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 36 of 95.
“If a Minister says to his spad, "Brief the press for me on issue x" and that involves official information, that would not be a criminal offence, nor would briefing his own party in those circumstances.”
“It goes on to provide a reasonable excuse defence, but, before you get to that, in clause 10(1) there are important provisions that make it clear that, if the information is disclosed in pursuit of a statutory obligation — for example, FOI — it is not an offence, or if it is done:”
“Yet, we had evidence of spads misusing official information to the advantage of others. In clause 10, we have the creation of a criminal offence, which is necessary and proportionate. It would make it:”
“That day, if not already over, will be over now and not before time. The Bill requires the making and keeping of records when Ministers or spads are lobbied, and lobbying is precisely defined in that regard. It requires the recording and publishing of ministerial and special adviser declarations of interests, which puts them on a par, essentially, with MLAs, whose declarations of interests are published and available for public inspection. That, too, would put Ministers and spads in that same regard. <BR /> <BR />The Bill creates one, and one only, criminal offence. That arises because it came as a bit of a surprise to me when I enquired of the police, after the RHI report had been published, whether there were any matters subject to criminal investigation to be told that there were not.”
“It reins in royal prerogative powers by dealing with the situation that arose back in 2016, I think, when David Gordon was appointed as a super spin doctor for the Executive and the law was changed behind the Assembly's back by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister by a royal prerogative order to create and fill that post. The Bill does not prohibit the creation of such a post, but it makes any alteration to the legislation in that regard subject to Assembly control. If we are a legislature, the law should not be able to be changed behind our backs. That is pretty fundamental. <BR /> <BR />The Bill creates a statutory duty to make and keep proper records. We recall the jaw-dropping evidence of one spad to the RHI inquiry that, in seven years, he had never seen a note taken of a ministerial decision.”
“It reduces them from eight to six in the Executive Office and would remove from office any surplus. There had been a surplus in respect of a Sinn Féin junior Minister's spad. The Bill takes away the power of junior Ministers to appoint spads. I read in the press, however, that that individual has resigned, and therefore, I think, there are now only six. However, if there should be more than six, three months after Royal Assent, the surplus spads would lose their position. <BR /> <BR />The Bill does something that is important from the standpoint of the House as a legislature.”
“A distinction of some notoriety was made in the RHI inquiry about whether one was "responsible" and "accountable". The Bill would put that beyond doubt. <BR /> <BR />Importantly, the Bill would prevent, again from an experience exposed in the RHI inquiry, the Civil Service facilitating anyone other than the officially appointed spad with the facilities that should be due to a spad. We all recall the evidence from RHI about former abuse in order to circumvent a previous Bill that I brought to the House that prohibited persons with serious criminal convictions from holding the position of spad. The Bill seeks to deal with that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill would reduce the number of spads but, as I will frankly admit, not quite as much as I would have liked.”
“The Bill would rectify that by putting Ministers on the same footing, so that, through their ministerial code of conduct, they too could be investigated by the standards commissioner, and so it should be. It also gives an important protection to MLAs and Ministers against frivolous and groundless complaints. <BR /> <BR />The Bill would cap the salaries of spads. There were some runaway episodes in the payment of spads in the past, so the Bill would intervene to say, "We will set an upper limit", and it is the upper limit of grade 5 in the Civil Service, which is sufficiently generous, I believe. Therefore, that would put that matter to bed, so to speak, in a responsible way. <BR /> <BR />The Bill formally and in statute makes Ministers responsible and accountable for their spads.”
