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 45 of 95.
“Can I take the Minister back to the INTERREG Va programme? Now that we have left the EU, would the Minister remind the House of the funding formula for INTERREG Va? Would he also remind the House of the match funding aspect, with an indication of what it will cost the public purse in Northern Ireland?”
“I, for one, do not want to see fiscal powers be given to this House. This House has grown up with the mentality that you just spend. You spend, spend, spend, and then you whinge and complain when you do not get more to spend. The thought therefore of giving this House fiscal powers, considering how it has exercised many of its current powers, is, for me, a very frightening proposition. For some, perhaps that would be a reason to do it, but there it is. I do not think that it is a sensible proposition whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />I said that my comments would be miscellaneous, and they are. I will leave them there.”
“I am sorry, but I have to say to the House that the thought of letting this Executive put their hand into the pocket of business and taxpayers in this Province is, for me, a most frightening proposition.”
“<BR /> <BR />I heard much talk of a fiscal council. I have a couple of questions about that. What would a fiscal council do that the Office for Budget Responsibility cannot do? Every day, the Department of Finance sends its Consolidated Fund figures to London: every day. That information is fed to a source where the Office for Budget Responsibility can assess it and make recommendations and do as it does elsewhere. What would a fiscal council do that the Office for Budget Responsibility cannot do? Are we in the business of reinventing the wheel? There was a question earlier about quangos and arm's-length bodies. Are we just going to create for the sake of creating, or is there something there to adapt and to work with? <BR /> <BR />Someone suggested that it was all about fiscal powers.”
“The House, according to the theory of Budget, is supposed to be the authoriser of spend. It is supposed to be the House that authorises the spending of public money, yet, when it comes to the monitoring rounds, we have no function whatever. We are simply told what the allocations are. As Mr Frew suggested, why cannot the House be in a position where the allocations are subject to a vote of the House? Why can we not ascribe to that some democratic accountability? Why can we not have the monitoring rounds discussed, as they are to a degree, with the Committees and then brought to the House and a resolution of the House required to implement them? That is the fundamental principle of distributing money to Departments, but it certainly does not operate in respect of monitoring rounds. That is something that could properly be addressed.”
“It should be about tabulating what Ministers need according to each sector in their Department, and those on scrutiny Committees should be able to see that. It should not just be £5 billion for Health and £2 billion for Education: we should be able to see the composition of all of that, and we should be able to interrogate that and find answers to that. I think that that information is held in each Department and in the Department of Finance, but it is not conveyed to the House. That is why we get pretty meaningless global figures in our Estimates etc. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew made a point about our monitoring rounds. We set all of these figures, and, three times a year, we have an arbitrary — "arbitrary" in the sense that there is no input from the House — distribution by the Executive of reallocations within that. The House is simply told.”
“I will pick up on one of Mr Frew's points about the monitoring rounds. We set a Budget and allocate various provisions. One of the points that I made last week at the Finance Committee was that, when we set those allocations, we set them at such a high level that, frankly, they mean very little. We set, for example, £2 billion for the Department of Education. We do not specify in the Estimates or in the Budget how much of that is for primary, preschool, secondary etc; we simply set a global figure. That does not invite or permit an avenue of proper scrutiny, and I think that it is done because Ministers like the luxury of being able to move money around. I am sorry, but that is not really what it should be about.”
“I largely agree with that; there needs to be challenge. Of course, fundamentally, there needs to be an official Opposition. It is beyond farcical that we are in circumstances where they do not exist. Even when they existed, they had their hands tied behind their back because of a lack of provision.”
“We should not be. We should be here to challenge. That is something that has been substantially underrated and underprovided in the House.”
“Someone, rightly, made the point on the radio this morning that it is OK for the public sector — we are all paid out of the public purse — that it is the private sector that is really paying the price in all this and that employees in the private sector are in desperation as a result. <BR /> <BR />We had some interesting contributions to the debate. Probably the most interesting was the one from the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Paul Frew. He made a number of very pertinent and challenging points. One of the points that he made is sometimes forgotten in the House: the House is meant to be a forum of challenge. It is meant to be the forum that holds to account the Executive. You would think, from listening to some, that we are here only to back up, sustain, support and, where necessary, cover up for the Executive. We are not.”
