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 42 of 95.
“It is the same mentality that then has to inform us when we ask whether codes are enough. The party that said that we never needed codes then set about breaching the provisions of the statute, yet they are the people who are called as character witnesses to say, "You don't need legislation; you just need codes". That is confirmation of why you need to give codes the bite of legislation. I urge that view again on the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, one of the most compelling reasons why it is seeking to avoid that is something that Minister Murphy talked very little about: clause 1(6). Why is clause 1(6) there? It is there because, with calculation and deliberation, Sinn Féin set about deliberately circumventing the law of the land by appointing a super spad to oversee everyone else, knowing, conscious and boasting of the fact that it breached that particular provision as it did not regard itself as being bound by it. As Mr Ó Muilleoir put it, Sinn Féin was not going to be told by Jim Allister what it could or could not do. Sorry, it was not Jim Allister. It was the Northern Ireland Assembly that said what it could and could not do the moment that it passed the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013.”
“It is not just that some jumped-up MLA, who is a Back-Bencher and should know his place, thinks that he knows better than the Executive and dares to bring to a legislative Assembly a proposal for legislation. It is that some of the most seasoned commentators on our political process seem to hold the same view. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, it comes down to the defining issue of whether we are prepared to place our trust on the broken reeds of codes or whether we are going to give them the bite of legislation. I remind the House again that the party that says that we do not need anything but codes is the party that said that we do not even need codes. In 2013, it was the party that voted against the very introduction of codes. Here it is again, fighting that same rearguard action to avoid oversight and restraint.”
“She went on to make some complimentary comments about the Bill's sponsor, but modesty forbids me from reading those out. She then said:”
“The 'News Letter' editorial goes on to state that giving the codes true bite is required and that they should be complemented by legislation. Suzanne Breen, another notable commentator, had this to say:”
“started with a very compelling sentence, which I think the House would do well to live by. That was:”
“All of that revolves around a point that I made in my first speech today, and that point is whether we individually and collectively think that codes that have failed lamentably in the past are a suitable vehicle to exclusively deal with the issues or whether we think that they need the bite of legislation. I was interested to note that some of our foremost commentators had a pretty poor view of dealing with the matter by codes only. Writing in 'The Irish News' at the time that the codes were published, John Manley was quite clear that the codes were disappointing and were not enough. I also noticed that the 'News Letter' editorial headed:”
“It is a pretty churlish and poor start to imply that, really, we should leave all of this to the Executive and not busy ourselves in these matters. It is not clear to me, in fact, whether Minister Murphy is here, as he proclaims, representing the Executive, when members from other Executive parties seem to dispute that, or whether he is here to represent the Department of Finance, which would have primary responsibility for the oversight of the legislation. I would have thought that he is here in the latter capacity, rather than the former. However, in whatever capacity he is here, he cannot chip away at the right of the House to legislate. That is a fundamental of our very existence.”
“I will seek to hone in on the issues that drew most attention and raised the most questions, but I want to start by responding to what the Minister said. The Minister seems to have a very churlish attitude to the Assembly's wanting to consider legislation. It is as if we do not need the Assembly; that we simply have Executive decree. He goes out of his way to tell us how much the Executive, allegedly, are opposed to the Bill and that, effectively, we should not be discussing it at all as it is a matter for the Executive. Sorry, this is a legislative Assembly. This is a legislative Assembly that is here to discuss and decide upon legislation. Legislation ultimately rests with the House; not with the Executive but with the House. <BR /> <BR />The exercise in which we are engaged is that very exercise.”
“The Minister will be aware of the recently exposed scandal of the obscene amounts of money paid to middlemen in obtaining PPE. Will he assure the House that the PPE that was acquired for and within Northern Ireland was free from any of those payments of obscene amounts of money?”
“I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister. Can he bring the same certainty in respect of the holding of the transfer tests in January?”
“Will the Minister advise the House, in making decisions about these matters, how far are the wider community ramifications considered? Let us take Seaview, for example. The impact on the like of Carnalbanagh Primary School, which the Minister kindly visited, could be serious, in that a school that is struggling to regenerate itself and to get back going could have the rug pulled from under it by the further advancement of an alternative offering nearby.”
“<BR /> <BR />That takes me through all the amendments. I am quite happy to leave it there for now.”
“In other words, it is only the junior Minister's spad. That is what amendment No 8 does. It reduces the need to replace or reappoint all the spads in the Executive Office, which would have been necessary had we been reducing the number from eight to four. We are reducing them in only the junior Minister's office, so only the junior Minister's spad is now caught by clause 4(1). Therefore, the other three of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister carry on unaffected. That is how it is. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 is simply to take out clause 4(3), because the advice, ultimately, was that it was superfluous and not necessary. The law would speak for itself. Any appointments after 31 March would, obviously, have to be in accordance with the new law. So, clause 4(3) is removed by amendment No 9.”
