposed on consumers and citizens of Northern Ireland by these regulations. Any rational observer might expect that the right to make the laws of any part of a country would rest with the elected representatives of that country—but in fact, pursuant to the protocol/Windsor framework, the right to make those laws was surrendered to a foreign polity.”
“Surely the truth is that we are here to impose regulations that the EU thinks will be better for consumers, because it treats Northern Ireland as EU territory. These are not the regulations of the United Kingdom Government.”
“When the defending democracy taskforce was established, it was proclaimed that its primary focus was to protect the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom. What work, therefore, has it done on the fact that there is a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland—where the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom has been upended by the fact that, in 300 areas of law, our laws are made not by this Parliament and not by the Stormont Assembly, but by a foreign Parliament: the European Union? What work has been done to restore democratic integrity to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland?”
“Can we have a debate on the latest iteration of the crippling Irish sea border, namely the parcels border, which is due to become effective from 1 May? It will mean that every parcel moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, including personal parcels from a grandmother to a grandchild, is subject to the requirements of the EU customs border. It is particularly damaging for business, because business-to-business parcels can be sent only if the sender belongs to the trusted trader scheme and pays the fee, and if they make a customs declaration, including on where the goods came from and what they are. When can we discuss the fact that this United Kingdom is being partitioned and severed by an unnecessary border in the Irish sea?”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since this debate is not just about St Patrick’s day but about Northern Ireland affairs, I am surprised that I am the only Member of the House from Northern Ireland participating in it. That is a pretty poor situation.”
“At the beginning of the protocol negotiations, the EU was prepared for—indeed, it originated the idea—mutual enforcement to control the movement of goods. Sadly, it was Taoiseach Varadkar who saw the opportunity of partitioning the United Kingdom and who insisted on the border being pushed to the Irish sea, where the IRA could never push it in its 30 years of terror. It was the Dublin Government that made those irrational demands and repudiated the very thing that made that unnecessary: namely, mutual enforcement. So yes, there is lots of nice fuzzy sentiment about how the Irish Republic and the UK have good relations in many areas, but the reality is that there has also been a malevolence to the detriment of Northern Ireland.”
“Businesses in my constituency—small engineering businesses or craft industries—depend on supplies that come by parcel from their age-long suppliers in GB, but those parcels will now be subject to the demands of the foreign EU border. Those that send them must be a member, at cost, of the trusted trader scheme; they must make a customs declaration; and they must record what is moving, where it came from and where it is going. And yet this is said to be a United Kingdom. It is a United Kingdom sadly partitioned by a border in the Irish sea. The point I am coming to is that much of that is at the behest of the authorities in the Irish Republic. It was the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic who pushed, cajoled and forced the EU into its irrational demands.”
“If we are to debate Northern Ireland affairs properly, it is surely impossible to ignore the incredible constitutional situation that Northern Ireland is now in: namely, that although I stand in what is called the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, there are 300 areas of law pertaining to Northern Ireland in relation to which neither this Parliament nor the devolved Parliament can make the law, because those powers, covering much of our economy, have been surrendered to a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament. In pursuit of that, we now have the obscenity of an Irish sea border, shortly to be reinforced with the insult of a parcels border. A granny cannot send her new grandchild in Northern Ireland a teddy bear without registering it through the processes of the Irish sea border.”
“When co-operation was sought, there might have been nice words but there was very little action, as indicated in the matter of extradition. So I think we have to inject into our reflections upon that relationship some of the cold realities that cost the lives of British citizens in Northern Ireland. That cannot not be written out of our history.”
“We talk about co-operation, and co-operation is good, but it is also a salutary fact that at the peak of those terrorist campaigns we did not have the co-operation we needed. Between 1969 and 1981 there were 81 extradition applications for wanted terrorists in respect of terrorist deeds committed in Northern Ireland—81 applications to the Dublin authorities—and only one was granted. Of course, the truth was that many of the cross-border terrorist attacks were carried out from the Irish Republic, among them the most infamous, that of the greatest loss of military life: the attack at Warrenpoint, where the bomb that killed all those Parachute Regiment and other regiment soldiers, was triggered from the Irish Republic. That was but a reflection of what happened time and again.”
“Of course, the relationships are multifaceted and it is easy to be cosy and sentimental about those relationships, and there is a place for that, but I do have to say to this House that there is also a dark side to the relationship, because the undoubted source for much of the initiation, conduct and carrying forward of the brutal IRA terrorist campaign of the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s was the aid and assistance given from the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, the historical records show that the Provisional IRA was first armed by those associated with the Irish Republic—even in government. Those are factors that I, representing constituents who lost family members at the hands of the IRA, cannot easily forget, and nor should we.”
“Therefore, it is always right to remember that in Great Britain’s greatest hour of need—the United Kingdom’s greatest hour of need—it was in fact the people and country of Northern Ireland who came swiftest to its aid. Whereas the Government of the Irish Republic formally, and quite shockingly, expressed regret at the death of Hitler, it was from within Northern Ireland that the contribution was made that the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, so generously recognised.”
