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 34 of 95.
“I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Surely, in budgetary terms, there needs to be a provision. There needs to be an ambit in the Budget to pay it. Why is the Minister not putting that in? How is it to be paid if there is no ambit in the Budget to pay it?”
“Here, we have an accumulation of £50 million, including £40 million on welfare and £7 million on an overspend on the social investment fund, and no immediate legislation.”
“I welcome the fact that there is now a more fulsome explanation of why we are aligned to £50 million of expenditure on the sole authority of the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />The whole idea of Budget arrangements is that legislation provides for spending, and you then hold people accountable. Where you do not have legislation authorising expenditure, there is a provision for sole authority of the Budget Bill, but the guidance says that it should not exceed £1·5 million in any one incident.”
“If it is to be paid, make provision for it in the Bill. Why would that not be done? That seems to be the essential and proper course of action, so I would like to hear from the Minister where we now stand on the provision of the victims' pension. We are assured that it will be paid. However, if it is to be paid, why are we not putting a provision in the Bill to cover it? That would seem the logical and natural thing to do. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to mention the ubiquitous black boxes that have excited me from time to time in these debates. Just before this debate started, at 1.18 pm, we got an email telling us that there was an amendment to the spring Supplementary Estimates to give some further explanation. That is good.”
“Last week, the Minister told us that actuaries had given us the figures, so there is an established liability. The Court of Appeal said that it has to be paid, and legislation authorising it has been passed. A liability is reliably established, so why are we not putting a provision in these documents for the payment? Is the Minister hoping that it may be swallowed up in the headroom and that there will not even have to be an Excess Vote next year as it will all just slip under the radar? <BR /> <BR />The proper way to do this, I respectfully suggest, is for the Minister to amend his Budget Bill to put in such a provision. That would be the correct financial way to proceed: to table an amendment to his Bill to put in a provision for the payment of the pension. The Department keeps telling us that it will be paid.”
“As I understand it, there are international accounting standards, and international accounting standard 37 is quite clear that you need to make a provision once a past event has led to a liability — that is ticked on the victims' issue — once the legislation has been passed to authorise the payments — that is ticked — and once the liability has been reliably estimated.”
“This £1 billion of headroom is an artificial creation and is really about causing Departments to escape from the normal process of accountability through Excess Votes. That is not being accountable to the House. Therefore, I seriously question why we are building in headroom to that extent. <BR /> <BR />The second matter that I want to address is the vexed issue of our provision for victims. At last week's Finance Committee, we had the spectacle of being told that £430 million that was in the provisions was for the victims' pension, before being told later by letter, "No, the officials misspoke", as it was not there. Surely there should be a provision in the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill for the victims' pension.”
“At some point, a choice will be made as to which Departments the surplus of £200 million or £300 million might go. However, to build a headroom of what amounts to £1 billion, which, as I understand it, we do not have, seems to me not to be a manner in which to proceed. It makes something of a mockery of financial legislation. Financial legislation and Budgets should set a limit for each Department to spend against, and each Department must then give account to its resource accounts as to how that money is spent. However, giving each Department this scale of overspend means that next year, when they should be doing Excess Votes for the money that they spent that they did not have, they will not have to do Excess Votes. Therefore, they will not have to apply explanations.”
“I want to address two or three issues of a fairly general nature. First, I am really surprised at the scale of the headroom that has been built in: £1 billion. Surely the starting principle in respect of Budgets is that, at this stage in the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill, you write them to the last monitoring position. As I have always understood it, that is the correct due process so that you do not create a false perception that you have money that you do not actually have. As I understand this £1 billion of headroom, it is not that there is £1 billion unallocated; there is the possibility of money being allocated, but the Minister wants to keep his options open as to which Department it should go, and he therefore builds in a headroom to each and every one of them.”
“I welcome the Minister's move and trust that it was based on a principle of opposition to the protocol and will therefore be carried through with other actions to unstitch the protocol. <BR /> <BR />Has the Minister heard any suggestion from those who demand rigorous implementation how, under the protocol, he can meet his statutory obligations under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to strengthen the smooth operation of the internal market? How can that be done under the protocol? Can he explain to the House what it means to have stalled the charges and what benefit that will bring to business?”
“Can she expand a little on how extensive it is? Since that agency does not have a stand-alone budget, all expenditure eats into the budgets of each constituent part. How far is that an inhibitor of involvement in the cross-border agency?”
“I want to ask the Minister about the role of the National Crime Agency in respect of the cross-border task force.”
“Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council did not give the planning permission; it was the Planning Appeals Commission. That is my point, as it is now patently obvious that the permission should not have been given. The council does not want to get involved, but the Department has extraordinary revocation powers. Why does the Department not exercise them? In what circumstances does it exercise revocation powers?”
“— those other issues that she has not had the time?”
“about the 'South West Scotland Transport Study', which includes improvements to the A75. Has she had those discussions yet or is she so besotted with —”
“The Minister should be better than that. It is quite clear from her first answer that she has expended a great deal of energy on opposing connectivity. I want to ask her specifically about the A75. In an answer to a question for written answer on 15 July, she told Mr Beggs that her:”
“What has the Minister learned from other Administrations? Is that just a platitude, bearing in mind that the group will not meet for another two years?”
“I have heard very few questions or answers arising out of the subject matter of the statement, which is probably a reflection of its lack of substance. However, the statement says:”
“Does the Member not recognise the chilling impact on commerce, and therefore on our economy, of the unnecessary and daunting barriers, in bureaucracy terms and in legislative prohibitions, on trade from GB? The issue is not trade to GB, it is from GB. If you are bringing in goods from GB, there are certain things that you are not allowed to bring in, and there are other things that you can only bring in if you subject yourself to excessive, protracted, expensive burdens. How is that aiding commerce?”
“It is the same template: create an all-island economy, and you will create an all-island nation, so called. Unionists are very alert to that. We know what plan is afoot. We have woken up to what it is about, and that is why we are determined to make all and every lawful effort to usurp —”
“Never mind the fact that he and the SDLP were involved in the process. No, it is only for nationalists and their acolytes to dare to have recourse to British courts. If a unionist takes it upon himself to go to a British court and mention such foundational issues as the Act of Union, there is horror. Lord Justice Muir is outraged. I might well be thrown in the Tower for daring to do such a thing. <BR /> <BR />Let us face the reality. Northern Ireland is an integral part economically and politically of the United Kingdom. If you stymie that and cut off its economic links, you damage Northern Ireland's economy. I know why Sinn Féin wants to do that. It wants to build the all-island economy as a stepping stone to political unity. That is how the EU worked. It got ever-closer union by ever-closer economic union.”
“Not on that basis, because that is a fraudulent basis. I would encourage the company to invest in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to the day when we restore Northern Ireland to being a full and complete part of the United Kingdom. The upcoming judicial review may be able to help do that. Apparently, that irks so many. Lord Justice Muir is outraged that we would dare take legal action on the matter”
“There is no point in saying to a company, "Oh, come and set up in Northern Ireland. You can sell to GB and to the rest of Europe", without telling that company, "You will not get your supplies easily from GB. You will not have the supply chain that you need to run your business, because we, the protocol promoters, are in the business of cutting off that supply chain". That is the hypocrisy of all of that.”
“— namely where it wanted to put it for vaccines. Of course, it is only when it suits the EU that it will go down that road. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: there is no advantage to Northern Ireland in trading with the EU, if, at the same time and as the price of that, our supply chains are fettered from GB.”
“Thank you. The EU showed itself in its true vindictive colours and, of course, usefully indicated where the border should be —”
“I will in one moment. It abandons us in the EU customs union under its customs code. It subjects us to the EU VAT regime and to all the vast area of law that enforces that. It creates a circumstance where we are subject to laws that we did not make and cannot change — a foreign code of law, all subject to the supervision of a foreign court. Then, some Members come here and try to pretend that they really have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart. If they want to talk about unicorns, the unicorn is in the motion and the amendment; that of pretending that there is advantage in still being part of the EU single market. I will give way.”
“Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance, which are variously supporting the motion and its amendment, have much in common. One of the abiding stains on their political records is that each of them has repeatedly in the House demanded the rigorous implementation of the protocol. What does that mean? It means that they embraced with enthusiasm the strongest possible barriers between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland; wanted to fetter, to the greatest possible degree, trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and wanted to cut off, to the greatest possible extent, supply chains from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is what the protocol does. It takes Northern Ireland and abandons it within the EU single market for goods.”
“To get absolute clarity: is the Minister saying that that product — namely, P1, P2 and P3 in and out and then years 12 to 14 in — was what the Education Minister asked for in his paper, or was his proposition doctored in some way to produce that?”
“I am not sure whether the Minister of Justice was not engaged in a bit of a cop-out. I suppose that the regulations might appear in the name of the Minister of Health, but I would have thought that the Justice Minister would have an active part in promoting such regulations if they were thought necessary. We will, no doubt, hear from the Health Minister what his plans are, and I hope that we will hear an assurance from him that, if it proves necessary, he will not resile from it and will take those steps. That is if they are necessary and if this is about protecting us from COVID, politics-free, as it should be.”
