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 24 of 95.
“Does she think that the Republic has done that?”
“I want to deal with the Stormont House Agreement. The Member has been careful so far not to condemn Republic of Ireland collusion. What does she think the Republic's response has been to the commitment that it made in Stormont House towards:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the Business Office issued fresh indicative timings that said that there was one hour and 45 minutes for the debate. Can you clarify that?”
“I am disappointed that the panel is dominated by some serial quango appointees. One individual is said to have served on 16 panels. The chair of the panel was a key architect of the failing Scottish system. Where will the fresh thinking that is needed come from?”
“I would like clarification. The Member said that there will be no cost to the taxpayer. I have two questions. Take a house that hosts solar panels, for example. Who will pay for their provision? Could large providers take control of individual provisions on a collective basis, meaning that those provisions become a moneymaking proposition for large providers?”
“That is why the protocol can never in any of its parts be acceptable to the greater number in the Province. That is why there is and will continue to be unrelenting opposition. That is why the equilibrium of the kingdom is upset and disturbed and, ultimately, will be destroyed by the protocol. Likewise, the equilibrium that is supposed to prevail in the Belfast Agreement east-west and North/South, has been undermined by the protocol. <BR /> <BR />Quite apart from the multiple economic damage done by the protocol, there is a fundamental constitutional point: Great Britain is not a third country from Northern Ireland's perspective, and it will not be permitted to be. That is the united determination of those opposed to the protocol.”
“The essence of the objection to the protocol is, in large measure, the same as the objection that was declared in 1912: an objection to the other part of the country of which we are supposed to be an integral part being declared and decreed to be a third country. That is what the protocol does. It says that, in respect of all the matters that it governs, the rest of the United Kingdom, from the Northern Ireland perspective, is a third country. That may well fit the nationalist narrative, which, of course, wholly explains the enthusiasm for the protocol from those quarters, but it utterly offends your constitutional status and position as an integral part of the United Kingdom if a protocol comes along and tells you, "In fact, the other part is a third country — a foreign country".”
“It is therefore fitting that, on this date, we have seen a unified display across unionism of opposition to a protocol that seeks to do the same in respect of our constitutional position — to squeeze and cheat us out of the United Kingdom.”
“Today is indeed Ulster Day, 28 September, when we mark the occasion when unrelenting determination was shown by unionists that this territory should be neither squeezed out nor cheated out of its place in the United Kingdom.”
“Why have they not been taken? What sort of message do we want to send out from the House? With this Bill, we are sending out very much the wrong message.”
“We could bring in regulation. There is a Gambling Commission in GB. We could readily and easily, with a few words rather than clause after clause after clause, extend its powers. Is it because it is the GB regulator? Has politics consumed the issue? I have heard no rational explanation as to why regulation could not be brought in through that source. <BR /> <BR />The Department and the Executive, which allowed the Bill to come to the House, need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they are in the business of liberalising the law in a problem area and turning their backs on regulating. It might be very complex and difficult to regulate online banking — I am under no illusion about that — but there are important, simple, easy steps, such as the ban on credit cards and the £2 stake limit, that could have been taken.”
“Where is the appetite to do something as simple as putting a £2 maximum stake on these wretched machines? It would not take great legislative drafting to do that, but the Department has chosen not to do it. In choosing not to do it, it chooses to liberalise the law when it could regulate in such areas. This is a Department that, in answer to an Assembly question, could not even say how many fixed-odds betting terminals there are in Northern Ireland. The question was asked in AQW 1378/17-22 — I cannot remember by whom — and the answer was that the Department did not know how many fixed-odds betting terminals there were. That is not good enough. That does not point to an appreciation in the Department that that is an issue that needs to be grasped and dealt with.”
“The principle should be clear: there will be no liberalisation until there is regulation, where it can be, in other sectors. If we are serious about tackling the scourge of problem gambling, why are we making it easier, by opening seven days a week, to cultivate that problem? That is the question. We are told, "Oh, it's too hard for the Executive. It would take 360 clauses". That suggests that somebody somewhere has drafted a Bill but it is not before the House. <BR /> <BR />There are straightforward things that could have been done in the Bill. In April last year, a ban was brought in on the use of credit cards in GB. Why is that not in the Bill? That is not 360 clauses. It might not even be 360 words. Where is the appetite to do something as simple as that?”
