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 51 of 95.
“There it is. This is what Michelle O'Neill tells the rest of us, across Northern Ireland: when it comes to the most difficult issue of all — funerals — they should be "private" and:”
“Thank you. I will express it in the very terms in which the Executive express the rule about funerals on nidirect. This is the guidance of Michelle O'Neill. This is the guidance that, in this Building, she has lectured us all on. This is what it says:”
“This very day, the credibility of the Executive on these issues has been shredded by a joint leader of the Executive. What a commentary that, as we meet to debate restrictions such as this, the joint leader of the Government is out on the streets of west Belfast flagrantly breaching the very regulations that she put in place.”
“Today, something of a pall of hypocrisy hangs over the Executive with their COVID regulations. For months now, on a nigh daily basis, up in the Long Gallery, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and/or substitutes have lectured the people of Northern Ireland about the inescapable necessity of standing in favour of and implementing each and every one of the regulations. "We are all in it together", we were told. When families found it very, very difficult, when burying their loved ones, to abide by these regulations, the deputy First Minister went on record to say that no one was above the law. Today, we saw that she thinks that she is above the law; that the Finance Minister thinks that he is above the law; and that other Sinn Féin Assembly Members think that they are above the law.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you fit and well and back at your post. I will try to say nothing that will upset your recovery.”
“I think that the figure for free school meals over the summer is around £12 million. It that precedent now set for succeeding years, or is that a one-off situation?”
“I want to return to the £2·5 million that is labelled "victims". Is it just window dressing, so long as Sinn Féin maintain its despicable veto, blocking innocent victims from receiving a pension? As long as that continues can the £2·5 million even be spent? If it is not spent, what happens to it? <BR /> <BR />I note that the Executive Office is getting half a million pounds for press work, something that it is not in the bids. It did not ask for it. It is not in the bids on page 24, but it is in the allocations on page 29. What is the half a million pounds for press work for?”
“Will the Minister agree that the Executive's credibility in making requirements of citizens, particularly about social distancing and the number of people who can gather outside, is substantially undermined today by the fact that the deputy First Minister and other Members of the House were photographed and seen in flagrant breach, it would appear, of some of those regulations at the funeral of a terrorist? Does that not undermine the status of what the Executive require of others?”
“I do not want to see this House, whatever else I think about it, go to that place. That is why I am offering an amendment, which I think steers a middle way and projects a route whereby we can make the changes, but make them while attaining public confidence.”
“That, of course, is why I suggested that we need to amend the 2011 Act to give the Commission the status to indicate guidance to the panel. The problem is that we had a panel that did very many foolish things, but the Commission never seems to have challenged them under the terms of clause 24. <BR /> <BR />Now we are in a situation where the motion is saying to get rid of all the independence — all of it. That is the essence of it. The motion is taking away any independence, scrutiny and surveillance of expenses and giving it all to the MLAs, through the Commission. It is going back to where we were. I am simply cautioning this House that to go back to where we were is a dark place. It is a dark place open to abuse and scandal.”
“I am saying to the Assembly Commission, or those members of it who are pushing this, let us go for the middle way; let us amend the 2011 Act to curb the excesses of the panel, give the Commission the status that it should have and strengthen its ability to give some direction, where it is necessary to do so. If we did that we would capture public confidence rather than squander public confidence, which is what this motion, unamended, undoubtedly will do. <BR /> <BR />I give way to Mr Wells.”
“I ask those who tabled the motion to take the motion back to the Commission, without pushing it to a vote, to consider the alternatives, to consider amending the 2011 Act, to give the Commission authority to intervene where it is right. Why do you not do that? If you do that, I will not press my amendment. Trying to keep the Assembly in the dark about what you really intend to do and then, maybe next week, issuing a sudden finding that changes all of this is, legally, very questionable, given the 2011 Act. Is that the intent?”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />That is the middle way: to commit ourselves to legislation to do that but to leave the setting of the quantum of the allowances exclusively with that panel. <BR /> <BR />We seem to have got to a position where we had one bad panel, so to speak, so we never appointed another one to see if anything could be done better. We never issued any directions under the 2011 Act. We were happy to let it all fester. Creating a situation where we use the abuses of the panel of the past simply to supersede the panel and take it all back and obliterate the independence is the wrong way to go.”