“I have said before that I am not against special advisers — they have an important function — but I am in favour of controlling and setting the framework within which they should responsibly operate. The first thing that I draw the House's attention to is that the Bill would bring spads under the Civil Service disciplinary code as applied to them, given that they are civil servants, albeit temporary, with all the privileges of a civil servant. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, it would bring Ministers within the competence of the standards commissioner. We had a situation where ordinary Members were subject to a Members' code of conduct that could be supervised and arbitrated on and on which findings could be made by the standards commissioner, but Ministers, although they have a ministerial code, could not be brought before any independent body.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the most telling points for me in the pursuit of the Bill was the letter from the Minister of Finance to the Committee back on 27 April arguing that the legislation was not necessary and codes were sufficient. The justification for that was that codes were "amenable to interpretation". Having passed through RHI and seen how codes that insisted on confidentiality and integrity did not hold back those who wanted to defy those things, I do not think that we want something that is "amenable to interpretation". Given that experience, we want something that is binding. That is important. <BR /> <BR />I will turn quickly to the key changes that the Bill would bring in, and the House is sufficiently familiar with them for me to not have to labour the points.”
“My response to that remains that codes most certainly are important and absolutely have their place, but the experience of RHI should have taught us all that they have their limitations and are not the be-all and end-all. We remember that the codes contained prohibitions of some of the issues that caused the public to be most aghast about what happened in RHI in regard to the conduct of some spads and some Ministers. Effectively, we come from a starting point where codes failed with regard to RHI. That causes me and, I trust, the House to conclude that we need something more binding, which is legislation. Codes are just that: they can be changed as easily as they are made, and they have been from time to time. It is the binding effect.”
“It is not, as some have sought to suggest, some Machiavellian conspiracy to undermine the Belfast Agreement or the institutions of the House. The House knows well, without me ventilating it again, my stand in relation to all of those matters. As I have said before to the House, I live in this place. Although I do not approve of the system of government, I want a system of government — whatever it is — to function as effectively as it can. The Bill will assist that process. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is, in my terms, about bettering government. As the debates unfolded in the House, the question resolved itself down to, "Well, do you do that by codes, or do you need to do that by legislation?". That probably was the fundamental dividing point in relation to the need or otherwise for the legislation.”
“The Bill is not the answer to everything, by any means; it never set out to be. Of course, we know that it flowed from the various exposés in the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry. It addresses some of the issues that are pertinent most particularly to Ministers and special advisers, but there is much more from RHI that it is not the function of this Bill to address. There is much relating to the Civil Service that, I am sure, will ultimately manifest itself in some Executive proposals, and there will be other attendant issues. The Bill is fairly narrow in its focus; effectively, it applies to Ministers and special advisers. <BR /> <BR />I have said this before and I say it again: this is not a green or orange issue.”
“Then, of course, I thank the Members of this House. I do that conscious of the fact that I am a single Member of the House and it would be easy for bigger parties to sweep aside what an individual Member thinks is important, but that did not happen. I am grateful for that. It speaks well of the House, as a legislature, that the Bill was given the fair wind that it was. All parties, with the exception of Sinn Féin, approached it with an open mind. There was engagement at different levels. Issues were discussed and resolved until we reached the point at which we have a Bill that is good for the House and can contribute positively to the functioning of government”
“I wish to begin, not merely because it is customary but because it is sincerely meant, by thanking all the professional staff who have contributed to the process of the Bill's getting to this point in the House. I refer, of course, to the Bill Office and, in particular, Claire McCanny, who had the formidable task of keeping me on the rails procedurally and did it very well indeed, the other backup staff in that office and those in Legal Services, who were probably called upon from time to time. I thank the Finance Committee staff who facilitated all that had to happen there and did a lot of the work pertaining to the Committee's report.”
“— instead be faced with active political activity.”
“Before people get too sanctimonious, let me say to the House that the border between the EU and the United Kingdom is in the Irish Sea because of threats of violence if it had been put in the place where it should be. It was the implicit — nay, sometimes explicit — threats that violence would return to the island of Ireland if ever there were a border, such as it even would be, on the island of Ireland because of Brexit. Let people remember that some were happy to ride in the shadow of that threat to force the border to the Irish Sea. <BR /> <BR />As for Sinn Féin, I will take no lectures from a party that, to this very day, justifies the most heinous violence of the IRA's terrorist campaign. Let us be clear: violence can only sully a just cause. Violence, or the threat of violence, has no contribution to make, and —”
“That is a lesson in itself. It is political action that is seen to be effective and determined that is the best antidote to threats of this nature.”