“That was his essential message to Ireland and elsewhere. It is also right, of course, that there are many intertwining relationships between the various parts of Ireland and the various parts of Great Britain. One can think of some of the standout indications of that, not least in the currency of the second world war, when the ports of Northern Ireland were so vital to the battle in the Atlantic and to defending our freedoms. Indeed, Northern Ireland welcomed the first American soldiers to be encamped, and they ran to many, many thousands in those years. At the same time, sadly, the Republic of Ireland held to a strategy of non-involvement and neutrality.”
“I am aware that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in residence at his second home. I am, however, the only Member present who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, if that satisfies the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). Of course, St Patrick is a very important figure historically. No doubt over the generations he has been even more greened than he ever was, but I do find it a little rich in irony that St Patrick, being a Brit, is celebrated with such enthusiasm by the Irish. I think it is important, in talking about St Patrick, to recognise and remember that his primary contribution was in bringing the Christian message: the message that fallen man needs reconciliation with God, and that can come only through the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“So yes, let us celebrate the international relations that we would expect between neighbours, but let us not get so bleary-eyed that we do not recognise the realities and the legacy of the history. We are talking about the wonderful relationship with the Irish Republic, but who is taking the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights? It is the Government of the Irish Republic, over a legacy Act that this Government are not even pursuing. In any relationship, people look for two-way co-operation. They certainly do not look to try to exploit a situation to achieve the disassembly of part of the neighbouring country. Sadly, that is what is happening in respect of the Brexit negotiations.”
“They did, but they did not get Brexit—that is the fundamental issue. The question on the ballot paper was, “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave?” It was not, “Do you want GB to leave and to leave Northern Ireland behind?”, but that is what we got. We were left in the single market, under their customs code. Never forget that their customs code decrees that GB is foreign—a third country—so its goods must pass through the EU border because Northern Ireland is treated as EU territory. That was not on my ballot paper, and that was not what I voted for, but that is what the last Government left us, and that is what this Government seem unprepared to do anything about, even though it is not what they brought about.”
“Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?”
“On Second Reading, the Government said that this is a four nations Bill. On the face of it, it is, but the legal reality is that it is not. The provisions applicable to Northern Ireland are inevitably destined to be struck down by the High Court because of Northern Ireland’s subjugation, under the protocol or Windsor framework, to EU law. The specific EU law that Northern Ireland is subject to relevant to this Bill is the tobacco directive. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. That caused the Governments of two countries within the EU—the Governments of Denmark and the Irish Republic—to withdraw proposals, while acknowledging that they wanted to do what this House is doing, but could not do so, because it would breach the tobacco directive.”
“Since the tobacco directive applies to Northern Ireland under the protocol through section 7A of the 2018 Act and applies directly, and the directive forbids the type of proposition in this Bill, would the Minister care to explain to the House how this Bill will be applicable in Northern Ireland as long as the tobacco directive applies?”
“It does not even say, “Well, let’s have another referendum.” No—in its arrogance, it demands that we simply rejoin the EU, which the British people decided democratically to leave. I know that is an uncomfortable fact, but that is the core issue.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am afraid my contribution will jar with the cosy consensus of the debate, if we should call it a debate, because has it not just been an echo chamber for the laments of two or three dozen Europhile MPs? It has not been a debate at all, but what brings us here are 130,000-odd signatures on a petition. Well, of course, what that immediately calls to mind is the contrast with the 17,410,742 British voters who made the most consequential decision in the greatest democratic decision ever made by the greatest number of people ever voting. That embarrasses them. That is why, almost two hours into this debate, this is the first time we have heard that figure, because those in this Chamber have their face set against that democratic decision. This petition is notable in its arrogance.”
“That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.”
“As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief. The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown.”
“I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access. Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea.”
“Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.”
“Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [ Laughter. ] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question.”
“Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care?”
“Parity in our welfare benefits is a key feature of our Union. When the last Government introduced their welfare reforms, the Northern Ireland Executive saw fit to introduce mitigations for which they had to pay by taking money off health and education out of the block grant. If the Northern Ireland Executive decide to mitigate these cuts on this occasion, can the Secretary of State confirm that that money would again have to come out of needed services, such as health and education?”
“The Government told us, “Oh, well, only one in four people actually read unsolicited letters from DWP.” What was the point in sending them then? They might as well have saved the postage. It really is pathetic and appalling that the Government have reached the stage of saying, “Nothing to see here; nothing to do here; we’re doing nothing about it” to women the independent ombudsman says were not just wronged but had an injustice visited upon them. I say to this Government: it is not a sign of weakness to admit that you are wrong; it is a sign of strength. The Government would rise in the estimation of many if, rather than hide behind their huge majority in the House, they exercised the strength of saying, “We’ve got this wrong.””
