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 16 of 95.
“Can it be correct that, five years on, it has never been made, or has the very diligent website, www.legislation.gov.uk, got it wrong? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.”
“Will we, however, simply be back here in five years — if we are here — with another proposition of this nature? <BR /> <BR />The Minister may be able to cast some light on this point, which is more satiric than anything else. When I looked up www.legislation.gov.uk to look at the 2017 order, I read these words:”
“It is a consequence of the funding inadequacies and arrangements that affect Northern Ireland Water. <BR /> <BR />It manifests itself in other day-to-day issues. Last Tuesday and Friday, raw sewage was flowing across the green area behind Maine Park in Galgorm. It is appalling that things are in that state. I say to the House, therefore, that simply replicating this limbo-land for Northern Ireland Water is not forward-looking and is not sufficient to take us to the realistic funding position that we need to get to in order to deal with our substandard infrastructure. In Northern Ireland, there are 100 villages and towns that experience difficulties with waste water capacity. That is an astounding indictment. <BR /> <BR />Yes, there is no doubt that this statutory instrument will have to be approved as yet another stopgap.”
“The date that was given when the strategy was written was 2022. Now, however, the current Executive policy seems to be that it will remain in place until 2027. <BR /> <BR />This is not just a theoretical problem about what sort of Northern Ireland Water we should have; it is a problem with real, lasting and damaging practical consequences. As I have raised previously with the Minister, there is a series of villages in my constituency of North Antrim where capacity has been reached and where, as a consequence, no new building has been possible for years. In previous replies, the Minister has indicated that the earliest that it might be possible to do something about that for the villages of Armoy, Dervock, Mosside and Stranocum, as well as, I might add, a good part of Ballycastle, is post 2027. That is just not acceptable.”
“I join in wishing the Minister a full and speedy recovery and in the condemnation of the trolling. Some of the trolls really are more suited to the sewers that Northern Ireland Water has responsibility for. They are beyond description. <BR /> <BR />The measure today is another stopgap. It just keeps Northern Ireland Water somewhat in limbo through a lack of strategy. When you go to the 25-year strategic plan for Northern Ireland Water, which is supposed to take us up to 2046, you see that it states, amongst other things:”
“There was £246 million of resource funding available to spend, and, despite all the needs that, as MLAs, we meet daily in our constituencies, all that the Northern Ireland Departments could come up with were plans to spend £146 million, leaving £100 million unspent. Does that not speak to severe financial mismanagement across the Executive? Given that there is also £200 million of further Barnett consequentials, are we not now in the territory where the Minister's constant refrain of "Tory austerity" is wearing very thin?”
“Therefore, the sooner we escape and the EU gives up its sovereignty over Northern Ireland on that issue and others, the better.”
“In another niche sector, there will, from June, be an insistence that those who have pleasure crafts use white diesel to propel them. That imposition is being inflicted on us particularly because of the fact that we are still bound by a European court judgement and because of the protocol. The protocol, of course, has much to answer for as well in impeding our economy. We all know about the problem with our energy costs. There could be a 5% cut immediately from the removal of 5% VAT from energy costs, but, in Northern Ireland, it would not be allowed to apply because we are subject to a VAT regime that insists on 5% minimum VAT across its areas of control. The protocol is hitting ordinary consumers and ordinary people across the board because of its severe impact on such things.”
“It is riddled with practical difficulties, particularly in the farming context. Red diesel will be permitted strictly for the farming context, but, if a farmer, for example, wanted to oblige a neighbour by taking his digger to dig out something, he would be regarded as a contractor and would have to wash out the tank and fill it with white diesel. That is so impractical that it is just not going to happen. Even charity tractor runs, ploughing matches and matters such as that will be blighted because they are not strictly farming issues. The removal of the concession on red diesel has a serious knock-on effect. I call on the Government to urgently review it.”
