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 33 of 95.
“As legislators, when we come to debate this issue of all issues, an obvious but important starting point when we discuss our right to decide who should and who should not be aborted is to remind ourselves that we are all here because we were not aborted. No one chose to abort any of us. That is a sobering starting point, particularly for those who are so willing to defend and support abortion. They would do unto others what was not done to them. <BR /> <BR />Of course when we talk about abortion, we are talking about the deliberate, calculated act of snuffing out human life. There is nothing accidental about it. Yes, in pregnancies, sadly, miscarriages occur, stillbirths occur, but abortion is so different. It is the deliberate killing of the babe in the womb. However you dress it up, that is what it is.”
“I congratulate the Department on the exemplary roll-out of vaccinations. We have heard much talk during COVID about the need for cross-border collaboration. Therefore, how and when did the Minister know that it turned out that the Republic of Ireland had issues with this vaccine?”
“Now that the Lord Chief Justice has directed that the Department of Finance should be a party to the ongoing legal proceedings, there really is shrinking ground on which to avoid the issue. Last week in the House, the First Minister gave a guarantee that the money will be paid, when due, to qualifying victims. Will the Minister give the same guarantee?”
“Can the Member tell us where in the regulations there is a compulsion to commission services?”
“I would like clarification of an earlier answer about the first scheme and the £50,000. That is rates-based per premises, but the Minister seems to be saying that an independent retailer who has multiple premises or more than one, for example, will get only the one £50,000. That group has already been discriminated against in previous grants. Is he really saying that, on a rates-based qualification, you will just pick and choose between which premises will qualify because a particular business might have more than one premises? Surely, that is grossly unfair. Does the same apply to the third scheme? In the third scheme, how are there 17,500 businesses? Have we really had 17,500 businesses permitted to continue to trade?”
“If it does not, that is when the need to set an interim discount rate arises. I would rather see the matter come to a head before the summer and be resolved. If that cannot be done, there will be a bounding duty on the Minister and the Department to strike an interim discount rate, because we cannot go on as we are. The cases are piling up, and there are real people in real need who need to get their money, so I encourage the House to proceed as expeditiously as possible.”
“It is therefore not always the case that we need to be concerned about whether there is a knock-on effect on departmental expenditure. Yes, there will be an effect, but, by failing to do anything and leaving it too low, there will also be a knock-on effect on the taxpayer, as the benefit payer. It is a question of getting that right. <BR /> <BR />There is no such thing as perfection. It is something of a crystal-ball exercise, in that it is based on projecting returns on investments etc, but the people to do that are the actuaries, who have the expertise in the area. If things get badly out of kilter again with capacity within the five-year cycles, the Minister can intervene and say, "Give us a fresh look at that". <BR /> <BR />I hope that the legislation will move forward expeditiously.”
“There could be circumstances in which, for example, the Department of Health is being sued, and it is the most likely Department to be sued in serious and large cases, so, likewise, Departments cannot be allowed to exercise a vested interest in the quantum of settlements. <BR /> <BR />As I said during an intervention, it is not just about whether there will be a cost to the public purse. It is about under-settlements — figures that fall short — and that will mean that, instead of a pot of money lasting for 40 or 50 years for the claimant, it will run out after 30 years because it was too low. To where does that debt then fall? It moves on to the state, and that person will be kept and maintained through benefits.”
“Objectively, it is far better to have an actuary setting the rate, thereby allowing the situation to move forward in a way that is seen to be independent, which is vital. The Bill is correct in taking that view. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there will be lobbying on this. Insurance companies do not want an equalisation up in the discount rate, because it means that every settlement will cost them more and, in some cases, quite a lot more. Some settlements could move. Even a middle-range settlement here will probably be at the £6 million, £7 million, £8 million or £10 million rate. You could be talking about the difference between a £7 million rate and £10 million rate, so of course insurance companies will try to resist this as best they can, but that cannot be allowed to happen. It is the same for Departments.”