“The headline of the Bill is that, instead of being open six days a week, betting shops, in the areas where they are bleeding people dry, can now open seven days a week. Is that really the Executive's answer to problem gambling? No one can say that they did not know. The statistics are there — virtually every Member who has spoken has quoted them — yet the shocking contribution of the Department and Executive to tackling the problem is to give us the most liberal betting shop laws in the United Kingdom. What will that do for problem gambling? Just as online gambling is 24 hours a day, betting shop gambling will now be seven days a week. Are we serious?”
“We know that, when we are talking about those who are suffering from the ravages of problem gambling, they are the very coterie of our society who can afford it least. Yet the shops are there because that is where the profits are being made and where our problem gamblers are spending their time. Yes, there is the internet, of course, but those who use betting shops and turn themselves into problem gamblers are predominantly, although not exclusively, from highly deprived areas. It is an unconscionable scandal that gambling firms exploit that to the nth degree. <BR /> <BR />When we know all of that, and then say that we are going to legislate for it, how is it that the Bill that we produce does not tackle any of those problems? In fact, the Bill liberalises.”
“It is not just problem gamblers and those who are at moderate risk, which probably comes to something like 120,000 people, but the families, the wives, the children and the dependants. When you multiply that, you find that, for every problem gambler or person who is at risk of being a problem gambler, there probably are another three or four people affected. That is coming close to half a million people. That is quite shocking. <BR /> <BR />When we recognise that the gambling industry really leeches off the poor in our society, we see why, as Ms Bradley pointed out, 37% of all the betting shops are in the wards with the greatest deprivation rates. She pointed out that 10% of all betting shops are in North Belfast, which exudes much deprivation, and that there are only nine betting shops in the whole of North Down.”
“Across the House today, I have heard many affirmations of recognition of the deep, deep harm being caused by problem gambling. The fundamental question that I have is this: how does the Bill match up to that? In the words of Mr Catney, is it just "words ... but no action"? Sadly, that seems to be largely the category into which it falls. None of us can afford to be complacent about the problem of gambling and about the horrendous visitation of misery and deficit that it brings to so many working families. We have heard the statistic today that 2·3% of the population of Northern Ireland, which is 40,000 people, are problem gamblers. Another 4·9% are at moderate risk of being problem gamblers. It is not just the gamblers who are affected.”
“I do not know what the odds on this would have been, but I find myself almost in total agreement with Mr O'Toole on the matter. I think past form was contrary to that, but, on this issue, I find myself very much empathising with the points he made.”
“At the end of June, the Minister, in a written response to me, indicated that, of the £769 million of Barnett consequential arising from allocations to the Department of Health and Social Care in England, only £504 million went to our Department of Health. Will the Minister give an update, if not today then by other processes, on what the present situation is in terms of the Barnett consequential on health and the actual spend of that consequential on health? There is much talk and concern about austerity, but we want to make sure that we are spending the money that we get for health on health.”
“Why do the Minister and his party value the discredited protocol above the North/South bodies? They must realise that, if their partners in government are as good as their word, there will be no more North/South meetings as long as the protocol subsists.”
“Is the Member aware whether there is any reason why the ambit and powers of the Gambling Commission in GB could simply not be extended to Northern Ireland, thereby bringing some regulation and oversight of an independent nature?”
“The Minister said that she is aware of the scale of the problem, and statistics show that gambling is an ever-extending problem in our community, yet she comes to the House with a Bill the only realistic proposal of which is to further liberalise gambling and increase its availability. Simple things, such as imposing a ban on credit card use on machines, which could be done relatively straightforwardly, are not done. Tackling internet gambling is not touched. Fixed terminals are untouched. Why does the Bill focus only on liberalisation and ignore the necessary regulation?”
“I then asked for a meeting with the Minister, but the Minister has refused. Here we are, in a supposedly caring devolution system, where a school's transport network has been wrecked by the Department, and the Department's attitude is so belligerent and dogged it is outdone only by its arrogance to the point where a Minister refuses a meeting and I have to bring the issue to the Floor in order to put proper attention on it. It is time that the Department woke up and acted on the matter.”