“I am tempted to comment on the exposure that the previous Member to speak gave to the Belfast Agreement institutions' failure to deliver for younger people and others, but I will address an issue that is afflicting our construction industry and wider industry, causing great fear and potential loss. That is the removal of the red diesel concession. That will hit our industry in a phenomenal manner, and it will hit us all through the passed-on increases in prices.”
“etc is very common in legislation. It is there for obvious reasons. The Department has the budgetary responsibility and the answerability about all these things, and it therefore must take account of all informing issues such as that. I do not understand why the Member would balk at clause 5A.”
“Surely those are requirements by law to have regard to matters. Why would the sponsor object to the Department having regard to things that it must have regard to? As to her other objection, to new clause 5A(4), that language:”
“I cannot argue with that. <BR /> <BR />The sponsor has difficulty with the Department having regard to:”
“You must "identify funding commitments and resources" only for the integrated sector. You must include "Targets and benchmarks" only for the integrated sector. <BR /> <BR />We are back to the reality that the Bill is built upon a determination to create and carve out a special status — a privileged status — for one sector only in education. That is the flaw that runs through the Bill from start to finish, and that is why, even if it is amended on those matters, it is not a Bill that I can see myself ever supporting.”
“What are "community bodies" in that context? One thing missing from that list, oddly enough, is other schools, unless they are meant to be included in "community bodies". Amendment No 27 leaves a number of gaping questions as to what it actually means, whereas amendment No 29 is concise and understandable and, therefore, by far the preferable articulation of the points that are necessary in respect of what was a disastrous clause 7 to begin with. I will certainly support amendment No 29 over amendment No 27. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Dodds made some pertinent points about clause 8, identifying in it terminology that creates privilege and special status for one sector only. As she mentioned, that is in clause 8(2)(a), which requires that the strategy include "provision for resources" only for the integrated sector.”
“The amendment tabled by the Bill sponsor, however, is gaping with such things. Take proposed clause 7(2), for example:”
“but we do not declare that for any other sector, surely we are giving the advancement and privilege that has been talked about today. It is pretty clear to me that that would be the effect, and that is the real flaw in clause 6. <BR /> <BR />The same issue arises in the Bill sponsor's amendment to clause 7, insofar as she obviously wished to continue with the wide definition of education bodies. If she now accepts that that will change, it will change the eventual import of her amendment No 27. When you look at amendment No 27, the new clause 7 that the Bill sponsor wants to put in, and compare it with the new clause that the Minister wants to put in, you see that one — that of the Minister — is straightforward and understandable and does not leave many hostages to fortune.”
“Surely that is the very embodiment of what we have spent so much of today talking about: the preferential advancement of one sector over the other. If, in clause 6, we declare that the Department:”
“If I read that in a more truncated form, it states that the Department or the Education Authority:”
“If that happens, the definition of education bodies in clause 13 will be diminished to the Department and the Education Authority. That seems of itself to be eminently appropriate, but, even with that and, acknowledging that one cannot presume the vote of the House, assuming that amendment No 70 is approved, we still have a situation where education bodies, now defined as the Department or the Education Authority:”
“If there is an appetite for looking at these things in the round, it seems to me to be pretty clear that you would need to have clause 5A in the statute by the time that you come to Further Consideration Stage. That is a judgement that people will have to make. <BR /> <BR />I do not want to detain the House for very long. I have a few comments to make. Clause 6 always concerned me considerably, and it still does. It concerns me primarily because of the breadth of its demands, which are to embrace every education body as defined in clause 13. Of course, that includes such things as CCMS, meaning that CCMS must include provision for integrated education when it wants to do anything, basically. The sponsor has said that she is minded to support amendment No 70.”