“They are in dire situations that none of us would ever want to be in. The least that we can do is to alleviate that as best we can. I urge the Minister and the Committee to apply all possible expedition to this. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is on the right tracks when it goes for the Scottish option. I am a little less persuaded about the switch from 30 to 43 years. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it is something that an eye can be kept on. The critical thing about the Bill, for me, is that it quite properly takes it from within to without the political ambit. It removes the ministerial setting of rates and allows an actuary to set them, and that has to be right. We will invite unnecessary pressures and difficulties if we maintain a situation in which it falls to a Minister to do something that will be pressurised from both sides.”
“Quite rightly, people are not willing to settle them for less than what they would properly need and anticipate. Therefore, it is imperative that we bring this matter up to date, get it sorted and allow the resumption of the normal process of case settlement and delivery for people in those situations. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that something is now being done. I wish that it had been done sooner. In that context, I am a little disconcerted by the various, almost contradictory, approaches in this debate. Everyone has said, "We need to get it done", and, at the same time, they have said, "But we must not rush it". I am not advocating that we rush it in the sense that we do not do it properly, but it is important that we get it done as expeditiously as possible. Real people are waiting for this.”
“In my time, I was involved in a number of such cases, and it is never an easy science. Indeed, it is probably not a science at all to arrive at the proper range for compensation. If you then beset that with the fact that the compensation figure is based on a fallacy, namely an out-of-date discount figure, you are inevitably faced with an outcome that is not just. It can sometimes be quite an unjust outcome. As the discount figure has been out of kilter, for over a decade, with what is necessary in accordance with current investment levels, if you settle a case at the present time, you are selling yourself substantially short. I understand from talking to legal colleagues that, in consequence, there is a considerable backlog of cases awaiting settlement.”
“We are dealing with people who will never work again; people who are severely disabled with a lot of mobility problems. They may be a relatively young person who was riding a motorbike when a car came out in front of them, and they were left with utterly life-changing injuries. They may be aged 18, 20 or 25, and the compensation has to last them for rest of their life. Often, the compensation has to provide for their carers. When a person suffers injuries like that, it is not just about compensating the person but about providing for them, throughout their life, in their family setting, which may change over the years. There has to be adequate provision for the them. <BR /> <BR />It is a very difficult type of case for which to arrive at the right figure in the best of times.”
“I welcome the introduction of the Bill. My only regret is that it has taken so long to bring matters into better shape for applicants: one could probably go back to at least 2010, when the rates of compensation got out of kilter under the rules that were being applied. In GB, it took until 2017 to rectify that, and it is taking us until 2021. One of the consequences, of course, is that, in the meantime, a backlog has built up of cases, which, consciously and deliberately, have not settled, because, if they settled on the basis of the existing discount, the plaintiffs would be settling way under the rate that they should be getting, and, therefore, their money would not last. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we all recognise that we are dealing with the most serious of serious injury cases.”
“Whereas our feudal overlords in Brussels, who are imposing their laws on our economy and our people without consent, may think it befitting of our state of vassalage that they should impose themselves through a permanent presence as governors general in Belfast, will the Minister assure me that she is in the business of expelling, not facilitating, the protocol?”
“I have been listening carefully to the debate, and I have heard many Members mention the risk of overcompensation and the resulting burden on Departments. I have yet to hear anyone mention the other side of that coin: under-compensation. Money running out creates a burden on the state through benefits. Therefore, it is not a one-sided process, and it is important to get it right not only because that is the necessary thing to do but because we need to protect the taxpayer from future underfunded cases by which insurance companies get off lightly.”
“Will the First Minister reconcile that conditional statement with the assurance today that no one will go short and the money will be paid once it is due?”
“The Court of Appeal was emphatic that the legal duty was on the Executive Office to fund the scheme. On Friday, in the court, according to press reports, counsel representing the First Minister and deputy First Minister said:”
“Given that, under the protocol, huge swathes of the law, as it effects our economy, will now be made by a foreign power, with obvious detriment to local political and equality rights, would the First Minister expect those who go by the name of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission to show an interest in and to report on such matters?”