“Yet, this summer, the active travel unit of the Department for Infrastructure — that is the unit that tells us that we all must be on our bikes — decided to remove the bus pull-in points and to widen the footpath to, at one point, over 6 metres so that it is wider than the carriageway, for the purpose of driving cars off the road. Now, we have abundant chaos at Slemish College, which has been inflicted by the idiotic approach of the Department. <BR /> <BR />At the beginning of September, I met the relevant active travel official along with Councillor Matthew Armstrong, Councillor Quigley and the headmaster of the school on-site to see just what could be done about restoring some normality and sense to the situation. I might as well have talked to the wall. I asked then for a meeting with a higher official, but it was refused.”
“Slemish College is the primary integrated school in my constituency. It is in a very urban, heavily populated area of Ballymena on the Larne Road. By reason of the nature of the school and its reputation, its 800 pupils come from a very wide catchment area. Over 100 of them come more than 10 miles from the Antrim/Templepatrick area, while another 70 come from the Glens of Antrim, and so it goes on, around the hub of Ballymena. <BR /> <BR />In consequence, public transport is vital to the delivery of pupils to that school. Although there is heavy traffic on the Larne Road, there have always been some bus pull-in points at the front of the school in order to facilitate the reality that it is serviced by public transport and, indeed, by many parents who have to drive their children to school.”
“<BR /> <BR />The invitation that the Alliance Party and the SDLP have accepted from Sinn Féin is to kill the Bill on the basis that those who perpetrated nigh on unspeakable evil are to be treated like anyone else who did not. Have we really so lost our moral compass in the House that we are prepared to sweep all that under the carpet? That is what those who go through the No Lobby tonight will be doing: sweeping away all thoughts of true reconciliation, which comes with remorse, and dispensing and discharging it by saying, "No, we do not need that. We do not want that. We want people who are unremorseful — people who are not contrite; people who care nothing about their victims — to be elevated to high public office". If that is really where politics has got to in this place, I despair of our future.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is really what all this comes down to: which side are we on? Of course, it is all dressed up as reconciliation. Mrs Dodds made probably the most pertinent point in the debate when she drew our attention to what reconciliation is. Reconciliation without remorse is nothing. It is a sham and a front. It counts for nothing, yet the ideological stance of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and — no surprise — Sinn Féin is to forget remorse — one does not need remorse — and just let us embrace that nice-sounding word "reconciliation" and continue to elevate to high public office those who have no remorse. Is there a Member in the House who thinks that the two gentlemen whom we are talking about, Mr Kavanagh and Mr Kelly, have any remorse or contrition or any thoughts, in the case of Kavanagh, for Nora Field?”
“<BR /> <BR />It will be clear to the watching public that, if Members vote as indicated, the Alliance Party and the SDLP have combined with Sinn Féin to protect in office a multiple murderer, a man who was told by the sentencing judge that he did not even show a shred of compassion for the innocent victims whom he murdered — innocent victims whom he knew were there and could see before the bomb was detonated. Is that really the sort of company that the Alliance Party now keeps and wants to protect — individuals like that in public office, overseeing the education of children? How has the Alliance Party so lost its way? In 2013, it did the right thing, but tonight it will be Sinn Féin's little helpers to kill the Bill and, in doing so, will stamp and trample on innocent victims like Nora Field.”
“Was that, too, a mistake? The SDLP has now driven itself to that point. <BR /> <BR />I come to another part of the pan-nationalist front: the Alliance Party. It voted for the 2013 Bill at Final Stage. It embraced the very principles of the 2013 Act, which are replicated word for word in this Bill. What has changed? The legislative intent and the legislative language have not changed. Patently, the Alliance Party has changed if it now eschews that which it supported back then.”