“I join in the best wishes to Edwin Poots at this difficult time for him and his family. <BR /> <BR />Violence is wrong and always was wrong; threats of violence are wrong and continue to be wrong. I have been very clear that, even though this is an iniquitous, damaging, hateful protocol that is unstitching the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it needs to and must be fought politically. It is the failure of effective political action that opens the door to have other miscreants with wrongful motives fill a resulting vacuum. <BR /> <BR />Last night, DAERA withdrew staff from the ports. If it had done that, not in face of threats, but as a bold political move, saying, "We're not going to enforce the partition of the United Kingdom", there would have been less scope for anyone to issue threats and make trouble to staff.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take cognisance of your direction. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will be aware that this touches on a matter that is very close to the heart of the still-grieving parents of Claire Roberts, who will be listening and watching. Does the Department fully accept the findings of the O'Hara inquiry into hyponatraemia, which includes a finding that Professor Ian Young, who reviewed the case of Claire Roberts, identified failings in Claire's fluid management but failed to inform the family and the coroner of that fact? Instead, he provided misleading information that was intended to protect the hospital and the doctors. With that finding, how is it tenable for that person to continue to hold a key public-facing role as the voice of the Department on matters of great public health importance?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I make it absolutely clear: I am referring to the political tightening of the noose that the protocol on medicines delivers to us within 12 months through the EU regime. It is nothing to do with the other issue, which I utterly deplore.”
“— to whom the Union matters most will set about that through actions as well as words.”
“— this is it. There is an urgency now to unstitch it, and I trust that anyone —”
“So, if ever there was a wake-up call to recognise the malevolent and iniquitous intent of the protocol —”
“The third takeaway for me is that it does not take very much, obviously, to cause article 16 to be invoked. <BR /> <BR />So, what is keeping you, Prime Minister Boris Johnson? A far more serious situation pertains than pertained to allegedly justify the EU action. The far more serious situation is that our trade has been strangled, our east-west relationships have been emasculated and our consumers are being starved of necessary supplies. That is a matter of laughter for the Alliance Party, but it is not a matter of laughter for those who suffer the belligerence of the EU through its protocol. <BR /> <BR />It will get worse, because, by this time next year, under this very protocol, when the noose tightens, our medicines will be under the control of Brussels. That is what the protocol says.”
“First, the callous self-interest of the EU: it cares nothing for the people of Northern Ireland, even in circumstances where we might need vaccines to save lives. That does not matter. The second takeaway point is that, after all, it turns out that an Irish land border is possible, if and when it suits the EU, no problem. That would have been the manifestation of the decision: a land border would have kept the vaccines out.”
“Anyone who thought that the EU was a benevolent organisation with Northern Ireland's best interests at heart and that the protocol was a manifestation of that had a wake-up call on Friday night, including those in this House who have demanded the rigorous implementation of the protocol. Over a few hours on Friday evening, we saw the true heart of the organisation to which many in this House are slavish devotees. To think of it: that the EU thought it appropriate that it would cut off exports of live-saving vaccines to the people of Northern Ireland. That was the proposal, and that was a telling insight into just what the protocol is all about and what type of organisation we are dealing with in the EU. <BR /> <BR />For me, there are three points to take away from this episode.”
“I have been told of cases in which there is one key-worker parent and a non-working parent at home and the kids are in school. Is that what it is meant to be like?”
