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 27 of 95.
“Education bodies are defined in clause 13 as including the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. If and when the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools comes to planning a new school, as an education body, it must presume that it will be an integrated school and plan for that, making a total nonsense of the very idea of having and maintaining viable maintained schools. The elitism — the supremacy — of the legislation is breathtaking.”
“Before the Member leaves clause 7, are we not faced in clauses 6 and 7 with one of the most astounding propositions in the Bill? Clause 7 puts an imposition, when planning a new school, on "education bodies" that they "must apply a presumption".”
“Would reopening the Lisburn to Antrim line not greatly facilitate a connection to the International Airport? Is that not vital to its future success?”
“I beg to introduce the Political Appointments Bill [NIA 34/17-22], which is a Bill to amend the law on public appointments in Northern Ireland and amend the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.”
“What do affirmations about the protocol's adverse impact on North/South meetings by the Minister's new leader mean, if such meetings continue in a routine fashion? If the Minister and her party are serious in opposing the protocol, when will we see an impact on "North/Southery", given that east-west relations continue to be seriously trashed?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Section 52C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is clear that, following meetings such as this, there shall be a report to the House on the goings-on at those meetings. We had a circumstance this morning where a statement was produced that concealed the fact that the protocol was even discussed. The word "protocol" is not mentioned. Is it in order and is it compliant with section 52C for a Minister to come to the House and conceal from it a relevant aspect of the proceedings on which she is allegedly reporting? Is that in order?”
“Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are in a strange circumstance —.”
“It turns out that the protocol was discussed and raised by the Dublin Government. Why was that concealed from the House in the statement, given that there is a statutory duty to report the goings-on at the Councils to the House? If it was raised, did no unionist Minister raise the economic dislocation that is being caused by the protocol? If they did, why have we not heard about that? If they did not —.”
“Is the Minister saying that she consulted councils outside the basic suggestion that there was a need to extend the possibility of remote meetings? Did she consult them on the fact that she was going to take unto herself permanent powers to decide all the matters that are in the amendment? Did she consult them on that?”
“There is always a first. When the Minister says to us that she will consult councils on what the regulations may contain, what credibility does that assertion have when she has failed to consult council representatives up to this point on tabling the amendment?”
“That means — this is what the Interpretation Act says — that even any Act of Parliament of a superior place can be disapplied and modified by a regulation made by the Minister. Really? Not only are we setting ourselves over and above councils and ripping away their autonomy; we are in the business of saying that we can, in fact, modify and disapply any Act of Parliament. We will do all that without having a Committee Stage, without having heard from councils and without having done anything other than ride roughshod over those affected by it. It is wrong, and I invite the House to oppose it.”
“It says that she "may" allow them to be; it does not say that she has to. A council could have it handed down from on high who, including the public, can attend, how they can speak, how they can vote, how they can otherwise participate and what documents they can see, and there is no necessity, under the clause, for any standing orders to cover any of that. <BR /> <BR />I say to the House that we are treading in a dangerous place when we think that we can so high-handedly undermine the autonomy of councils in the way that the amendment does. The sheer breadth of this amendment is brought home by clause 2(4)(a), which states:”
“All those things that I read are the stuff of standing orders; they are not the stuff of regulations to be made by a Minister. We are imposing on councils a central view of how things should be done, when councils should have their autonomy respected. This is an autonomy-defeating amendment. It takes away the autonomy of the councils in their own standing orders to do what they think appropriate and creates a diktat from the centre as to how they will do it. <BR /> <BR />It goes on to say, in clause 2(3), that certain things "may" be included in standing orders. However, when you analyse clause 2(3), you see that it does not require anything in standing orders. The key word is "may". The Minister could make regulations under the clause, which does not even permit the matters to be finessed in standing orders.”
“That is it exactly. There is no dressing it up: this is a power grab of council powers by the Department. It is going to direct:”
“We will pass that without having had a Committee Stage or having heard from a single council, a single councillor, the chief executive of SOLACE or anyone else. We will surrender council powers to the Department. I say to the House that that is not a wise course to take.”