“Rather, we must promote and reward convicts, and, in doing so, have no regard for their victims. As I said in my first speech, that is the point: we must choose. Are we on the side of the victim-makers — now, for some, the political elite —or are we on the side of the victims? <BR /> <BR />It saddens me that although, in 2012 and 2013, the SDLP saw what the issue was, today, apparently, it will kill the Bill, and it will do so in blatant contradiction of the stand that it and some of its members articulated at that time. Either it was right then and wrong today or vice versa. Is the SDLP repudiating the stance that it took against Mary McArdle's being a special adviser? Is it saying that it made a mistake in voting at Second Stage for a Bill that would remove her — the same Bill as removed Paul Kavanagh from the office of special adviser?”
“That is precisely why Paul Kavanagh today sits on the Education Authority. It is a declaration by Sinn Féin, "We do not accept your criminalisation of our IRA volunteers. They were not criminals. They were" — in their eyes —"the very opposite, and we will therefore elevate and promote them as a rejection of the very suggestion that they were criminals". <BR /> <BR />It is that mentality and ethos that appointed the lady McArdle and appointed Paul Kavanagh to the Education Authority. If that is in the spirit and compliant with the letter of the Belfast Agreement, those who are the big enthusiasts for that need to look at what they are saying. If the Bill is contrary to the Belfast Agreement, what are the principles of the Belfast Agreement? Must we never call out wrong? Must we never be on the side of right?”
“Dominic Bradley had it right when he refuted those issues, and I referred to them in my opening speech. The protestations from Sinn Féin were that refusing to allow McArdle to continue in position was in breach of the Belfast Agreement — it was anti-Good Friday Agreement. Mr Bradley of the SDLP had it right when he answered that it was that appointment that was against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, because it was a calculated, deliberate measure and a statement by Sinn Féin that it was to elevate a particular individual because of their past. It was going to do so because it could and to demonstrate that it had no remorse or regret for the actions of that individual or anyone else whom it called to volunteer in the IRA. It was elevating and promoting her precisely to make that point.”
“It was, in its initial stage, a blanket ban. The SDLP voted for that at Second Stage. Now, suddenly, a Bill that uses precisely the same language as that of the ultimate outcome of that legislative process conflicts with the Belfast Agreement.”
“I remind the House that the SDLP voted in favour of the first special advisers Bill, on which this Bill is modelled, at Second Reading. That Bill, at that stage, did not even contain the protection that, if you showed contrition and had regard to your victims etc, you could still hold a post.”
“It is not just the terrorist offence that is included but any offence that attracts a sentence of more than five years, which, invariably, would include rape. When we come to vote tonight, we are saying to ourselves, "Take the politics out of it. Am I content that, in a country where I have the power to legislate, I am not changing a situation in which a rapist could be appointed to a public body because he's a political appointee?". Under the cover of being a political appointee, he can be appointed to any public body. Are Members content to embrace that concept? That is the sort of thing that this comes down to. <BR /> <BR />I will stay with the SDLP for a moment. Mr O'Toole and Mrs Kelly kept going back to the incompatibility — my word, not theirs — of the Bill with what they call the "Good Friday Agreement".”
“I am pleased to follow such a thoughtful speech from Ms Sugden. She made some telling points. The contributions of some others in the debate were in the classic style of trying to kick up some dust when you do not really want to deal with the issue. <BR /> <BR />All sorts of dust were kicked up in the debate. There was a matter that I could not even follow about a young Nigel Dodds: I have no idea what that was about. Mr O'Toole was clutching at straws from Arkansas. The answer to Mr O'Toole's point about somebody who received a hefty sentence for drugs in Arkansas lies in what Ms Sugden said: by clutching at that straw, Mr O'Toole wants to give a bye ball to the rapist. The legislation, if it proceeds, is drafted so that it is all-encompassing; it covers all criminal offences.”
“Can the Member cite one example when I have flirted with or exhorted violence?”
“I assure the Member that I am not a banner-maker. The banner in question, as I understand it, was not visible to me on the platform. <BR /> <BR />It is an attempted slur to say that, in some way, my motives in introducing the Bill, which, in one case, is to deal with a multiple murderer's position in public office, or my credentials, when I have no relevant criminal convictions, are to be blurred or equated with such a person. I really think that the Member can do better than that.”