“That drag in the compensation and matching the reality to the promise are compounding many difficulties. Is she opening on Friday? Who knows? It is pretty clear that the Executive have been unable to reach agreement about that. Indeed, it seems that they have not even met today to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />A circuit breaker was brought in three weeks ago. As I said this morning, we do not need a circuit breaker now but a circus breaker. It really is a circus, but it is not funny for those who are at the receiving end; they do not even know whether their doors will open again on Friday. That is so unfair. That is a physical manifestation of the clumsiness and lack of nimbleness that attends our system of government. That is something that, for many, is quite appalling.”
“This system of government and process does not emerge well from the present crisis. We have had many people in considerable desperation contacting us all, I am sure, saying, "Government have closed us down and have promised us assistance". However, as I put it to the Minister during Question Time, many of them are asking about the current schemes, "Where is it?". The Minister gave an explanation about that, but that does not detract from the reality that there is a considerable time lag between the promise of assistance and its delivery. <BR /> <BR />I am reading a message that was sent by one self-employed person this afternoon. She is in the beauty industry and has been shut down for four weeks. She has not had a penny. If she is to reopen on Friday, and she does not know that, she does not have any money to buy in what she needs.”
“Yes, I make lots of criticisms about that system but, in making that statement, I am simply making a statement of fact. This is an inherently clumsy system, and it is therefore one that does not lend itself to the swiftness of action that might otherwise be desirable.”
“I will strive to be mercifully brief, but I want to make a number of miscellaneous points. Of course, we all need to recognise that, when it comes to Budget procedures, this year is, undoubtedly, a year apart. The circumstances, so unforeseen in many regards, have, of necessity, produced not one but three Budget Acts. Who knows? There might be another before we are finished. So, this year is to be treated as something apart. <BR /> <BR />One of the factors that emerges from the urgencies of this year is that this sort of crisis demonstrates that, if ever you needed to be nimble in government — to have a system capable of being swift of foot — an occasion like this is it. However, what we have, by virtue of our system of government, is probably the most clumsy system imaginable.”
“In the first wave of the virus, it was quite clear that the impact on our care homes was catastrophic. Why, then, in the intervening period, until, I think, last week, were staff tested only once every fortnight? The Minister now says that it will be once a week. Surely it should be every day or every other day. What is the international standard, because, yesterday, there were 139 outbreaks in our care homes? Did we learn nothing from the first wave about testing in care homes?”
“To know that there is £0·5 billion at the centre is discomforting in one sense for many businesses that are on their uppers and have not been able to access money. However, more specifically, the businesses that were closed down three weeks ago, and which were expecting to open again this week, were promised money. I am sure that I am not the only MLA to be in receipt of multiple representations from such businesses, which ask the simple question, "Where is it?". So, on their behalf, I ask, "Where is it?".”
“I welcome the expedition with which the statement was brought to the House. It is such a contrast to the feet-dragging on many other statements, particularly those on North/South meetings. <BR /> <BR />I take the First Minister back to the issue of flights from Denmark. It is an issue now about Denmark, but it has long existed, because Dublin has been a back-door entry point to the rest of the United Kingdom. Was that problem discussed at the Council, and was any shape of a resolution found to it? <BR /> <BR />Can she shed any further light on how our centenary next year will be marked at the British-Irish Council?”
“I echo that. We really do need to think again.”
“Yes, it is very good to have all the support of the furlough scheme, and its generosity is considerable. However, I fear this: how many zombie jobs we are sustaining? How many jobs will not be there when furlough ends, as it must do one day? That is part of the real challenge. That is why the four doctors were right to say in this letter:”
“What preparations were made for a pandemic such as this? The preparations of the House were to reduce the number of nurses, reduce the number of doctors and reduce the number of beds. Those were the preparations that were made. Unless and until those are reversed, we will not be in a fit position — I hope that this does not arise — to meet future pandemics. <BR /> <BR />Where are we going now? Regulation 9 came in, and it expires on Thursday night. The First Minister told us that that is the end of it. We were told that if we get the R number under 1, the regulation has served its purpose. From what I have heard, the R number is significantly under 1. So why is there even a debate about continuing to strangle our economy with further regulations?”
