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 13 of 95.
“Each of the succeeding stages of the Bill has seen the triumph of ideology over reality. One would have hoped that today, given the geopolitical matters that are unfolding before us and the economic and food consequences of what is happening in Ukraine, there might just have been a chance of reality overcoming ideology, but it does not look like that is the case. When we consider what is happening in the world, and when we consider the fact that food production is likely to be highly prejudiced by what is happening in Ukraine, this, of all times, is the last time when any legislature in this country should be dialling down food production, yet that is the inevitable consequence of the ideologically driven climate change legislation — the Climate Change Bill — from Ms Bailey and the better version, the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill.”
“Will the Member agree that Mr Blair made a point about alleged compliance with the UK Climate Change Committee, yet he is a Member of the House who voted to defy the recommendation of the UK Climate Change Committee when he refused to accept its recommendation of 82%?”
“We can all make, and do make, valid criticisms of the planning process, but is it not also fair to say that it is not always the planning departments that are at fault? Take the example of the York Street interchange. It was in 2016 that the Department issued a notice to proceed. I know that there have been legal challenges since, but is it not the case that it is the Department that is dragging its feet and perhaps even playing constituency politics with the interchange?”
“Last week, I wrote to the Minister with the names of approximately 20 constituents who had received neither the card nor an email about the remedy scheme. Writing to the Minister is fine, and I do not object to that, but is there not a less cumbersome mechanism available to MLAs' offices, such as there was when the scheme was in full flow, so that there can be more direct, speedy contact to sort out the issues?”
“<BR /> <BR />My heart goes out to those who are withstanding this vicious attack. I trust that they will stand with all the fervour that they are demonstrating and that, even against the might that they face, right will prevail.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been some talk of the EU's stand, but no one has yet mentioned the appalling fact that the Republic of Ireland is abstaining from the lethal support that the EU is prepared to give to Ukraine. In pursuit of its so-called neutrality, it is refusing to engage in the supply of vital lethal equipment to the people of Ukraine. Of course, we in Northern Ireland are well used to the impact of the Republic of Ireland's ambiguity when it comes to withstanding terrorism. The Republic of Ireland armed and sustained the IRA and provided it with training bases. It denied extradition and gave those terrorists all the succour and support that they needed. It is maybe no surprise that, today, the Republic of Ireland refuses to join in the Europe-wide provision of lethal support to the people of Ukraine.”
“The brutal aggression of the evil Putin is something that, I trust, has shocked and sickened all of us, even those with ideological attachment to support for the Soviet-style system, which today stands exposed in all its viciousness as a movement of anti-humanitarianism. I deplore the fact that some still seek to provide diversion and excuses by attacking NATO, which stands between us all and this evil form of conquering aggression. <BR /> <BR />In standing with Ukraine, I am proud of the fact that anti-tank weaponry made in Belfast is being supplied to help the Ukrainians in their brave stand. That is anti-tank weaponry that, in the past, some in the House have opposed the manufacturing of, yet today it is helping to protect Ukraine. I greatly welcome that.”
“The attitude to amendment No 14 lets the cat totally out of the bag. It is clear that the intent and determination of the Bill and its sponsor are to create the very detriment that they deny, which the denial of amendment No 14 confirms.”
“The Bill sponsor opposes that. Her supporters oppose that. They are saying clearly to the House that their ambition and the intent of the Bill is, in fact, to provide for integrated education in a manner that brings detriment to the other sectors. If that were not so, that amendment could be accepted. The very rejection of the amendment is confirmation of what the Bill is about: it is about the supremacy and primacy of the integrated sector on all fronts, including funding. Hence the declared intent to reject that which will inject into the Bill equality and equity in regard to not causing detriment to other education sectors. You cannot oppose amendment No 14 out of one side of your mouth and say out of the other side, "But we are not trying to do something that detriments existing sectors".”
“In the group I will focus my remarks on amendment No 14. The response to that amendment from the Bill sponsor and her supporters takes us to the very heart of what the Bill is about. Amendment No 14 attempts to put into the Bill the rational provision that any:”
“The Member is dancing on the head of a pin when she says that there is a distinction between the discretion that arises from the use of the word "or" and the discretion that arises from defining "if required". It is the same decision maker. The Department will decide whether it is required, just as it will decide whether or not, in the first case, to consult. So, really, what is the difference that she is trying to establish?”
“together but substitutes "integrated education". Is that not the very point that the Minister was making?”
“Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment Nos 23 to 28 are exactly on the point that the definition is being changed, whereby it is no longer the education of:”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“I stand, unapologetically, on the side of the maintained and controlled sectors, which, rightly, are objecting that they are being penalised for the advancement of the integrated sector, and that is intolerably inequitable.”
“The Member makes a very valid point. There are schools that are supremely integrated, but, because they do not have "integrated" above the door, they are looked down upon. That is what the Bill wants to do. It wants to say that, unless you have been admitted to that special elite order of integrated education, you are a lesser individual in your education sector. That really is what the Bill is doing. <BR /> <BR />As for Mr Sheehan, perhaps if he had troubled himself to read as far as amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9, he would have discovered that supremacy comes in this way: by introducing encouragement, facilitation and support for one sector and one sector only. <BR /> <BR />I will not support the amendments.”
“The maintained and controlled sectors have recognised that they are being talked down to as the poor relations in education and that the purpose of the Bill is to create an upper tier of elitism in education in terms of support, funding and everything else. There are no amendments here —”
“We are to create a circumstance where legislation, which should be subjected to the processes and the scrutiny of the House, will simply be able to be changed in the interests of integrated education by the mere nodding through of regulations. That is but another indication of that supremacist approach to integrated education, "We do not need to bother with the normal legislative processes of changing the law; we will just do it by regulation because it is in the service of this greater supreme cause of integrated education". <BR /> <BR />I am glad that, since we last debated this matter, a number of the representative bodies and many schools have woken up to what is going on here.”
“The message is pretty clear: "We are the supreme, primary source of good education. If you have to talk to others, well, talk to them". That seems to be the arrogant assertion of those amendments. <BR /> <BR />I witnessed again today, as I did at Consideration Stage, Sinn Féin's volte-face on this issue. Mr O'Dowd, who has clearly been overruled — maybe not for the first time — had told us about the "mission creep" that the Bill represented. Today, Sinn Féin embraces the entire supremacy of the Bill, lock, stock and barrel. Mr O'Dowd's reservations were not allowed to last very long, as we saw. Maybe he whipped himself and whipped others to vote on the last occasion. <BR /> <BR />In the later amendments in this group — amendment Nos 23 to 27 — there is the most audacious attempt to enable legislation to be amended by mere regulation.”
“Amendment No 2 puts in words that demonstrate a reticence about consulting anyone but the integrated sector. It proposes to insert the words:”
“If this legislation has its way, it will be there for one sector and one sector only. If that is not supremacy, what is it? It is certainly not equality, and it is certainly not, in the words of the Bill sponsor a few minutes ago, about merely, simply allowing 69 schools to "have a strategy". It is about naked supremacy. That, indisputably, is what this Bill is about. It bestows statutory obligations that do not exist in respect of any other sectors. As if to underscore that, amendment No 1 could not be plainer. It wants to create that which is discretionary into something that is mandatory. It wants to put on the jackboot of mandatory obligation instead of what would be the common phraseology in legislation such as this of exercising a discretion.”
“The amendments speak to the theme of supremacy that runs through the Bill. The Member who spoke previously has just laid down a challenge about how the Bill creates that supremacy. Well, I would like to ask the House this: where in legislation would I find the statutory obligation "to encourage, facilitate and support" any other sector? I will gladly give way to any Member who can tell me where in legislation I would find that information.”
“Is that not one of the fatal flaws of the Bill: it railroaded and ignored other sectors, and the moderator quite rightly pointed that out?”
“Does the Member agree that a critical point made by the moderator in his correspondence was:”
“The Bill, however, creates unique statutory obligations for one sector only. Is that not the truth of it?”
“On the Alliance Party's denial of the supremacy in the Bill, does the Member agree that the fundamental statutory duty that applies across education is that in article 3 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which states:”
“Further to that point of order, I am aware of the 1999 situation, but my question is a different one. If there are persons who are regarded as junior Ministers, to whom are they accountable and how are they made accountable to the House? That is the question that I would like an answer to.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised points about accountability earlier, but I would like to raise one a little closer to home. We still seem to have junior Ministers in the Executive Office, and, yesterday, one Mr Kearney purported to represent the Executive Office at the Joint Committee with the EU. On whose authority did he do that, and to whom is he accountable? As an MLA, if I want to table a question about that, I cannot do so because there are no Executive Ministers in place in that Department. I am sure that the answer will not come today, but could the House be advised as to the position regarding accountability of those who still proclaim themselves to be junior Ministers?”