“Let us consider some of those provisions. The word "persons" is wider than councillors: that means the public as well. The Minister will have powers to decide how the public can participate in a council meeting, if at all. She will have powers to decide whether documents will be available; that is covered by the phrase "or otherwise participate". This is stringent, unnecessary and way beyond what the COVID situation requires. It directs how persons may "speak at" such meetings. This Minister could decide, for example, to make a regulation that a person can speak in whatever language they like and it must be translated. <BR /> <BR />Those are some of the powers that are in the enabling power.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the amendment were only about the COVID situation or allowing councils in the long term to meet remotely, it would not need to go beyond clause 2(2)(a). However, it takes itself into amazing territory in clause 2(2)(b). One might have thought that what is in clause 2(2)(b) was the very essence of council standing orders, but no: the Minister is taking on herself the power to make regulations to decide "how persons may attend" a council meeting; how they may "speak at" a council meeting; how they may "vote in" a council meeting; and how they might "otherwise participate" in meetings that are held remotely.”
“Why did she not consult them before now? I ask that question confident that there will be no answer because this is a Minister who neither takes interventions nor answers points in debates. She is script-bound in all of these things, but I ask the question nonetheless. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the amendment is not COVID-related. The whole raison d'être of the Bill was to deal with an emergency that was COVID-related. In amendment No 1, we are doing something that outlasts COVID, no matter how long it lasts, substantially. It changes in a significant way the Local Government Act that the Assembly laboured over for months in 2014, and it does it in such a way as to grab powers to the centre that are totally unwarranted.”
“I am with Fra McCann's dog on amendment No 1: I object to it. I do so for reasons that are entirely logical and appropriate. First, as I have said from the first day on which we debated the matter, making permanent change to the Local Government Act 2014 on the back of accelerated passage is not an appropriate way to go. The Chair of the Committee has told us that, apparently, SOLACE knows nothing about what is in the amendment and that other leaders in local government have not been consulted. Yet we are invited today to amend the Local Government Act and give the Minister the power to ride roughshod over councils and make decisions that councils should make and decisions that would supersede their own standing orders. That is not healthy or appropriate. The Minister said, as she went down that road, that she would consult councils.”
“Whatever hurt may be felt by families, are there not three immutable principles here: first, that only admissible evidence is permissible; secondly, that the same rule applies to all, irrespective of who they are; and, thirdly, that statements made without caution are, for the very best of reasons, inadmissible? Since all of that has always been clear, the bigger question is about how those cases got as far as they did in the absence of sufficient evidence. How did the PPS ever think that there was sufficient admissible evidence?”
“Given the excessive delay by the Executive, maybe it is a good thing that we got through some reforms under the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. For many people, when they viewed the wreckage of RHI and the mishandling of things, the other burning question, as well as reform, was, "Is there any discipline?". Will the Minister update the House on whether anyone in the Civil Service been disciplined for their actions or inactions during RHI? Did bringing forward retirement cause many to escape discipline?”
“I invite you to answer the question. What is the cost to the block grant?”
“The taxpaying public should now realise that the Executive have decided to downgrade value for money in public-sector contracts. Then, we have the added cost to the public purse of the declaration in the policy that the additional costs of the living wage will be borne by government. Yet, in an answer already given, we find that that has not been costed. Will that be an added burden on the block grant, leaving less money for health and education? Will it come out of the capital or resource budget of any Department?”
“<BR /> <BR />As Ms Bradshaw said, we should remember those who, in the course of their duties, fell victim to COVID and gave their lives and did not live to see the recognition of the service to which they had devoted themselves. It is a fitting and very well-deserved tribute. Every member of the NHS can hold their head up high knowing that what they did has national recognition and that the NHS delivered as the national service that it is.”
“The awarding of the George Cross is sparingly used for very good reason. It is the ultimate superlative accolade, and, therefore, down the years, it has been used infrequently. However, given what we have come through, I believe that no one will dispute the eligibility and suitability of our National Health Service for this tremendous accolade. I congratulate the NHS on the receipt of it. Because it has been awarded to the corporate NHS, it applies equally to every member working in the NHS, from the most lofty consultant to the porters and cleaners and all in between, who, collectively, made a monumental contribution to getting us to this point in dealing with the pandemic. All of us should and do, I trust, recognise the debt of gratitude that we owe to them.”
“— over many of the laws made, and that is an abomination.”
“— fundamentally sovereignty from this place and from London to a foreign place with no control. Mr Dickson can cheerlead —”
“Those who are beginning to wake up to the damage and are in retreat from rigorous implementation need to get to the point of recognising that the protocol cannot be salvaged. It cannot be fixed. It is doomed, because it transfers —”
“Our laws governing the economy are now made not in Belfast or London but in a foreign jurisdiction. Yet, those who proclaim themselves to be liberal democrats cheerlead that fundamental transfer of sovereignty. How can Members of the House who say that they want to be democrats approve of a system that moves the law-making powers for such a colossal part of our economy to a foreign jurisdiction and tell us that that is a good thing? No one with any blood of democracy in their veins can embrace such a state of vassalage, and yet that is what the protocol has brought to us.”