“I assure Mr Sheehan that I would never think of or accuse the deputy First Minister of being knowledgeable.”
“The House needs to take a look at itself: why did it do that, and what will it do going forward? <BR /> <BR />In the autumn of 2016, there was a nationwide pandemic dry run, as it were. The Minister of Health in Northern Ireland was our present deputy First Minister. What lessons were learned? What preparations were made for a pandemic?”
“As Ms McLaughlin said, we are in the situation where 400 cases have put our National Health Service in crisis. Really? <BR /> <BR />That brings me to Mr Nesbitt's point. He is absolutely right: some of the rundown in our health service was self-inflicted by the politics of this House. When Michael McGimpsey was Minister of Health and said that he needed funds to keep us standing still, the greater political forces in the House mocked him, refused him and forced upon him cuts, which, to this very day, we are bearing the consequences of. That was politics, not health. In fact, in the past 10 years, the House has reduced the number of hospital beds in our community by 1,500. Then, we are surprised that we are unable to deal with a pandemic and that 400 cases put us in this spin.”
“People are dying because they are not getting the treatment for their other diseases. Every day in this country, 12 or 13 people die of cancer. What will that figure be next year because of those who did not get their diagnosis, did not get their tests or had their treatment delayed? <BR /> <BR />In the House, in the early stages of COVID, I raised with the deputy First Minister the tragic case of a young mother, aged 32, who had been diagnosed with cancer and whose treatment was paused. After some time, the Minister intervened — I appreciated that — and treatment was resumed. In the weeks that were lost, however, she had weakened, and, tragically, that young mother died a few weeks ago. Was she a casualty of COVID? How many casualties of COVID will there be next year?”
“I think that the public, watching on to buttress their confidence that they should believe all that they are told, have come to the point at which they recognise that challenge is an essential part of building confidence. It is easy to say, "Here is what we must do", but you cannot do that and ignore credible contentions. If four clinicians of the standard of Dr Walsh and his colleagues are bravely saying that there is clearly no evidence for what lies behind some of these measures, it would be grossly irresponsible for the House simply to say, "We don't want to listen to that. That doesn't suit. We're going to ignore that". The letter says many other important things. The four clinicians make the point that people are dying because of COVID but not of COVID.”
“Who could disagree with that: before we do what we are doing, we need to be sure that what we have is scientifically robust and beyond reproach? They go on to say:”
“I am discussing the regulations before us, including amendment Nos 8 and 9. Amendment No. 9 was brought in on the basis that the Chief Medical Officer said that it had to be. That is the same Chief Medical Officer who, a few days ago, remarkably said that you could not have both hospitality and schools open. When a Chief Medical Officer says that and when four clinicians write a sentence such as this, I think that this is very germane to whether or not these regulations are on the money. What did the four medical officers write? Amongst what they wrote was:”
“Sorry, there has to be a role and an opportunity for criticism. When four clinicians, who are not four busybodies, decide to swim against the tide, it is not an easy task — swimming against the tide: I have a bit of experience of that myself — when you have the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Scientific Adviser, the Minister and the head of the BMA all telling a particular theme. It is not a particularly easy course for four clinicians to put their name to a letter and say, "Well, in fact, is this right? In fact, do we not need better evidence than the evidence we have?". It is no answer to those four clinicians to say, "There's not a thousand of them". If they are making a valid point, the Minister and the Executive should be looking at that and taking heed of it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given that care homes are effectively closed down to visitors, it is quite clear to anyone that the entry point for COVID has to come unwittingly through the staff. Why is it that staff are not being tested every day or at least every other day? What lesson has been learned from the first phase, given that, suddenly, multiple months later, we are only now starting to talk about upping the testing in care homes? I do not think that once a week is enough, although it is better than every two weeks. Again, knowing that the highest level of fatalities will be among people in the age bracket who populate our care homes, it seems a gross neglect to have allowed that situation to develop again. <BR /> <BR />It is not enough to say, "Oh, we must all rally behind the Executive; they are doing their best".”