“That further illumination is somewhat helpful, and the one thing that it brings home to me is that, if there is an appetite to look further at the conglomerate that is clauses 4, 5 and, potentially, new clause 5A, it seems that the flexibility would be maximised by the approval of new clause 5A at this stage. If new clause 5A is not approved at this stage, I would think that you would be very much into the territory of the admissibility criteria of that which is not compatible with something that has already been passed. Would new clause 5A, for example, already having been moved, be deemed to be compatible with clauses 4 and 5, which have already passed? I would be quite doubtful about that.”
“To respond to that, I am not sure that you have added a great deal to the sum of human knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that these matters will be decided according to admissible criteria without illuminating the House with what the admissible criteria are. I think that that was the key question. What is it that will judge whether an amendment is admissible?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the light of what Mr McCrossan has just said, can we have a ruling from the Chair, so that we all know how amendable new clause 5A would be, if the amendment is passed, and, if it is not passed, how much of it could be brought in through other amendments at Further Consideration Stage?”
“The Member talks about people being kept away from integrated education and being unable to access it. Can she remind the House, is it easier, in terms of pupil requirement numbers, to form an integrated school than it is to form a controlled or maintained one?”
“The Minister is styled as the "Minister for Communities". Why is it, then, that, when it comes to issues such as this, she can never face the plurality of that title and take off her republican blinkers and recognise that her duty to all communities is to fund such matters? This is a Minister who squandered millions on golf clubs.”
“If someone successfully applies to the emergency fund, are they then also eligible for the energy payment support scheme? Is there any household limit in respect of either scheme?”
“It gives no consideration to anyone or anything but the cherished, privileged and elite group of the integrated sector. That is wrong.”
“We have not heard any indication from other parties in the House whether Mr McCrossan's amendment, which he may not even move, as he did yesterday, is acceptable or whether it is acceptable to the Bill sponsor. We do not know that. I would not put too much faith in that amendment doing much. It certainly cannot rescue the fundamental issue of clauses 4 and 5: their elitism. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 4 and 5 are all about elitism. They are about advantage in order to disadvantage. That is why that is an unworthy heart of a Bill that itself is deserving only of rejection. On a day when area planning announcements are made on the premise of our existing provisions, along comes a proposed change in legislation that will alter all of that, adding hugely to costs and redefining all future planning.”
“I follow that, and that is absolutely right. Of course, once you provide privilege to some, you have to disadvantage others out of the limited and finite budget that the Department has to operate with. When you say, "give advantage" to the integrated sector, you effectively say, "and balance it with disadvantage to the others", and that is what the House has been asked to embrace: disadvantage for some and advantage for others.”
“Do not encourage me. <BR /> <BR />Yes, Mr Weir.”
“Do you want me to keep it going until 1.00 pm?”
“Yes. That appears so. The Bill will do nothing about that. That is clear. <BR /> <BR />Mr Butler, I think, wanted an intervention.”
“That is not treating people equally; that is honouring, at whatever cost, the parental choice of some while denying the parental choice of others.”
“The way to deal with that is to not create privilege and special status for one sector. The Member seeks to say, "You will not be disappointed any longer about not getting into Lagan College. The Department and the Education Authority will make sure that there are an extra 200 places. They will make sure that the funding is provided for it. They will not make sure that there are an extra 200 places in the local high school, grammar school or anywhere else, but they will make sure that there are an extra 200 places in that specific sectoral school".”
“When you say, "We want to facilitate the parental choice of those who want to access integrated education by guaranteeing them places", you prioritise meeting their parental choice over meeting the parental choice of those who choose every other sector. If the parental choice is to go to a maintained school, an Irish-medium school or a controlled school, there is no special privilege and no statutory obligation — that is what it is — to provide the places. However, if you want to go to an integrated school, the state will provide you with a statutory guarantee of access to that facility. That is social engineering. That does not afford a generic and equal system to all.”