“I therefore express disappointment that the amendments that I tabled to bring into the Budget Bill provision for some grants in respect of the Northern Ireland centenary, which, amazingly, is totally absent from the Bill, are not to be debated. Did they offend Standing Order 38?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we approach Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill, can you confirm that a budget Bill is no different from any other Bill in that it is subject to amendment? Pursuant to Standing Order 38, a Bill can be amended, provided that the amendment is:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In case you are about to vacate the Chair, I should raise this matter while you are in the Chair. Perhaps you are not vacating the Chair. Mr Speaker, will you convey to the Assembly Commission, which you chair, the very great hurt and anxiety caused to innocent victims by its callous refusal, because of the Sinn Féin veto, to allow the illumination of Parliament Buildings on Thursday night, when we have an international day that marks the sufferings of innocent victims of terrorism? Can you please convey that to the Commission?”
“It does not take Ms Bradshaw to table a motion to cause it to have its say, so it really is grandstanding of a particular nature on this occasion. When you add to that the invocation of the very notion of human rights in the context of bringing death to human beings, it is quite, quite out of place.”
“It is an irony that is added to by the very bringing of this motion in circumstances in which it makes no difference. A motion under Standing Order 34 will not stop the Second Stage debate on the Bill. It will not, if the House approves the Second Stage, cause the Bill to be stopped from proceeding to Committee Stage. It will not bring into play views that otherwise would not be heard, because every Bill that comes to the House, particularly one of this nature, as of right and of necessity, will go to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for its views as a consultee. <BR /> <BR />Here we have a motion demanding that something that will inevitably have to happen anyway be done. It really is such empty grandstanding to bring such a motion to the House. The Human Rights Commission will be consulted. It will have its say.”
“There is such a compelling irony in someone rising in the House to invoke the cause of human rights in order to protect the bringing of death to the womb. The unborn should be in the safest possible place when they are in the womb, yet abortion, of course, makes it the most dangerous place for some. Then, to suggest that, somehow, one should invoke the issue of human rights in order to protect the bringing of death to the womb is not just absurd but an irony beyond description.”
“Our laws are made not here or in London but in Brussels, yet those who sit here cheer that on. Shame on them.”
“That constitutional change denies the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, any say over all those laws that govern our daily lives. If people are democrats at all, they should be up in arms about the denial of human and political rights involved in the fact that we are now governed by foreigners.”
“It is the fact that Northern Ireland has been abandoned to a foreign customs union code, a foreign single market for goods and a foreign VAT regime, all overseen by foreign laws and administered, ultimately, by a foreign court. That is a transfer of sovereignty. I am staggered that, in this House, those who proclaim themselves to be democrats — Sinn Féin, Alliance, SDLP and the Greens — are totally complacent with the fact that almost two thirds of the laws that govern our economy are now made not in Belfast or London but in Brussels. We make no contribution to these laws, we have no say in them, and we do not pass them. Yet those who call themselves democrats are silent. That is the essence and the nub of the obscenity of the protocol.”
“Grace periods are designed to ameliorate some of the harsher edges of the protocol for some time. However, when even those grace periods provoke the fury of Sinn Féin and other protocol parties, it is abundantly clear to many in our community that those parties care nothing about the people or businesses of Northern Ireland. They demand not only the rigorous implementation of the protocol but more rigorous pain for the people of Northern Ireland, more rigorous pain for our consumers and the more rigorous destruction of our businesses. That tells us a great deal about the protocol parties and about where their sympathies and priorities lie. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: derogations, easements and grace periods may, in their own place, contribute something, but they do nothing to address the core issue, which is a constitutional one.”
“I wish to join the tributes to Jimmy Spratt. He clearly had a very enviable full life of service, and, as has been commented, some of that was in the police during the darkest of times, and anyone who does that is deserving of the gratitude of us all. When it came to his final months and years of life, he showed great stoicism and courage in the manner in which he fought the dreadful disease of cancer. His conduct in that fight was exemplary. Now that he has passed, though his colleagues in the House will miss him, he will be missed most by his family: his wife, sons and extended family. I wish to extend my sincere condolences to his family and to his political party, where he was held in high regard and will be deeply missed. Above all, it is his family who will miss him, and I join in the condolences and expressions of sympathy to them.”