“I do not know whether they have met today or not, and I do not know whether we are going to hold our breath for some announcement tonight. Who knows? However, I know this: the Executive have not addressed the issues that they ought to have addressed post-phase one of COVID. Let us take the issue of care homes. Care homes were devastated by COVID in the first wave, and yet, today, we are back at the point where there are 139 outbreaks in our care homes. Why would that be? I respectfully suggest that one of the reasons for that might be that, up until last week, we were testing staff in care homes only every two weeks. Last week, the Minister announced that we will now do it once a week.”
“Then we had the deputy First Minister tell us yesterday that that is only partially true, because some of it is going to open up but some of it is not, and we are now going to have new ideas about restaurants opening without the capacity to serve alcohol. Mr Catney depicted that as some sort of a fall out over a view about alcohol, but, frankly, I think that it is more likely to be the typical horse-trade of this Executive rather than anything else. However, I agree that it is illogical and that it makes no sense.”
“We all have our personal responsibilities to obey regulations and to take that personal responsibility upon ourselves. However, when an Executive behave in that incoherent way, of course, it is easy for people who want to depart from regulations to find that route. Those are the reasons why I say that there is something inherently farcical about debating these matters at this stage. <BR /> <BR />Nonetheless, it is important to do it, because we are still in the climate of this virus where, frankly, we do not really know what the direction of travel is. We had the First Minister telling us, not later than last week, that that which was forbidden in the amendment (No. 9) regulations comes to an end at midnight on Thursday.”
“Meanwhile, we had a sports Minister intervene to tell sports fans at Coleraine to go home. They could not get into the ground under a law that had not even been made, and, when it was made, it did not even say that. It never said that; it had the specific exemption for elite sports and was never in the business of banning the limited number of spectators. <BR /> <BR />That is the background of farce and incoherence, which speaks to many people in terms of the level of confidence that they should exercise in respect of these measures from the Executive. That is a contributor, among other contributors, to the loss of confidence among many in the public as to the regulations that are made. That is unfortunate, potentially damaging and dangerous because COVID is real.”
“Businesses, in good faith, prepared to close at 6.00 pm — a whole evening of trading was lost in the hospitality industry — but the regulation was not made until 10.30 pm that night.”
“At 11.00 pm, we were told to go home. Why? Because, again, the dysfunctionalism ruled. When the regulation came the next day, we were told that it was coming into effect at 6.00 pm on the Friday.”
“There is something inherently farcical about the debate in the sense that we are debating regulations the first of which — the amendment (No. 8) regulations — have already been superseded. The amendment (No. 9) regulations will run out in three days' time. Yet this is the opportunity for the Assembly to say whether it consents to horses that have already bolted in terms of legislation. There is something inherently farcical about that. <BR /> <BR />The farce exists not only in the mechanics. I take you back to the amendment (No. 9) regulations. Members may recall hanging about the Building three weeks ago tomorrow — or was it four weeks? It was a Tuesday evening, and we were awaiting with bated breath an announcement from the Executive. It was coming at 5.00 pm, then it was coming at 7.00 pm, 8.00 pm, 9.00 pm.”
“Minister, the management told you that it was not about Brexit or COVID-19. Did they tell you what it was about? Was it plain and simple job migration and moving for cheap labour? Was that the case and, if so, can that be spelled out? In that regard, do you agree with me that it is appalling that a senior manager in Caterpillar has, through the offices of the chief executive of the local council, sought to muzzle councillors and MLAs by urging us not to talk about the issue? He said that we should not speak in good or bad terms about Caterpillar. Indeed, it was all the more disappointing that the chief executive of the council thought that it was appropriate to give legs to that message by even sending it out.”
“The Minister says that she is sympathetic and supportive — all those encouraging words — but the situation has been known about for months. It is certainly some weeks, if not months, since I wrote to her, as, I know, other MLAs did, about that very subject. My fundamental question is this: why is there no package as yet? Why has that not happened? Travel agents work on a peculiar system that has an impact on their cash flow: when holidays are cancelled, money that they have already taken has to be repaid, as does the commission, so they lose on all sides. That has been known for months, so why the delay?”