“There is a fundamental question here: do we value and want to have independence in governing the amount of our allowances, or do we want to take that ourselves? When the House last did that, it was grossly abused. There is a middle way, and it is quite simple. Pursuant to the amendment, we should introduce a Bill to amend the 2011 Act, to strengthen the powers of the Commission to give guidance and direction to the panel on practical issues and on inequities that they create.”
“I am disappointed that, in the course of the debate, we have not had any clarity on the key question from the proponents of the motion. Do they want us to move forward on the basis of amending the 2011 Act and legislating to do that, which is above board and in order, or do they want the Commission to supersede the legislation — a remarkable suggestion — override it and create a determination of their own? I hope that, when we come to the winding-up speech, we will have an indication of which course it is setting, because both were pointed to by the proposer of the motion. <BR /> <BR />I understand the temptation to hide behind making this all about staff. I have as many concerns as any other Member about the foolishness of the determination that was issued by the panel.”
“— to make sure they stay on the rails at every turn.”
“— and, when you change it, you can do exactly what is proposed in the amendment and thereby maintain the sanctity of separation between Members and allowances that gives the authority —”
“He said, at one point, that the Assembly Commission would bring forward a Bill to change the range and scope of the panel, and then, towards the end, he said that the Commission would bring forward a new determination. Which is it? Are you just going to wipe out the panel or override it by a determination on foot of a mere resolution of the House? There is legislation. Are you going to change the legislation to do the very things that, you said, you would not do a few years ago? We need some clarity. Are you thinking that, by mere determination, you can override the decisions made under the 2011 Act, or are you going to change the 2011 Act? <BR /> <BR />If you want to do something, you have to change the 2011 Act —”
“The Commission already has the power to write to the panel to say, "You made a decision about not MLAs not being able to put their phone number on their office signage. Would you please reconsider that for the following reasons?". It can make a written request to say, "You have made a decision that is prejudicial to the maternity or paternity leave rights or sickness rights of our staff. Would you please look afresh at it?". The power is there. Why is it not being exercised? Indeed, why has the panel never been reappointed? Why is it that a panel that ran out of office in 2016 has never been replaced? Did some people want the situation to fester so that they could reach this point of saying, "We have to do something about it"? <BR /> <BR />The Member who proposed the motion left me unclear about what he intends.”
“<BR /> <BR />I respectfully suggest to the House that we are headed very much in the wrong direction. That is why I say that we need to leave the quantum — the amount — of the expenses with the independent panel but we need to take enhanced powers to give guidance to that panel when it makes irrational, unjustifiable or absurd decisions. <BR /> <BR />I heard the proposer of the motion say that there is no legal power. Has he never read section 2(4) of the 2011 Act? It says:”
“<BR /> <BR />I know that the panel has been guilty of some of the most irrational decisions, such as not being able to put your phone number on your office signage — I tried to take them to the ombudsman over that — or not being allowed more than one office; I suffered from that. I know that they made some ridiculous decisions and were most bumptious in trying to defend them. However, the principle here is whether we, as MLAs, should set our own salary. No. Should we set our own allowances? No. So why do we want to do it, particularly in circumstances where the body to which we want to give the powers did nothing about the £700,000 to Research Services Ireland, the Ballymena Church Street office or the fictitious claims to cultural societies? It swept it all under the carpet. Those are the circumstances that we want to recreate.”
“He later told BBC 'Spotlight', however, that the sole beneficiary of the rent was the bank. What does that mean? That means that rent for expenses was being used to pay off a mortgage to create a party asset. <BR /> <BR />There was the Sinn Féin MLA who could not drive and who, apparently, was making a claim for £5,000 in mileage allowance. He said that he had never signed the form; someone else had done it for him. We had £9,000 claimed for oil in a former Speaker's constituency office that was not used there. We had an MLA who claimed £7,000 for electrical equipment to create a paper-free office — iPads, laptops and computers — and then went on to claim £8,200 in stamps for his paperless office. What a farce. Such are the circumstances to which we are invited to return.”