“Does the Member not understand that what he has just alluded to is beyond the competence of the House? Those are reserved matters; they are not transferred. The Bill deals with a matter that is transferred and, therefore, the ambit is within the competence of the House. The other matters, such as who can be Ministers, is not within the competence of the House.”
“The criteria in clause 3(5) are not individual-specific. They are universal and pretty self-explanatory. Has there been any contrition? Have they assisted, in all reasonable steps, to clear up the crime? In consequence, do their victims have a view? All those have to be taken into account. The panel will then reach a view on whether it thinks that the person should be decreed eligible, and that decision may be appealed to the High Court. <BR /> <BR />The criteria lay down very clear markers on contrition, assisting and the views of victims. That was in the legislation on special advisers. Interestingly, nobody sought to avail himself of those, but they are there should people wish to avail themselves of them.”
“If a contractual clause specified what the termination would be, that would apply. Failing that, it is likely that there would be three months' remuneration from a paid post, which would keep it compatible with all industrial law requirements.”
“It is my understanding that no compensation would be paid to the Policing Board appointees, because those are political appointments and are not paid posts. However, appointments to the Education Authority are paid posts, and the payment would therefore be determined in accordance with the schedule, which says:”
“Absolutely. It is the same principle. The House embraced those principles back then, and it is invited to re-embrace those same principles today. It will be for others to explain if what they did through their parties in 2013, they cannot do in 2021. It is an obvious and compelling point. <BR /> <BR />My final point to the House is this: the Bill is set by a moral compass and respects victims, and any law that is set by a moral compass and respects victims is good law. I recommend it to the House.”
“The fact the Bill has been introduced by someone from this corner of the House who takes a view that is at variance with many people on so many issues in the House is not the material consideration.”
“Alban Maginness made an important point at the start of that debate. He said that, as legislators, we must judge the Bill:”
“Clause 6 amends the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to give the commissioner the power to perform the functions in the Bill. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 cover interpretation, transitional relations and the commencement of the legislation. The schedule sets out a provision for termination payments, if that were to arise in any case. <BR /> <BR />Members will have noted that the Bill is very much modelled on and reflects the language of the legislation that the House approved in 2013, when it decided that special advisers should be excluded for the same reasons that we are talking about today. The House, with support from most political parties, agreed that that was the right thing to do. It was right then, and it is right now in respect of these positions.”
“Clause 2 identifies that a person is not eligible for such a nomination if they have a serious criminal conviction, but clause 3 provides for how that can be challenged through showing contrition etc and sets out a role for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That seemed to me to be the most appropriate place for that role to rest. It could rest with the respective permanent secretaries of the parent Departments, but, since it is within the ambit of public appointments, I thought that it was right for it to rest with the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Clause 4 gives an appeal process to the High Court so that it is copper-fastened with due process. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 defines "criminal conviction". As I said, it is defined as someone obtaining a sentence of 5 years or more.”
“We cannot change that today, but we can fetter it towards a moral compass to ensure that we apply some restraint that will give the process some respectability. That is what the Bill would do. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 defines the meaning of a "political member" and identifies the two bodies at issue. It also includes any other public body where that might be brought about to apply.”
“In the policing legislation and the Education Order, we have created a special category with special status, and political parties, with no regard to any of those principles, with no regard to such basics as a selection panel, with no regard to openness, transparency or independence, hand-pick whom they wish and appoint them, whereas everyone else who sits on those boards has to pass through a process. They are the special ones, appointed with no regard to process by the nominating officers of political parties. That is the root of the problem, as far as the appointments with which we are dealing today are concerned, because it provides open season for opportunities to make those appointments, as Dominic Bradley spoke about. Even at that level, it should be distasteful and uncomfortable for the House to think that we have such a process.”
“Mr Stalford drew attention to other public appointments. Let us consider that for a moment. If anyone in this country applies to be appointed to a public body, the appointment is overseen by guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They are to be applied to public appointments. They espouse seven principles: merit; diversity; equality; openness, transparency and independence; integrity; proportionality; and respect. In all cases, there must be a selection panel. That is how we do public appointments — for good reason. However, when it comes to these appointments, those of the political elite are exempt from all that.”