“Amendment No 8 will change it so that clause 4(1) reads:”
“That would no longer be necessary because, if we are only removing the junior Minister's spad, it is only the junior Minister's spad who needs to be catered for in clause 4. Amendment No 8 has been proposed to make that abundantly clear and therefore to reduce the impact of that. <BR /> <BR />That also means, of course, that Minister Murphy's letter —.”
“You would appoint him under the royal prerogative power, but that would be subject to the House giving that power. I would find it very surprising, even with the antipathy of some to the origin of the Bill, if anyone would really think it appropriate that we should maintain unfettered the royal prerogative power and not subject it to our say-so as a legislative Assembly. That is what amendment No 7 is about. <BR /> <BR />Of course, amendment No 8 then has to make adjustments to clause 4, because clause 4 was first drafted to keep the legislation in line with my initial proposal that special advisers in the Executive Office reduce from eight to four and that, therefore, all Executive spads would cease to hold office on 31 March next year, and any reappointed, up to the quota, would be reappointed at that stage.”
“The purpose of clause 3 is to repeal the 2016 Order and then, very importantly, not to remove the royal prerogative power but to say that, if that power is ever exercised again, it must be approved by affirmative resolution of the House. In other words, if the law is to be changed by royal prerogative under the Civil Service Order, the House must be aware of that and, in fact, must approve it. It does not strip out the prerogative power, but it tempers it by making it subject to the approval of the House. In 2021, that is the least that we should expect. <BR /> <BR />That takes me back to the point about someone saying, "Oh, what if we need a super-paid spad because of his miraculous knowledge?". That is how you would appoint him.”
“The Assembly is a legislative Assembly, but here was a law made not by the legislators. Here was a law made by royal decree. On foot of that law being made, David Gordon was then appointed. The Assembly was never consulted. We were never asked to approve the law. It was just done. In my terms, it was done behind our backs.”
“What happened with the appointment of Mr David Gordon was that the then First Minister and the then deputy First Minister, by decree, changed the law by royal prerogative. They brought in the provision enabling them to appoint David Gordon. The law that they made was called the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016. Here is the critical point: it was done behind the backs of the Assembly.”
“Yes. That was a comprehensive intervention that set the record straight on those matters. There it is. I hope that the House understands the how and why of what I am trying to do. <BR /> <BR />I will take the House to clause 3, which relates to the exercise of royal prerogative powers by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Royal prerogative powers, in the main, died out in the 17th century. However, they continue in some aspects. Amongst those upon whom they are bestowed is the Sinn Féin deputy First Minister when acting jointly with the First Minister to exercise a royal prerogative — a little irony on its own. The exercise of that power is unbridled. As the appointment, some years ago, of Mr David Gordon as Executive spokesman demonstrated, it is a power that can be exercised behind the backs of the Assembly.”
“However, sustaining eight spads is way beyond what is needed. By voting down amendment No 7, the message would be that we wanted to sustain the option to have eight spads. By voting for amendment No 7, Members would indicate that they wanted to have a maximum of six. That, I think, is correct. If amendment No 7 stands, I will propose the removal of clause 2, which is the one that would bring down the number of spads for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, because I am reconciled to the fact that I will not do better than six, and I have to accept that. Therefore, if clause 7 is passed, I will oppose clause 2 standing part of the Bill. I hope that that is clear. The mission and ambition is to allow for six spads, and the mechanism is to reduce the opportunity for junior Ministers to appoint spads.”
“<BR /> <BR />Up until a few weeks ago — whether it was by consent in the Executive or otherwise, I do not know — there were no junior Minister spads. Then, suddenly, Sinn Féin maxed out its appointments and appointed a junior Minister spad. The DUP has not. Indeed, interestingly, through most of this pandemic, the Executive Office has managed with five spads: three Sinn Féin and two DUP. That has now been evened up, with the DUP having appointed a further one. There are now three each for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but Sinn Féin has additionally appointed a junior Minister spad. I am trying to undo that. I am undoing it in the context that you cannot just remove someone from a job if they have compensation rights, so clause 4 and the appendix will take care of that.”
“In 2007, along came a junior Minister, with the emphasis on the word "junior", whose ego required a special adviser, so the law was changed to introduce special advisers for junior Ministers. That was done under the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order in Council 2007. <BR /> <BR />What I am seeking to do by amendment No 7 is to introduce a clause to repeal the authorising provision, the 2007 order. In other words, I am seeking to remove the right of a junior Minister to have a special adviser. As Mr Muir put it to me rather neatly in conversation, I want to restore the factory settings to what they were in 1998. In other words, we go back to where we were, with three special advisers for the First Minister, three for the deputy First Minister and none for the junior Ministers. I believe that that is right and appropriate.”