“Mr McGonagle went on to say that he had never heard of the South Derry Cultural and Heritage Society and that, as a trustee, he had never received any rent for the use of the building. Those are facts as established. <BR /> <BR />We had the Church Street office in Ballymena and the scandal of £50,000 in one year claimed by a father and son — Members of this Assembly — to go into an office of which the first director was Seymour Sweeney of "I know of him" fame. He was replaced as sole director by Ian Paisley Jr's father-in-law, who was then replaced by a DUP councillor who, when asked by 'The Belfast Telegraph' about the matter, said:”
“When the BBC's 'Spotlight' did a programme, they could find no website for Research Services Ireland. They could find no phone number. They could find not even one sheet of paper of research ever produced. It was a scam. It was a rip-off of public money. <BR /> <BR />Michelle O'Neill, the current deputy First Minister, paid £18,000 of rent to a so-called cultural society for an office in Gulladuff: the South Derry Cultural and Heritage Society. One of the six trustees of the hall for which the money was paid let the cat out of the bag. A Mr Michael McGonagle claimed that Sinn Féin had raised the money to buy the building 30 years ago, and here was a Sinn Féin MLA, now the deputy First Minister, paying £18,000 per year — a colossal rent — to that supposed cultural society.”
“Those who tabled the motion must have short memories. I do not think that the public have. The public well remember that, when the system that is proposed in the motion was in operation, namely that MLAs controlled, through the Commission, their own expenses, it was abused and the product was scandal. In the face of a tide of public outrage, the Assembly passed the Act in 2011 and, in doing that, recognised that it was untenable for Members to be in control of their salaries, pensions or allowances. Today, we are asked to retreat from that and recreate the circumstances that gave rise to such scandalous behaviour as Sinn Féin Members pouring £700,000 of their expenses — unknown, it was claimed, by some of their MLAs — into a body called Research Services Ireland Limited, headed by Sinn Féin's finance director.”
“<BR /> <BR />I join in saluting the tremendous efforts of the emergency services and the huge outpouring through community effort. I commend all and join with all in regretting that the outcome was sadly as it was. I trust that that family will find the grace and the comfort that they so desperately need.”
“The loss of a child at any time is heartbreaking. There are Members of the House who have been in that position through the loss of children or grandchildren, and many of us have not, but I do not think that there is a single member of this society who could not and should not have been touched by the circumstances that befell young Noah and led to his death. That, of course, has piled on the agony for the family, and I have no doubt that they are in the thoughts and prayers, as they ought to be, of all of us. <BR /> <BR />I join and endorse the comments that have been made in expressing, for what it is worth, bearing in mind the deep, dark place where she must be, the sympathy of us all to Noah's mother, his wider family, his school community, who will feel this loss very severely, and to all his friends.”
“I am sure that the Minister will caution against looking at the allocations in isolation, but it is difficult not to notice that it appears that eight of the nine successful applications are from the maintained sector. Was it a similar proportion of applications within the 68 schools that were considered?”
“Knowing that he was coming to the House this afternoon, why did the Minister choose to announce the investigation by Mr Nicholl at a press conference, rather than to the House, given what some previous Speaker's rulings have said about the importance of Ministers giving the House its place? <BR /> <BR />When the board members resigned, they said that they had done so because of decisions taken by the Department into which they were given no input: is that correct? If so, does that suggest a degree of overbearance and interference by the Department that calls into question the perceived independence of the regulator?”
“at a time like this to give a reality check on that misty-eyed aspirational statement. I do not say that there are not worthwhile things in it — there are — but I must ask the Minister where the audit is of the cost of what is called "green growth", or some other fancy title, in terms of existing jobs, set-up costs, and costs that are piled upon the consumer. Today, I have heard, again, much praise of the renewable sector. However, I seldom hear about the resulting costs to the consumer of funding and subsidising the renewable sector. Where is the balance sheet? Will the Minister produce a balance sheet of costs against benefits on those aspirational proposals?”
“I want to ask about the openness and transparency or lack thereof of the North/South bodies. Take InterTradeIreland as an example. If we go to its website, we discover that no annual report or accounts have been published from 2017, no corporate plan from 2014-16 and no board of director minutes from March 2019. Why is that? When you go to the website and look at who the board of directors are, the ones that you have just announced are not even there. Three faces jump out at you — Jimmy Spratt, Timothy Cairns and Councillor Greenfield. Are the appointments to these just sinecures for political hacks who do not need to have any expertise on the subject matter?”