“If it becomes an identifiable issue, and there is a threat to our public health because of the low levels of vaccination in the Republic, I trust that the Health Minister will not shy away from bringing in regulations, which would probably come in his name, to introduce restrictions. <BR /> <BR />I notice that when there is a hard job to be done on this front, it tends to be the Health Minister who is sent here. Sometimes I think that advantage is taken of his good nature and his capacity to cope with these things. I say to the House in all seriousness that we really cannot go on as we are.”
“I hope that the fact that the Irish Republic, as an EU country, has fallen way behind on vaccination will not be a reason for some to say, "Oh, Northern Ireland has to wait for it to catch up. We fear people coming in unvaccinated". Sorry, but if Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, has had the great blessing and benefit of being able to get ahead with one of the best vaccination systems in the world, our people must see the advantage of that. If there is a problem from the Irish Republic, the answer lies in restrictions on entry from the Irish Republic. The gardaí have shown that they are willing to restrict people going from North to South. Why are we being so diffident about people going from South to North, if that is a problem?”
“We cannot allow a situation to develop in which the rest of the United Kingdom, most particularly the largest part of it, with almost similar R rates, is moving ahead towards freedom while we are enslaved by regulations that are well past their sell-by date. We really need to get with the programme, and the programme should be reopening the economy and getting us back to as much normality as possible, confident in the knowledge that we have an ever-evolving and increasing scheme of vaccination that must surely be doing the job that we were promised. <BR /> <BR />I hope that we will not be held back on that journey because of the adverse differential with the Irish Republic.”
“We are told, "Take your exercise. Do all those things". I am not a golfer, but I can well understand that those who are cannot comprehend how it is that two, three or four people who are socially distanced cannot walk a golf course and play golf. Citizens can come along and walk the golf course with their dog, however. Where is the logic in that? If the regulations are ever to hold credibility and not begin to fray at the edges, surely they will have to be compellingly sensible. They will have to embrace common sense above all else. There is much work to be done to put things in order. We cannot go on as we are. <BR /> <BR />I hope that what the Prime Minister said yesterday will be a wake-up call for the Executive.”
“I think that it was Mr Poots, and it is good to see him back, who referred to the fact that we hear much concern about people's mental health, and well might we, and about the advantage of the outdoors, yet, despite the fact that it is coming into springtime, the Executive keep our garden centres, where you get the very wherewithal for gardeners to engage in gardening, closed. The Executive say, "No. Bolt those doors. You'll not get in there. You'll not get your plants". Yes, you will get them if you go to a huge multinational supermarket, but you will not get them from the independent operator who depends on the few months from March to July for his survival. You will not get them from him. Why not? Where is the logic in closing our garden centres? <BR /> <BR />Where is the logic in closing our golf courses?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I refer to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations, in which all of what we are discussing is rooted? Without those regulations, which are the overarching current regulations, we would not be having any of this debate. It is those regulations, in their various manifestations, that impose the different restrictions, and I want to address those restrictions, the logic for them and the need, or otherwise, for them. <BR /> <BR />I have dealt with the schools issue.”
“Deputy Speaker, I was taking my cue from everyone else who has spoken in the debate, including some very significant and prominent people, such as a former Minister. I really do not think that I should be picked on, but I will certainly bear that —.”
“I think that it was Mr Givan who quoted that that was supposed to be the united view of the four nations' Chief Medical Officers. However, Dr McBride, on home turf, seems to say something quite different. <BR /> <BR />Forgive me, but I will make this point: the danger of our system of government is that the advice from medical experts gets corrupted by the politics. In a system such as Westminster's, when medical advisers say, "This is what needs to be done", the advice is taken and it is done. However, because of the unworkable system of mandatory coalition here, you end up with some mongrelisation of the proposition. You do a little bit of this and a little bit of that. No one ends up satisfied, and, certainly, the public are not well-served.”
“One of the most disgraceful episodes of the past year has been the playing of politics with our schools. We had what should have been a non-divisive issue turned into a wholly divisive issue about whether or not our schools should be opened or closed. The Republic of Ireland was doing some things, so Sinn Féin required that to be the position etc. Throughout this, the pawns, in many instances, have been our kids. That is not acceptable. That has to end. We need to get our children back into school. <BR /> <BR />Take the situation in England. Professor Whitty says that it is safe. I must say that I am unfamiliar with any evidence that primary schools are rampant breeding grounds for COVID. Professor Whitty says that it is safe and sound and to send them back.”