“It should be based in Northern Ireland to deal directly with the issues of trade between us and GB — our biggest partner and market — and between them and us. That would be a far wiser use of spend than much of what is in the Estimates.”
“I trust that the Chairman will not be disappointed in his expectation in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Then I look at the allocation to InterTradeIreland, which goes up from £4·5 million to almost £7 million. What we need in Northern Ireland, on foot of the iniquitous protocol, is an "InterTradeUK" body, because that is where the problem is. Trade between GB and Northern Ireland is the source of most difficulties for businesses. An "InterTradeUK" body would be a far more deserving body than InterTradeIreland. I hope that the Economy Minister will take up a suggestion that I made, probably a year ago, to explore the establishment of such a body with the relevant Department in Westminster.”
“The other huge increase that I notice is in respect of Tourism Ireland: up from £17 million to £22 million. That is an organisation that rarely serves the interests of Northern Ireland. Frankly, it is a body with little interest in or inclination to serving the interests of Northern Ireland, but we will give another £22 million of our public funds to Tourism Ireland Limited”
“<BR /> <BR />What does the Strategic Investment Board do? It has fingers in many pies. It has fingers in many local government pies of quite a dubious variety. It appoints, it seems, the head of the Civil Service when we have an applicant who does not want to be a civil servant. It seems to be a largely unaccountable organisation that is deployed in all sorts of ways that are quite opaque, and yet here it is getting a huge increase in its allocation. I would like to know why. Why are we now going to give that huge increase to the Strategic Investment Board? What is it doing with it? Whose interests is it serving? Is it just a consortium for more and more consultants to be paid? Is that what the SIB has turned into? It certainly seems to have a distinct lack of accountability.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Utility Regulator is a body that, frankly, is accountable to no one, and yet a business in Ballycastle is crying out for answers as to why it did not oversee, and what it has done about the issues with, NIE Networks. We are just ignored. As public representatives, we have been ignored by the Utility Regulator. I therefore look askance at the fact that we are sending it more money, when it does not have any accountability to anyone, it seems, in the Province. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), which is some sort of arm of the Executive Office. I discovered in these accounts that the Strategic Investment Board is getting a 74% hike in its allocation, which is going up from just under £5 million — sorry, it is not a 74% hike — to £8 million.”
“It is a manufacturing business that processes potatoes etc. For the purposes of being more energy-efficient, it sought approval for an anaerobic digester. It got involved with Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) Networks, which, frankly, messed up in its delineation of what the project was about. As a consequence, Glenview Foods got into difficulties by failing to get authorisation from Ofgem. <BR /> <BR />The Utility Regulator, which should oversee how Northern Ireland Electricity Networks dealt with the issue, was therefore approached. On 1 October, Paul Frew and I, as two local MLAs, met the Utility Regulator about the case. Here we are almost at 1 March, and we have not even had a reply to correspondence, which I have constantly sent it, asking for a response to the points raised on 1 October.”
“Tonight, I want to draw out a few points from the spring Supplementary Estimates that relate to some bodies that perhaps we do not talk enough about. The first one that I want to refer to is the Utility Regulator. It is not that the Utility Regulator is a big spender of our public funding. Rather, the problem that I have with the Utility Regulator is its total lack of accountability. We give it money, but to whom is it accountable? You go to the Minister for the Economy about an issue, and he will say, "No, that is the Utility Regulator. I cannot do anything about that". In my experience, the Utility Regulator is a body that is taking maximum advantage of that. <BR /> <BR />Let me illustrate. I have a constituent just outside Ballycastle who runs a small business called Glenview Foods.”
“Minister, is it not the case that energy bills could be reduced by 5%, at a stroke, if VAT were removed from household and other bills, but that is impossible because of the iniquitous protocol that subjects us to the EU's VAT regime, which dictates that there must be a minimum 5% VAT charge?”
“Does the Minister agree that existing and incoming businesses want certainty that there will be a free flow of goods and supplies to Northern Ireland from Great Britain and that the laws that govern their operation and trading will be made in the country in which they invest, rather than by a foreign power over which they have no control?”
“Christopher's passing, of course, is a reminder of the mortality of us all and that the place that knows us today tomorrow will know us no more.”
“May the God of all comfort be with them at this time, and in the future, which will be difficult for many years to come. I pray and trust that they will know that comfort.”