“It is a telling commentary that not once is any scope made for celebrating the centenary, be it through community grants to community organisations that might wish to do that or be it through grants to schools or youth organisations that might want to do that. There is not a single ambit, express and explicit, for that purpose. That is a shameful commentary on this Budget, and it needs to be rectified.”
“I do not think that it is, but that seems to be what has been going on in this budgetary round. <BR /> <BR />This is my final point. We are into 2021, and the Budget, in schedules 3 and 4, goes into the expenditure in 2021-22, yet there is not one line — not one ambit — in the Budget that touches upon the centenary of Northern Ireland. This is Northern Ireland's centenary year, yet, within all these ambits, there is not a single one that creates an explicit spending head for the centenary. That is a shame and a disgrace on the part of an Executive who are the Government of Northern Ireland, which celebrates its 100th year.”
“or is that only for the administration? That is an answer that I would certainly like to hear. Is that an ambit that covers the actual payment of the pension, or does it only cover the administration of the pension? The House is entitled to hear that on the record from the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, I raised the issue of the £1 billion headroom. In his reply, the Minister did not deal with that issue at all, so I will repeat it. Are we actually providing £1 billion of headroom in respect of money that we do not have, on the basis that we give each and every Department an abundance of headroom and they will spend the money somewhere — such money as we have left over from COVID? Is that actually what is happening, and is it good practice and appropriate to build in headroom for money that you do not have?”
“Is that ambit sufficient in that regard when it talks about:”
“Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Executive Office's ambit is sufficient to cover the payment of the disablement pension long promised to victims?”
“Some would even say, even though they know that the sums can never add up, "In fact, we need fiscal powers". They should be careful what they wish for. If you ask for fiscal powers, you might be told to raise the £30 billion that you spend. Where would you find that from a working population of 700,000 or 800,000? You would know all about poverty and high taxation then. <BR /> <BR />I want to seek absolute clarity from the Minister on two other things. I go back to the issue of the payment scheme for innocent victims of the Troubles. I want the Minister to be clear with the House. Outlining the ambit of the Executive Office, schedule 3 to the Bill says:”
“We discover that the AME spend is up by £660 million in one year. <BR /> <BR />We arrive at a gross resource in capital spend of approximately £30 billion a year: a phenomenal amount, and a reminder of the benefits of being in the United Kingdom. Of course, this year, we had the very telling reminder of the benefit of being under a free National Health Service during the awful COVID proceedings. It is, I think, both sobering and necessary to reflect on the sheer scale of budgetary amounts that the Assembly is blessed to have. <BR /> <BR />For some, that is just something to ignore, but that is the reality. Approaching £30 billion of spend in Northern Ireland is not to be sniffed at, though some would toss it aside and say, "We need more".”
“Earlier in the debate, I heard the Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim lamenting about the situation pertaining to agriculture spend post Brexit. I recall many in the House telling us that, when we lost what they misnamed EU funding — more properly, the British funding directed through the EU — it would be the end of agriculture. Yet, if we compare DAERA's DEL spend in this year's spring Supplementary Estimates with last year's, we discover an increase of £350 million, primarily in food and farming spend. So, far from the doom and gloom that we were almost promised by some, that is the reality. <BR /> <BR />We go to the Department for Communities. The Minister of Finance does not often talk about the AME spend in Communities. That is the benefit spend, and it is taken as a given, but it is all taxpayers' money.”
“Therefore, when we hear the repeated mantra of severe detriment and loss, we need to take heed of what the actual figures tell us.”
“Of course, a substantial portion of that will be the £3·3 billion of extra COVID money that we got, not all of which we could spend, which indicates the extent of that commitment to Northern Ireland. However, it is increasingly untenable for people to talk about a standstill Budget when this Budget has a rise from the Consolidated Fund of almost £5 billion in just a year. <BR /> <BR />Go to clause 2, and you will read the figure for the use of resources. This year, it is £25·124 billion. Last year — a mere 12 months ago — it was £21 billion. That is an increase of £4 billion.”