“Let me be very clear: this is an issue of sovereignty, not sausages. A mere tinkering with the protocol, the grace periods and all the rest does nothing to affect the obnoxious and pernicious substance of the protocol. Until that is gone, there is no solution. The test of all the tinkering, grace periods and of any changes is whether this supposed part of the United Kingdom is left within a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code and a foreign VAT regime, which are all overseen by foreign laws and adjudicated upon by a foreign court. If any changes still allow that, they have not changed the substance of the protocol. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the real consequence of that is that this so-called legislative Assembly is prohibited by the protocol from legislating on much of what governs our economy.”
“I suppose that it is progress that the rigorous implementers of the protocol are beginning to recognise the serious damage that their protocol is doing to Northern Ireland and to their constituents. They still, however, have that subservient attitude that we should be grateful to our overlords in Brussels because they have deigned to allow us to buy some sausages.”
“The Committee and the House did not want to hear; they do not want to face the public health issues. <BR /> <BR />Yes, they will preen themselves when we come to talk about health issues and tell us how desperately concerned they are about the state of our health service, how our hospitals cannot cope and how they are bulging and breaking at the seams. At the same time, however, they will feed the problem by intensifying the licensing hours to the point where more people become dependent on our health service. It is a matter of regret to me that the House was and remains deaf to all those issues. No doubt it will continue to be so. <BR /> <BR />I put on record my opposition, based on those reasons, to this unnecessary extension of licensing hours and the unnecessary destruction of any deference towards Easter.”
“The Member's colleague made that same point at Consideration Stage, and I give the Member the same answer: the logic of that argument is that you never close the public houses; you just have 24-hour opening, if that is thought to be the sole manner in which to dissipate home drinking. That is the ultimate logic of the argument. I described it as "fatuous", and it remains so. <BR /> <BR />On the other public health issues, Professor Fitzgerald told the Committee about the Norway study, which showed that every extra hour that premises are open increases the need for police attendance for public disorder by 16%. That is a staggering figure, but the Committee and the House were deaf to all of that. They were also deaf to the evidence from the Public Health Agency and of Dr O'Donnell.”
“The two key components in all of this are the affordability of alcohol, which the Bill does not really address and kicks down the road, and the availability of alcohol, which the Bill addresses by making it more available to the point at which, every weekend, if the provider so wishes, premises can have drinking facilities up to 3.00 am.”
“The agency reminded the Committee of the Audit Office report that showed that alcohol abuse costs £900 million per annum, that, at any given time, 200 of our hospital beds are occupied by those afflicted with such addictions and that, in 2018, 284 deaths were directly attributed to alcohol abuse. The Committee and the House were deaf to all of that. They were also deaf to the evidence of Mr Meehan from the Public Health Agency, who said clearly that, if you increase opening hours, you increase access to alcohol.”
“I spoke against key principles of the Bill at Second Stage. At Consideration Stage, I sought unsuccessfully to make amendments. The burden of what I had to say on both occasions was my unease and dissatisfaction, first, with the lack of deference shown in the legislation to the key Christian occasion of Easter, but the House and the Committee were deaf to that. I then presented public health arguments in the House about the adverse impact on health of extended licensing hours and the consequences of that, and the Committee and the House were deaf to that. <BR /> <BR />They were also deaf, of course, to the powerful evidence delivered to the Committee by the Public Health Agency (PHA).”
“I am disappointed by the complacency of the Minister's reply. Capita is a company whose services have been dispensed with in other parts of the United Kingdom because of its failures. It is the object of a devastating ombudsman's report. We heard on public radio this morning a whistle-blower speak about Capita's training and auditing to the effect that it aims to deny as many people as possible access to PIP benefits. Why was Capita chosen? Were there no alternatives? What is the public finance commitment to Capita?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest to the Minister that it is a false economy not to maintain our schools. By way of example, I cite Moorfields Primary School, and I declare an interest as chair of the board of governors. A new school was provided a dozen years ago, yet, because of a failure to address plaster failings and a failure to repaint it, it is now riddled with cracks and growing moss, and it will take a lot of money to repair it at some time in the future. Why are we not keeping the stock that we have at such a level as to protect against excess expenditure in the future?”