“Let us remind ourselves that the ombudsman found that “some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances. It diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control” and therefore led to injustice. We are talking about injustice—we are not just talking about maladministration —and injustice needs to be rectified. The Government say, “We apologise”—frankly, the sincerity of that apology is weighed in the balance of their refusal to compensate—but it is not just a matter of saying sorry. It is a matter of putting it right. That is what we do when we find an injustice: we try to put it right. What have the Government done in this case? We had the most spurious attempt to repudiate the ombudsman’s findings.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. Surely the abiding question that arises from this debacle is: what is the point in having an ombudsman if, when maladministration is found, it can be swept aside and ignored? Why have we an ombudsman? Governments make mistakes. Governments get things wrong. People think Governments get things wrong, so they want to complain. So what do we do? We set up an independent ombudsman. Why? Because Governments should not be judge in their own cause. That is the whole purpose and ethos of having an ombudsman. But in this case the Government want to be judge in their own cause. We are not talking about some incidental, slight illustration of maladministration.”
“On behalf of the 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, who are with those in the rest of this United Kingdom, I say that it is beyond time for the Government to rethink. It is time to put right the wrong that was done to all these women.”
“This matter goes to the very heart of public confidence in our system of Government. I started by saying that Governments get things wrong, and people think they get things wrong, so the Government have an independent arbitrator. But we cannot have an independent arbitrator and then throw the findings in the bin, and that is what is happening here. It goes to the very heart of confidence in Government, whichever party is in power. If maladministration of this magnitude is found, there must be recompense for those against whom the injustice was wrought. I say to the Government that many of their Back Benchers are saying loud and clear that it is time to rethink. It certainly is time to rethink, and in that there is strength.”
“I have previously urged the Secretary of State to liaise with the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland over its pitiful pursuit of benefit fraud. In the same vein, is the Minister aware that of the 39,000 new vehicles registered in Northern Ireland last year, 18,000 were under the Motability scheme? Is that not indicative of appalling abuse of that scheme? Will he raise with the Department for Communities what it is doing about that?”
“Across the United Kingdom, inquests are defined as being for the purpose of finding out who the deceased was, and how, when and where they died; they are not trials and they are not about assigning blame, even when they are extended into article 2 investigations. Yet in Northern Ireland we have had findings of blame in respect of SAS soldiers killing active terrorists. Does the Minister agree that the Crime and Policing Bill affords an opportunity, through suitable amendment, to bring uniformity to the operation of inquests across the United Kingdom?”
“As someone who had the honour of hosting an event on this day for all the years I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I commend the right hon. Member for securing this debate. However, does he agree with me that one of the most abiding and insidious hurts to victims of terrorism is the constant glorification of those who made them victims, particularly when it comes to those who sit in Government in Northern Ireland, by their attendance at events commemorating those who were the men of blood and who delivered death and destruction on our streets? Is that not one of the most hateful and insidious things that can be done to a victim, with the re-traumatisation that it brings?”
“Was the delisting of 24 institutions from sanctions on Friday the product of engagement with the interim Government? If so, in the light of the gruesome mass murders of Saturday, was that decision premature?”
“Why should it be right for it to be illegal to have a banner that says “Up the Ra” but legal to address thousands of kids and sing “Up the Ra”, as happens every August in Northern Ireland? That disparity needs to be reconciled and dealt with.”
“That hideous, horrible republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which is a chorus from a republican song that glorifies terrorism with lyrics like, “The Brits will never leave until they’re blown away. Ooh ah up the Ra! SAM missiles in the sky,” is glorification of terrorism—of course it is. Yet under our legislation, it is not defined as glorification of terrorism, because a person has to be advocating that which they would emulate and encouraging others to engage in terrorism. Some might think that is the case. If we took the offence described in clause 123 and made it apply to “that which promotes the interests of a proscribed organisation”, we would have done the right thing, but that language needs to be transferred across to the glorification of terrorism legislation.”
“The explanatory notes tell us that that is exactly the purpose of the clause: it would, for example, “enable the seizure of a flag or poster which arouses reasonable suspicion the individual who displayed it was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”. That is good, but it focuses attention on the failure of the Bill to deal with the inadequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which is too limp and largely unused. We will arrive at a situation in which somebody cannot legally put something on a lamp post or put up a banner that says, to use the republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which means, “Up the IRA”—that organisation that murdered thousands of our citizens—and that is good, but under the glorification of terrorism legislation, they can say it.”
“In clause 37 and so on, we will rightly make it illegal to have a paedophile manual to describe how to make child sexual abuse images, yet clause 36, which makes it an offence to possess a child sexual abuse image generator, does not apply to Northern Ireland. How can that be right? There is a logic that is absent there: clause 36 must apply if the rest of the part is to apply. I trust that that is an oversight that will be rectified. In clause 123, we have hidden away something of particular interest to many in Northern Ireland: for the first time, it will be an offence to put something on a lamp post or to have a banner that glorifies a proscribed organisation. That is a good and necessary thing. I welcome the fact that that is the intent.”
“There is much that is good and necessary in the Bill, and I welcome the fact that 51 of its 137 clauses will apply to Northern Ireland. I have some disappointment about some of the clauses from which Northern Ireland is excluded—in particular clause 90, which relates to the desecration of war memorials. We have had a spate of such incidents in Northern Ireland; therefore, I am disappointed that that clause does not apply to it. In relation to the all-important matter of child sexual abuse, part 5 of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, with the exception of clause 36. I ask the Minister to look at why that is, because to apply the rest without clause 36 is quite incongruous.”