“On the matter of teacher qualifications, in Northern Ireland, of course, the most appalling issue is the discrimination that arises from the Catholic certificate. Has that been addressed yet? Is there a cross-border element to that, in respect of teachers from here who want to teach in the Republic?”
“— to acknowledge our rights in that matter.”
“The American people have expressed their will. Now it is time for their president —”
“I thought that I was. I was drawing the contrast between the people of the United States being given the fundamental democratic right to change their Government while we are denied it. I was pointing out that the people of the United States will have a new powerful president rather than a joint president. We are denied that. The point is exactly on point that the democratic exercise that many are celebrating in the House is the very thing that is denied to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />As for Joe Biden, I hope that he will come to the realisation that he needs to temper his overt nationalist empathy if he ever hopes to have any positive influence in Northern Ireland, and he needs to recognise and accept that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because of the will of its people.”
“It is a supreme irony that, without the least blush of embarrassment, the House rises to celebrate the fact that others can do what those who have spoken to date determine we should never be able to do, namely change our Government. <BR /> <BR />The absurdity of our system of Government is further illustrated by the fact that, if the United States of America had the system that we have, we would have joint Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump. How absurd would that be? How dysfunctional would that be? As dysfunctional as Stormont, of course. Yet that is the system —.”
“There is a supreme irony that the House this afternoon is celebrating the fact that the people of the United States, by a democratic process, are changing their Government. The irony is that this House is the epitome of the very opposite. This House stands for the principle that you cannot change your Government and you cannot vote a party out of government. What we witnessed in the United States was the people of the United States deciding, in their democratic fashion and as is their right, to change their Government. What a contrast with this place, where, because of the iniquity of mandatory coalition, you can never change your Government. You can never vote a party out of government so long as that party holds on to a handful of MLAs.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The difference is that one is a state-sanctioned operation in a state that historically has a Christian heritage. By the sanctioning of the dispensing with any respect for anything special about that day, the state is, in effect, disrespecting the ethos that lay behind the original inclusion of the provisions in our legislation.”
“All those things amount to that. My goodness, there are 363 other days of the year to do whatever one wants to do. It comes back to this: if we are a society that respects our Christian heritage and history and the continuing presence, within our midst, of many who call themselves Christian, is it really too much to ask that you should leave some vestige of respect for the key days? If it is too much, pass the Bill. I suspect that that is what the House will do.”
“Of course, people can live and will live, as they please. Why is it that you cannot, for one day, give a token of respect to the cause and the reason that gives rise to the holiday that is called Easter? That is the point; and that is the point that the Bill disrespects. That is why, both for the extension of hours and the assault on Easter, I do not find those two essential pillars of the Bill acceptable. If there are others to aid me, I will divide the House on this issue, because it is important, in principle. I wait to see if there are others. If there are not, I cannot, but I am giving notice that, if I can, I will, because it is important that that stand is taken.”
“I am not disputing that. I am not saying there is any compulsion. I am simply pointing out that, for historical reasons, Easter, like Christmas, has been respected in our Christian society as days apart for the reasons that I explained. What this legislation wants to do is liquidate any respect of that sort. That is why I regard it as an assault on something that is dear and precious, Easter Day, to many Christians.”
“We still do that in our licensing in respect of Christmas Day, but there is this great surge and urge to disrespect matters in respect of Easter Sunday. That is wholly retrograde.”
“Clause 1 could not be clearer. It touches directly. The very first thing it does is to assault the sanctity of Easter. That is the very first thing that it does. <BR /> <BR />It is not a matter of what my religious beliefs are. It is the fact that, historically, this society has respected Easter for the reasons that I articulated. If you respect the holiday that is Easter, you should respect the cause. I do not hear anyone saying, "We don't want to have an Easter holiday. We don't want to have a Christmas holiday." Both are rooted in matters pertinent, in the most dramatic fashion, to Christianity: the birth, death and resurrection of Christ. That is why we have Christmas and Easter holidays. If you expect Christmas and Easter holidays, why can you not respect the cause of those holidays?”