“His capacity as an orator and as someone who could make a point and make it effectively, way above the standard generally prevailing in the House, was striking. Then, when he took the position of Principal Deputy Speaker, he performed that role with such skill and aplomb that he won friends and respect across the House, and well he might. <BR /> <BR />Today, we are in a period of great loss. The House is much the poorer for the passing of Christopher Stalford. His memory, I have no doubt, will live long in this place, and so it should, but our thoughts have to be concentrated on his beloved family: his wife, his children, his mother and his sister who, undoubtedly, are grieving in manners we can only begin to understand.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have known Christopher for nigh on two decades. He came to work for me — I think that it was his first job after university — in my Belfast office for two to three years when I was an MEP. It was evident to me that he had the ability and the talent that would make him the politician that he was. Although our political perspectives diverged, I am pleased to say that we retained a friendship and a respect that lasted down all those years. I think back to attending his wedding, and now I think of the family that is left. It is very hard, I have no doubt, for all affected. <BR /> <BR />When Christopher came to the House, he was, in many ways, a breath of fresh air because he brought a tremendous respect for parliamentary tradition but, at the same time, great ability, which he demonstrated.”
“I will readily confess to the House that I still have difficulty in processing the shock of the passing of Christopher Stalford, and I know that many Members are in exactly that place. However, if that is the place that we are in, it pales into total insignificance compared with the devastation that, undoubtedly, his beloved wife Laura and his beautiful children are experiencing. <BR /> <BR />I want to begin by expressing to them the sincerest of sympathies on their unspeakable loss; to his party colleagues for their loss, too; and to a group that is sometimes overlooked in circumstances like this, his constituency staff, who will, equally, have an aching void today over what has happened. To all those people, I wish to express the condolences of myself and my party on the passing of Christopher.”
“That is why I urge on the House the practical and necessary step, which is important of itself but also signals very directly the direction of travel and intent of the House, and recommend that it rejects clauses 2 and 6.”
“There you have it. The existence of online gambling is no excuse for increasing land gambling. Of course, it needs to be tightened and tackled, but the fundamental choice that the House will make tonight is whether we are just talking in platitudes about being concerned about the increased risks from gambling, or we are prepared to do something about it by signalling that we will follow the logical public health authority indication and not increase the availability of betting shop gambling because we know that it inevitably leads to greater problems. If we do not follow that indication, we will embrace greater problems, and the issue will resolve to questions of platitudes rather than a serious intent to deal with it.”
“I pause there to say that I am surprised that anyone would seek to take issue with that patently obvious fact.”
“Some said, "Oh, we cannot really do anything about the land-based gambling because people will then simply go to online gambling". Let me read you what Gambling with Lives said in two short paragraphs about that:”
“If the Minister is telling us that she is in office but not in power, that is a fairly poor reflection on the post that she holds. The Minister has it in her power to bring any legislation within the transferred ambit on the subject matters that lie in her Department, so that is a lame excuse that does not stand up. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental issue is that the House knows that there is a huge problem pertaining to problem gambling, yet, tonight, the House is presented with a Bill that, instead of tackling that, deliberately ignores the Public Health Agency's advice on it and, in fact, will embrace the opportunity to make the problem worse by increasing the hours of availability. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGuigan referred to Gambling with Lives, which had a poignant comment to make about the issue.”
“I did not hear anyone during the debate dispute the fact that there is a huge public health issue arising from gambling addiction. Almost every Member espoused that as a fact, yet, for most, there was a corresponding eagerness to find reasons to do nothing about reducing access to land-based gambling. That is sad commentary in itself. Mr Dunne put his finger on it when he said that, when you have a Bill the opening substantive clause of which is to liberalise and extend the facility for gambling in circumstances where there is a supposed acknowledgement of the problems created by gambling, that sets the wrong tone. That is to put it at its mildest. That is where the legislation gets off entirely on the wrong foot.”
“<BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I say that gambling, which is ruining so many lives, is not something that we should make easier and more widely available. It something that we should be regulating, not liberalising. For that reason, I oppose clauses 2 and 6.”
“I do not think that anyone will challenge the fact that, in Northern Ireland, we have an unacceptably high level of gambling addiction. The survey from 2016, which still seems to stand, indicates that there are as many as 40,000 people in that category, which is a phenomenal coterie of individuals. It is not just 40,000 individuals; as I have alluded to, in many cases, it is 40,000 families. That is a huge issue, yet the approach of the Bill is to make it easier to gamble and create more facilities, thereby inevitably increasing that number, which is a huge disappointment. That is why I say to the House that we need to stop and think about whether we are doing the right thing by liberalising laws and increasing availability in circumstances where we are doing nothing else of any substance to tackle the problem.”