“We are going to change that to "aim to meet". Again, are we not playing with words? If there is a duty, "providing sufficient places" is its starting point. The aim is what has to be delivered. Again, nowhere else is that facility and leg-up given to any other sector. That inevitably will lead to privileged and additional — in comparison with others — expenditure on that sector. To meet that need and facilitate everyone who applies to Lagan College, Slemish College or wherever in getting a place, you will have to increase the facility and the financing of those schools. It is a passport to privilege for the integrated sector. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.”
“That is something that the House may well, in pursuit of the optics, as Mr Stalford said, embrace, but, in embracing that, it does no service to the education of our children or to fulfilling the primary duty of the Department towards the education of all the people of Northern Ireland. That really is the essence of the matter.”
“— except if you are the controlled or maintained sector, it seems. Even by the standards of the Alliance Party, the sponsor's party, which are to treat everyone fairly, free from discrimination, the Bill fails the test, because it does not treat other sectors fairly. It advances, promotes and supports one sector above others. In doing so, it creates a discriminatory hierarchy in the education sector.”
“— except if you happen to be the controlled or maintained sector, it seems —”
“In fact, it is undeserving of the ethos of the Alliance Party. <BR /> <BR />One of the dangers of wiling away the time here, waiting to be called to speak, is that you think of looking up things. I thought that I would take a look at the Alliance website and read the Alliance Party's vision statement. How apt it is. It states that the party believes:”
“Under the 1989 Order, we already have an education system that has a duty to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education. Obviously, that is not enough for the sponsor and her supporters. They want that sector, which is already feted with encouragement and facilitation, to be given more. What is the more? It is promotion and support; in fact, it is support to the point that clause 5(b) states that the Department must provide "sufficient places" and "meet the demand". Integrated education is to be demand-led. That does not apply to any other sector; only the integrated sector is to be demand-led. How does that not create preference and hierarchy for the integrated education sector. Of course, it does. That is the intent of the Bill. That is why the Bill is undeserving of the support of the House.”
“If the United Nations, of whatever vogue, invites me to discriminate, I am sorry, but I will disappoint it in my approach to this matter. I will give way to Mr Stalford.”
“I will give way when I deal with this point. It is only in that one sector that we are giving that privilege. That is why clauses 4 and 5 create a hierarchy in education. Yesterday, I asked why it was necessary to give that hierarchal preference to one sector and not to others. That is the deliberate, conscious intent of clauses 4 and 5.”
“I will deal with that. Whatever word you wish to use — "support", in the way in which you say that it is defined, or "promote" — in clause 5, we identify what the practical meaning of that is. It is a practical meaning, however it is expressed, that is exclusive to one sector. That is the point. It is in respect of only one sector that the clause wishes to identify, assess and monitor, all with the aim of meeting or increasing the demand for integrated education.”
“When I have dealt with this point, I will give way. <BR /> <BR />I would say that, in fact, to "support" means more than to "promote", if you want to be semantic, because, to me, it suggests actively encouraging the giving of assistance. The whole essence of "support" is to give assistance. Therefore, when we say that for one sector and one sector only, does it mean that there is a requirement to give support and, if support includes giving assistance, that that includes elevated financial assistance? Is that really where we are going with that language of "promote" and "support"?”
“The Bill radically deploys the language of promotion, which, of course, is proactive and applies it singularly to one sector of education. In doing that, it sets that sector apart and does so out of necessity, because you cannot promote one sector without setting it apart from all others. Whether you call it "promote" or "support", frankly, makes little difference. <BR /> <BR />In the coming weeks and months, other party leaders and I will go around this country promoting or supporting our candidates. What is the difference? To promote or support is to seek to give advantage. That is the essence of what is at play.”
“That is a generic and non-discriminatory requirement. It is one that applies to us all. The first duty is:”
“In clauses 4 and 5, we come to the very heart of the Bill and can see clearly what it is trying to do, because it is here that we have the introduction of the singularly distinctive notion of promoting one sector over the others. Our starting point should be to remind ourselves what article 3 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 says:”
“Is there another sector anywhere in education where there is statutory obligation to provide places on demand?”