“I must tell the Minister that I know of a number of schools in my constituency in which the attendance level is much higher than 8%, 9% or 10%. I can think of one school, where, I am told, the attendance level is in excess of 25%. Such a situation is unfair to the pupils who have to be taught at home and to the teachers who have to juggle teaching at home and in the classroom. It also defeats the purpose, if there ever was a public health reason, of closing our schools if there is a quantum of up to 25% of pupils in school. <BR /> <BR />Given that there has been that extensive increase since the previous lockdown, would it not be more prudent to have the key-worker criteria as two parents, if there are two parents in the house, rather than one?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the House spent some hours debating the COVID situation, and there was cross-party exhortation to the public to obey each and every public health regulation. Yesterday also, we had another republican funeral at which those regulations were flagrantly breached, yet we have a party of government in the House that today is refusing to say whether any of its public representatives were present and, indeed, is refusing to condemn the situation. How can the House hope to command public support and confidence in our regulations if a party of government continues in that equivocal attitude in respect of such a matter?”
“I say to the Executive that there has to be a readdressing of the disparity in the matter, which is becoming acute not just in its level of annoyance but in its level of damage to the possibility of those businesses surviving. I trust that the junior Ministers have been listening and that, the next time we debate the regulations, we will not have the same catalogue of complaints about the prejudice against small business. If the debate serves any purpose, I trust that that is the purpose that it will serve.”
“Take another business: this one, I see, is from — she is not here — Ms Hunter's constituency of East Londonderry. The owner of this well-established business tells how every lockdown has had a massive impact on local business, while the big multinationals appear to be able to trade without any impact on their business and are benefiting from local business being shut down. He added that he had to go into Asda last week for groceries and was completely shocked by the number of people in some aisles in the store not buying groceries but buying other stock. He also made the point that someone else made that, in fact, small local businesses have a better opportunity to control their customer input properly.”
“I agree absolutely. If nothing is heard out of this debate but the pleas on behalf of small local business, I hope that those at least will be heard. It is imperative that, either through proper enforcement or ironing out the wrinkles — let us be kind — of the regulations, there is not that disparity. Until that is done, you are going to build a huge pond of resentment. I am getting correspondence all the time. Here is one from the owner of a garden centre, who, to help himself over the winter months, sells a few bags of coal. He had to close the garden centre and cannot sell the coal, because it is a minority interest, but the hardware store that can sell coal can also sell the things that he normally sells — garden benches and all of that.”
“The Member is absolutely right. I think of the main town in my constituency: Ballymena. We have a Range store. The Range sells a vast range of, essentially, household goods. It sells some essentials such as toiletries etc, but the predominant sales are in its household goods. The Range is open, but Wyse Byse, a local business, which also sells some toiletries but which predominately sells household goods, is closed. Why is that? Why are those who, prima facie, seem to be breaching the rules not enforced against? Does that simply mean that others should equally disavow the rules, because that is the open invitation?”
“The point that some have made in the debate is that large supermarkets can open, but small retailers that do not predominately sell essential goods are closed. So the draper who sells predominantly clothing is closed, but you can walk into Marks and Spencer and kit yourself out in its vast range of clothing. That is what really irks so many small businesses on our high street.”
“The other dimension of public disquiet, from what I hear from my constituents, arises in the disparate treatment of businesses.”
“I will not labour the point, but I will say again that, if, under devolution, we had looked after our hospitals instead of taking out 2,000 beds since 2007 and all the attendant staff that go with them, we would be in a much better position to cope. I understand that, but, when the R number is falling, surely the admissions are projected to fall and, happily, the deaths, yet we are projecting extension. Why is that? What about all the talk that we had before Christmas from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister about how we had to learn to live with the virus? That is the sort of flip-flopping on the message that I refer to, never mind even going to issues such as the catastrophic impact on messaging of the Storey funeral. <BR /> <BR />Those are some of the problems that the Executive have had.”
“Yes, I understand the delay in working through the system of rising numbers of infections, hospital admissions and deaths with a falling R number, but, if there is, as there seems to be, that conjoinder between a rising R number and rising numbers of cases and a falling R number and falling numbers of cases, surely, as we go forward with a falling R number, we should anticipate a fall in the demand for hospital admissions. We know that there has been a fall, thankfully, in the number of positive COVID tests. The lag for that works both ways. The lag is now, hopefully, working in the opposite direction. However, the lockdown is not. We have just been told that the lockdown is reaching into March. It is issues like that that add to the public's scepticism. <BR /> <BR />I understand that our hospitals have to be able to cope.”