“The House knows from the initial drafting of my Bill that it was my strong contention, and it is still my personal belief, that an Executive Office with eight spads is way above what is required, when you consider that, at a particular time, that is the same number as there was for the entirety of the Welsh Government. I wanted to reduce the number of spads to four. Part of the function of a Committee Stage is to have discussions about a Bill, and I have to recognise that I am not going to achieve that. I am therefore now putting to the House an adjusted proposition. <BR /> <BR />Historically, the First Minister had three spads and the deputy First Minister had three spads. That was the position from 1998. That is how it was originally drafted: six spads in all. That is how it continued until 2007.”
“If you cannot trust the Minister, you put the duty on the permanent secretary. It therefore does two things. Clause 1(6) states that the Minister must ensure that the duly appointed special adviser, and only he, will exercise the functions of a spad, but, as a fail-safe, the amendment would put a statutory obligation on the permanent secretary to give no facilitation or cooperation to anyone who is not a spad in relation to the role of a spad. That is how clause 1(6) and the amendment seek to shut down that abuse of the system. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 is a mere drafting amendment. We then come to amendment No 7. It seeks to introduce a new clause. This brings us into the territory of how many spads there should be in the Executive Office.”
“Amendment No 5 would then, after "special adviser", add the words:”
“That is the limitation that is to be put on such a person. Given that the Civil Service was complicit, in the sense that it accepted the role of a super-spad in breach of the provisions of the 2013 Act, clause 1(6) puts this statutory duty on a permanent secretary:”
“Members will be aware that just a couple of weeks ago Ann Travers, writing in a local newspaper, identified this clause as being critical for both her and innocent victims who felt trampled and betrayed by the fact that a law that they thought had been established was circumvented in the manner in which it was. This House has an opportunity today to right that wrong, and I urge it not to miss that opportunity. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 simply adds a few words, which came from departmental — I think it was the Executive Office — recommendations, as it felt that the clause did not have the clarity required. It simply adds words to make it clear that the special adviser being talked about is one:”
“Do I really need to say anything more on the necessity of clause 1(6) and the need to shut that loophole? <BR /> <BR />It also informs another matter, which is the trust that can be placed in the proper implementation of codes. If a senior party in the Government was prepared to so deliberately circumvent the law of the land, then what confidence can anyone have in mere codes that are then amenable to their interpretation? That is a sobering question for the House, and it is one that needs to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />Members will recall that the 2013 Act quite properly became known by shorthand as "Ann's law", because of the fantastic work that was done by Ann Travers, sister of the murdered Mary Travers.”
“And then the sentence that Mr Wells quoted:”
“he, of course, was then the Finance Minister —”
“Absolutely; that is what it is all about. Clause 1(6) is all about that. The Member beat me to it, because I was going to that exact page in the RHI report. I am going to read a little more of it — this is page 158 of volume 3 — because, back at paragraph 54.32, it states:”
“That person was no longer paid out of public funds but was put in a position to control the other spads of Sinn Féin and was to be accountable directly to the deputy First Minister. That was a total breach of the spirit of the 2013 Act. Clause 1(6) and amendment No 5 are about blocking that loophole, because, in those situations, what prevailed was that the super-spad had the full run of Stormont Castle, an office in Stormont Castle, and the Civil Service acknowledged him and dealt with him as though he were a spad. That made a mockery of the democratic decision of the House. Therefore, with clause 1(5), I seek to ensure that we close that gap.”
“The House will recall that the primary function of the 2013 special advisers Act was to remove from office those with serious criminal convictions following the public outrage at the appointment of Mary McArdle, a convicted murderer, as the special adviser to the then Communities Minister. That might not have been the title then, but it is now. That was the catalyst for my bringing the 2013 special advisers Bill, and that, by virtue of the votes in the House, set in place a statutory provision that such a person cannot hold the position of special adviser. <BR /> <BR />What did we discover in the RHI inquiry? We discovered that Sinn Féin consciously and deliberately circumvented that legislation by appointing someone referred to in shorthand as a "super-spad".”
“This Government and many Governments depend highly on consultants and go out to a consultant on something. You also have the prerogative powers, and I will come to clause 3 in a minute. The prerogative power will still survive so that, if someone needs to make a case that they need a super-paid whomever at £150,000 a year, they can do it under the prerogative power of clause 3. The only change through clause 3 will be that you have to bring the matter to the House, but you can still do it, so it is not a prohibition on anything like that. However, it is a prohibition on paying your spad more than a senior civil servant at grade 5, and that, I think, is a sensible and necessary proposition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 deals with clause 1(6). I have to say to the House that this issue touches a raw nerve with many people.”