“Having listened ad nauseam to complaints about standstill Budgets, I thought that it might be a useful and informative exercise to compare the figures in the Budget that we are debating tonight with the figures in the parallel Budget from this time last year. When you do that, it is, indeed, rather informative. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the sum of money that is to issue out of the Consolidated Fund this year. The sum is set out as £22,220,000,000. When you go to last year's Budget, you discover that the figure was £17,500,000,000. In the short space of one year, we have seen a significant increase in the Consolidated Fund drawdown from £17·5 billion to £22·25 billion — almost £5 billion.”
“While other regions have been given hope and dates, we have been given a cliché-ridden algorithm for dither. It is not much of a satnav if it does not tell you the route or when you expect to get there. <BR /> <BR />High-sounding clichés about being data-driven are really about providing opportunities to cover Executive indecision and disagreement, but they do nothing to answer ordinary people's questions. When can we get our kids permanently back into school without that being on some hokey-cokey basis? When can we get our businesses open? When can we get our kids back to playing sport? When can families engage in recreation and use their caravans again? Those are the questions that people want to be answered. All we have today is, "Maybe". It is not good enough.”
“Does the Member also agree that that is because of a lack of joined-up government? If you take the small village of Armoy in our constituency as an example, you see that the Housing Executive and planning have approved a modest number of new social housing units, yet they cannot be built because the infrastructure is not there. Is there not a need for a joined-up overview of development that links to infrastructural needs across the Province?”
“The Member says, "Rhetoric is cheap". Indeed it is. Let us have some action.”
“The Member must surely appreciate the urgency of this matter, given that we are just over a week away from the event. The Commission has had this request for months. Surely it would be compassionate to those who represent innocent victims to give a positive response to that request at this stage.”
“Yes, and we are discussing in that, therefore, the work of the Commission. It is important that that is borne in mind. <BR /> <BR />The Commission brought a Bill to the House some time ago, but we have heard nothing about the Second Reading of that Bill. When is that coming to the House? We are entitled to know.”
“I call on the Commission, given its disgraceful conduct last year, to at least not compound it, but show some respect to a most deserving cohort of people: innocent victims of terrorism.”
“We also see it when it comes to the question of the illumination of the Building. Next Thursday is the annual international day of remembrance of the innocent victims of terrorism. One of the victims' groups — the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) — and I have, again, made a request for the illumination of this Building on 11 March to mark that significant day. Last year, the Commission snubbed innocent victims; it refused illumination. This year, it is dragging its feet; it has not even, almost within a week of the occasion, issued a decision. That is wholly shameful and disrespectful. It is another illustration of the abuse of veto in the Commission.”
“There are on those on the Commission who talk loudly about respect, but, when it comes to those who wish to celebrate the centenary, seeking some respect, they get from that party, namely Sinn Féin, the exercising of a veto in order to deliver disrespect. That is quite shameful. We are almost at the end of the first quarter of this year of centenary, yet have we heard a squeak from the Commission about celebrating the centenary? No. Rather, we have had foot-dragging on propositions and a determination, it would seem, by some to make sure that it is disrespect rather than respect that attends the centenary. That is a measure of some on the Commission and of the folly of the arrangement of what they call consensus but which, when it comes to the conduct of these things, really means veto.”
“As MLAs, we should always be mindful of the very privileged position in which the Assembly Commission operates. Uniquely within these institutions, it has that most favoured of positions, in that the money that it asks for, the Department must provide. That therefore intensifies the need to ensure that there is neither squander nor abuse of that money. <BR /> <BR />The upcoming Commission budget coincides, of course, with the year of the centenary of Northern Ireland. Given the status of the Commission as the oversight body for how this place functions and presents itself, it is therefore a matter of grave disappointment to me that there is not a single line in the budget that is specific to celebrating that centenary. That is very remiss.”