“A year is a very long time in the life of a seven-year-old child. I see the absence of school in my own grandchildren. No matter how good the homeschooling is, it is not the same. Those kids are losing out. We put P1 to P3 in, but there is no mention of P6. Someone might have thought that, of all the years in primary education, P6 is the most important for many, but it does not even feature. It is after Easter. Where is the hope in this vista of hopelessness for our kids?”
“No doubt the Health Minister, in responding to the debate, will tell us whether that is so. Did the Health Department say, "If you're going to open schools, only P1 to P3 can be in for two weeks. Then, hokey-cokey them out and put in years 12 to 14"? Is that what the Health Department recommended? Is that what the Health Department insisted on, or was that absurd outcome the product of an ugly compromise? Did some not want any schools open but others wanted every school open, and, in the middle, the crazy creation of, "Well, let's put P1 to P3 in and take them out again" emerged? The public are entitled to know. Sometimes, as politicians, we lose a bit of a grip on reality. We have kids — it is most critical in our primary schools — who, effectively, have been out of regular education for the guts of a year.”
“Yes, we have many Ministers of Health in the media, and they are not shy about sharing their expertise. <BR /> <BR />It is a serious question: where is the exit strategy if it is not vaccination? How can it be that, if so many of our vulnerable have, happily, been vaccinated, there is no opening up or obvious preparation for it? Take what we got on schools. Last Thursday, there was the most absurd and illogical outcome imaginable: suddenly, P1 to P3 will go back to school, but, in order to let years 12 to 14 in different schools go into school, you have to take children in P1 to P3 out of primary schools. Where is the logic in that? I suggest that it is so absurd that no one could defend it. We have been told in this debate that that was not what the Education Minister wanted; it was what Health officials wanted.”
“It seems that, every time that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, you can rely on someone such as Dr McBride to order more tunnel. This time, he took us right through to next year. The answer was the R rate, but it turned out not to be. Then, the answer was vaccination, but we are way down the road on that, and it does not really help us. What is the answer?”
“Despite that, we are told that all of the lockdown, essentially, must continue nigh endlessly. <BR /> <BR />I remember, before Christmas — it was probably about October — asking the Minister in the House what his exit strategy was. He put it in one word: vaccination. We are now very well down that road. I compliment the health service and the professionals who have selflessly brought us to the very desirable position of having half a million of our population already vaccinated. That is a remarkable and fantastic achievement. However, even the vaccination of half a million of the most vulnerable does not seem to be bringing the relief that was promised on the back of vaccination: the easing of lockdown.”
“This debate, not for the first time, is irrelevant because of the House's capacity to approve or otherwise largely pass regulations. However, it provides a useful opportunity to take stock of where we are with COVID issues. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the COVID exit strategy. We will all recall that, when this started almost a year ago, it was drummed into us that the key determinant was the R number. Today, when the Minister happily referred to the R number in January and was then asked what the R number is today, there was a lot more foot shifting as to what it actually meant. Suddenly, the R number is no longer the be-all and end-all because the R number is now, on a sustained basis, significantly below 1, which was the magic threshold.”
“Much obliged. The Minister told us at the beginning of his remarks what the R rate was in January, but can he update the House on what the R rate is today? <BR /> <BR />The Minister probably has not noticed because of the position of the seating in the House, but will he join me in welcoming back to the House one of his predecessors, Mr Poots? It is good to see him back to health.”
“Will the Minister explain why it was a one-item agenda? Was that the only business that she sought to have on the agenda, or was that the product of what is presented as a form of political protest? Is the Minister so politically tone-deaf that she does not realise that if east-west relationships are to be trashed as they have been, North/South relationships, given the equilibrium that is supposed to exist, cannot continue as they are?”
“Is that not exactly what the Minister is doing: trying to play off victims against public services in order to up the ante with the Secretary of State? Is there an acceptance that, when one listens to the Court of Appeal, at the end of the day there is no choice other than to find the money wherever it is found? Does it help to exaggerate the demands by saying, for example, that £600 million will come off the Department of Health as if that was in one year, when it is over the entire lifetime of the scheme, which might be 30 years?”
“For all those words, the Minister is unable to say sorry to them, and not for the first time. Are we now in a position in which who gets the pension has been abandoned as a stalling tactic? Has the deputy First Minister come to the realisation that that point is settled and will not be used as a stalling tactic any further?”
“Does the deputy First Minister accept that commerce between Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been impeded by the protocol, the rigorous implementation of which she demands? Why does she want to punish the economy of Northern Ireland? Is the simple truth that dislocation between Northern Ireland and GB is a political gain that she prioritises above the damage to our economy?”
“Which choice does our Economy Minister prefer?”