“That leaves a public who are not just increasingly frustrated but increasingly questioning whether some of those in charge know what they are doing. <BR /> <BR />The issue that brings that to the fore is what the public were told was the key determinant. For months, the public were told, "It is the R number, stupid. If we can get the R number below 1, we can ease things". Now the public are being told, "The R number is below 1, but we will extend the lockdown from February to March". Where did the benchmarking to the R number go? The public are entitled to ask and to have that question answered. Does the R number not matter any more?”
“I join others in saluting the dedication of so many across that service for answering beyond the call of duty. <BR /> <BR />Although I acknowledge that it is difficult to deal with a pandemic from a government perspective, this Government, through the Executive, have had a number of steps and missteps that have compounded those difficulties. One of those is the flip-flops in the announcements. Miss Woods articulated some of them. In November, we were told that it would be two weeks and that would do it. Then, at Christmas, we were told that it would be five days, but, no, it was then one day. Then we were told that the current lockdown would last until 6 February, but now it will last until 5 March.”
“I do not think for one moment that there is anything but extreme difficulty for any Government dealing with the pandemic, and it is the same for the Stormont Government as it is for anywhere else. However, those difficulties are nothing compared with the difficulties that our health service has had to cope with.”
“I endorse what the Member said. Does the Member think that it would have helped to underscore the public message that he has just been articulating if the previous Member to speak, Ms Anderson, who referred to the same death, had gone on to condemn the breaching of the regulation at the funeral of the individual? Would that not be of more assistance than simply lauding the individual who had a past that involved him in terrorism?”
“The Member makes a valid point, but is it not a point that has been made for months in the House, from the first manifestations of the regulations? Again and again, in successive lockdowns, however, we have the same flagrant flaw, whereby supermarkets can do what they like and independent retailers are driven off the streets. Why have the Executive not closed those loopholes? That is the question that needs to be answered in the House.”
“— deputy First Minister cared anything for business, she would be concerned about that.”
“Having demanded and voted for the rigorous implementation of the protocol and, indeed, told us today that the Executive want the rigorous implementation of the protocol, it is pretty clear to me that the deputy First Minister cares little for the resulting damage to our businesses and consumers. What does she say to people like Beth Lunney and Robin Mercer, who are trying to run garden centres and have been told by their GB suppliers that they cannot bring in roses or azaleas because there might be soil on or in the pots, because the protocol ludicrously imposes an EU ban on the importing of soil? Surely, if the —”
“So, for all the whining about Her Majesty's Treasury, it turns out that there is loads of money, with £400 million unspent. I have been in the House for a number of years, and this is the first time in a monitoring round that I have ever heard of all Departments having all their bids fully met. What a blessing to be in the United Kingdom. Where does the incompetence lie for the failure to get that money out? The Minister cannot blame London; London has given it to him. The failure is in Stormont. Where is the incompetence?”
“Minister, a number of former prison officers who were injured and otherwise suffered in the terrorist campaign expect to be beneficiaries of the victims' pension. Have you any news for them? Will you comment on the fact that, at last Wednesday's Finance Committee meeting, an Executive Office official told us that the cost of the pension for next year, if it were in payment, would be £21·6 million, which is a long way shy of the exaggerated figures that some have been putting around?”
“Surely, in the pecking order, it is not that legislation should not cut across codes, it is that codes that are lesser in their status should not cut across legislation.”
“I disagree with the Minister. Clause 6 is about departmental meetings, and clause 7 is about meeting third parties, so the obligation under clause 6 to make and keep a note does not extend in its purview to clause 7. Clause 7 is about something else: it is about meeting third parties on official business. Clause 7 is not crafted with regard to protecting political discussions. That does not appear in it. It covers all discussions with Ministers from anywhere else. That is its flaw. Furthermore, there are no notes.”
“Once again, it has been a session where there were positive contributions from most Members. The beneficiaries of that are the House and its standing.”