“It certainly is. The Member reminds me of something. The setting of salaries was so arbitrary — Ministers could change them when they liked — that, in about 2014, the then First Minister and Finance Minister changed the salary upper level to, I think it was, about £70,000 to about £90,000 overnight. Clause 1(5) is necessary in order to set the upper ceiling so that the public know that their money is subject to the restraint of a ministerial whim not being able to change the bands to make the sky the limit because an upper limit is set in statute. <BR /> <BR />I have heard it asked, "Oh, but what if we need some supercharged individual as an adviser, and we need to pay him megabucks. Are we not allowed to do that?". Appointing a spad is not the only way.”
“Any code can set as many bands as it likes, but the one thing that it cannot do is to breach the ceiling. The codes still set the bands. The Minister and the appointment process selects from within those bands who is paid what. All it does is say that you cannot be paid above grade 5 of the Civil Service, which, presently, is something in the order of £81,000 to £82,000 a year. On the current bands, there is no one, apparently, being paid more than that, so there is no prejudice to anyone.”
“<BR /> <BR />I respectfully suggest to the House that amendment No 4 is worthy of its support and goes some considerable way to restoring some probity to and public respect for the process of appointing spads. <BR /> <BR />I will move to amendment No 5. I should say before I do, that clause 1(5) — we will be voting on entire clauses — deals with setting salaries. Again, let me make it plain. I am not seeking to legislate that a certain amount should be the salary for a spad. All I am seeking to do is two things: tie the salary to the Civil Service, which is politically advantageous because it depoliticises it; and tie it to the higher level of grade 5. I want to tie it to the Civil Service and to set the upper ceiling. I am not saying within that upper ceiling what any spad should be paid.”
“You can still do that by saying, "So long as I comply with the 1998 Order, I can have someone of my political affinity". I am not trying to interfere with that. I recognise that spads have to be in tune with their Minister. I recognise that Ministers need spads that they can work with. I am not saying otherwise, but I am saying that, when we come to spend public money on an appointment such as this, with all the privileges that go with it, the public are entitled to know that there was a candidate pool, criteria were set and a record was kept, rather than some huge sinecure being handed out to somebody unknown and secretly. That is what amendment No 4 is all about.”
“No, they are personal appointments. The selection criteria can set that out. There is nothing in amendment No 4 that prevents that. <BR /> <BR />Then he says:”
“Not exactly. It does not have to be a publicised public competition. It can be done by gathering a pool of candidates. <BR /> <BR />He says:”
“I had better read the whole paragraph. He stated:”
“Therefore, you can indicate, lawfully and legally, that any applicant needs to be someone who has political empathy with your standpoint as a Minister. There is nothing in law and nothing in amendment No 4 that would stop that. Therefore, it would be a straw man who would suggest that, if we put all that in, it would create a prohibition. Patently, it would not. Indeed, there has been some misinformation about that from the highest level. Minister Murphy wrote a four-page letter to his Executive colleagues on 17 November. In that letter, he stated:”
“The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is still the law and will be the law for any Minister making an appointment. It states:”
“I have heard it said by some that, if we accept amendment No 4, require a job description, set out the requirements to be met by a successful applicant, achieve a candidate pool and require the Department to complete and retain documentation about the process, you would rob a Minister of his right to appoint somebody politically akin to his viewpoint. That is absolute nonsense. What is in amendment No 4 is not the entirety of the process. It details the basic fundamentals, and the Minister can build further elements around those. There is nothing in amendment No 4 that would prevent a Minister from appointing someone with political empathy to their standpoint. <BR /> <BR />I say that with the certainty of legislation.”
“I suggest that those are so elemental and basic that, as Felicity Huston said, you cannot ignore them. You cannot write them out of existence, yet that is exactly what has been done.”
“Yet, I repeat this point: all of that, which was in the old code, was systematically and deliberately stripped out. That is what the House is being asked to endorse today. When it comes to amendment No 4, the House will decide whether it is at ease with the fact that what at least, on paper, used to exist, no longer exists. There is no process for a person who has been appointed to a highly paid public office, as a public servant, as part of the Civil Service and paid from public funds. I suggest that Members should ask themselves whether they are content that no process should attend to that or whether they think that there should be a basic process of knowing the job, the job description and the criteria that are required to be met and to keep records of why the decision was made.”
“This is not me speaking. This is a former Commissioner for Public Appointments who stated that:”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me quote some of the things that Felicity Huston, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments, told the Committee. She gave of her time. She came and gave evidence, with her vast experience of the basic requirements in public appointments. She said of Mr Murphy's code:”