“In regard to the estimate of an extra 32% in referrals arising from the pandemic, if that does not include those resulting from lockdown, what is that figure? If it does include that figure, what proportion of that arises from lockdown? Is there any acknowledgement on the part of the Executive that the severity and duration of the lockdown in fact adversely impacted on mental health issues, as it did on cancer services and everything else?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I will make it very plain: I have no apology to make for speaking the truth, and I welcome the fact that the truth still seems to hurt.”
“Suddenly, we are going to enable the Minister to remove that. The second point is that that is particularly inadvisable in what will be a council election year up to 2023, because you could run the risk of an allegation that a council that has something that it would rather the electorate did not hear before the election has been able to pull a fast one by ensuring that certain provisions relating to audit have been set aside until after the election. That is not healthy, and it is not good. I do not think that any Minister would want to operate under any such cloud of suspicion, so why create it in the first place? For those reasons, I say to the House that it should not assent to clause 3 and should take out clause 5(2).”
“Therefore, the thought of the Minister being able to remove those obligations for audit is, to me, an unhealthy and unwelcome step, particularly, as I suggested last week, in some councils where, it seems to some, myself included, that the relationship between the Audit Office's local government representative and the council is, very often, just far too cosy. Therefore, an arrangement whereby, in consultation with the Audit Office, an audit can be passed up and does not need to happen is not somewhere we should be going and certainly not in the haste of accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />The key point about clause 5(2) is the vast scope of what it takes out, which is the entirety of Part 12 — 19 different sections — of the Local Government Act, including the statutory duty to keep improving the provision.”
“I will be mercifully brief on these matters. I am grateful for the support indicated by some for the amendment. I have two points to make in the case for clause 3 not to stand part. First, we granted accelerated passage on the basis that what we were going to do was COVID-related. Patently, clause 3 is not COVID-related and is therefore not a fit candidate to be in a Bill that has been granted the exceptional treatment of accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, an outworking of clause 3 is that it would make it easier to avoid annual audits. In a public body such as a council, annual audits are critical. They are not just some optional add-on. They are a key component that give public confidence to the ratepayers who pay the rates into that council.”
“I want to link back to the plight of travel agents. I well remember the Minister, when he was a member of the Finance Committee, articulating his deep dissatisfaction with the inadequacies of the support for our travel agency sector. Now that he is in a position to do something, will he turn his words into action?”
“Why, among all the New Decade, "Old" Approach commitments, was Irish language legislation thought to be more important that the multiple issues that affect our constituents, to the point where the deputy First Minister was prepared to ensure that there was no progress on any of those unless she got her way with her poisonous agenda? Will she remind me when the public consultation on Irish language legislation took place?”
“This meeting took place in March. There have been 23 sitting days of the Assembly, not including today, since then. Why has it taken three months to make a statement, where there is a statutory obligation to make it as soon as practicable?”
“The statement begins with the declaration that it is made, "In compliance with Section 52". However, section 52C(2) is very explicit in its terms, which suggest to me that the statement is not made in compliance. Section 52C(2) says that the statement shall be made:”
“I want to return to the issue that Mr McCrossan raised. The outcome for Education is devastatingly disappointing. Not a penny for school maintenance. Not a penny for delegated budgets. Those are two of the most crying needs in our community, yet the Department for Communities, a Department that was so over-feted with funding during COVID that it squandered it on golf clubs and others besides, is a key winner again. Even though Communities had a 20% underspend on its ring-fenced resource and large reduced requirements on its non-ring-fenced resource and its capital, it is a winner again, and Education, one of our biggest needs, is a loser, particularly on school maintenance and delegated budgets.”
“Across government, another Department decided to engage it on the most sensitive of issues: victims' pensions. Ms Armstrong makes a gallant effort to distinguish the issues, but there is an indistinguishability about the fact that a company charged with assessing individuals has lamentably failed with PIP. What confidence can we have that it will do otherwise when it comes to victims of the Troubles? Therefore, I am astounded and appalled that the Justice Minister has engaged the same failed entity to oversee that particular operation. Really? Do we learn nothing in this House?”
“I join others in welcoming Stephen Dunne to the Assembly, although the circumstances that bring him here are, of course, those of immense sadness for him and his family. <BR /> <BR />There is no glossing over the findings of this ombudsman's report. They are stark and compelling, and an unflinching and unmitigated indictment of Capita. Clearly, as a company, it is not fit for purpose. Yet, even though probably any MLA could have identified the issues that have now been articulated so fully by the ombudsman's office, our daily experience means that is no great surprise to us to read the findings. <BR /> <BR />Yet, instead of an adverse reaction to Capita when it was pretty clear that it was not fit for purpose, its contract was extended.”