“Today, we are going to get a belated statement about a meeting — for what it was worth — that took place on 11 March, over three months ago. That contemptuous treatment of this Assembly arises in circumstances where the Assembly has had 14 plenary sittings since 11 March, yet it is only today that the Executive deign to bring a statement to this House. Can the Speaker's Office write to the Executive, remind them of their statutory duty under section 52C, and indicate that they are expected to meet it?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Section 52C of the Northern Ireland Act is very clear. It states that when a North/South body meets with Ministers present, a Minister:”
“The Minister says that it could technically be a breach of regulation 5 about travel, but is there not also a problem with regulation 6 and the number of people gathering outside? If he is going to amend the regulations to put in an exception for drive-in churches, does he not need to amend both regulations 5 and 6?”
“A church could not hold a small service like that. Those are the sort of irregularities in the regulations that jump out at me. Therefore, I ask the junior Minister to address the drive-in situation, to provide clarity beyond doubt, and to clarify whether the step 3 gatherings of 30 people are (a) indoors and (b) apply to everywhere except churches.”
“such as a funeral etc. Are we in a situation where, under step 3, the group that will have no benefit from step 3 gatherings of 30 or more people is, in fact, churches because churches, according to regulation 4, are required to be closed? We could have a situation, perhaps, where Larne DUP could meet as a gathering of 30 people but a church cannot.”
“I take it that those are inside and outside gatherings. Will the junior Minister confirm that they are indoor gatherings as well as outdoor gatherings? How does that affect churches? For example, if a small church congregation had a midweek meeting, where 30 people might be more than enough, does that mean that they can meet in those circumstances when we come to step 3, without waiting for step 4? Or is that situation trumped by regulation 4(5), which says:”
“Absolutely, and I am looking for the flexibility. With regard to that, can I make a slightly technical point? I am a bit surprised that, when it came to drive-in cinemas, we went through the right process of amending the relevant regulation, the number of which I have misplaced, to say that drive-in cinemas were an exception to the use of the premises. We did not do the same for churches. Why not? I would have thought that it is a drafting issue that should have been paralleled in the two. <BR /> <BR />On the theme of churches, can I seek some clarification from the junior Minister? Step 3 of the Coronavirus (COVID-19): recovery plan says, with regard to family and community:”
“As Ms Bradshaw related to us, we all know that, without public harm, there are drive-in services taking place in other locations. Therefore, what is it? Is it enough if the organisers can control the venue or does the venue have to be the actual premises? Churches, and those of that interest, are entitled to an emphatic declaration from the Executive that is up to date. The last time that we had a declaration, from the other junior Minister, really put the kibosh on the thought that you could have the sort of thing that Ms Bradshaw illustrated.”
“I would like the other junior Minister, in replying today, to tell us whether it is still the Executive's view that:”
“When we last debated these matters, I raised the issue of drive-in church services and went through the legislation as to what it might mean. Junior Minister Kearney, in replying to my question, said:”
“<BR /> <BR />There are a couple of specifics I would like to be enlightened on.”
“I have two points about that. They demonstrate the fact that they are, very often, guesstimates. Indeed, in the UK, we were told that the worst-case scenario was 500,000 deaths. Other people said 20,000 and others said more. Sadly, we are at 40,000 deaths. None of that is to be dismissed or talked down. It is serious. However, we are at a point where, happily, today, there was only one death. Happily, today, there were only two new cases, and that has, essentially, been the picture over the past week, and it is a good situation to be in. However, it also makes the point that the easements have to come. Making a virtue out of the inevitable has become something of an art form with this Executive. It is inevitable that these restrictions are eased because of the statistics which inform the reality of the situation.”
“That is a perfectly legitimate view. However, the fact remains that we had an Executive which had two scenarios. They chose to tell us about the worst-case scenario. I remind the House that these regulations are all predicated in a national picture of 500,000 deaths. Happily, there has been nothing like that. In Northern Ireland, we were told there would be 15,000 deaths. Happily, nothing like that. There was a scenario which was much more akin to where we actually are, but it was concealed from the public. You cannot make a virtue out of saying, "We are going to tell you what the worst-case scenario is", while at the same time concealing something as relevant as the best-case scenario.”
“We do not want the public to know too much because they might get more discontented. There is some of that going on.”
“Did this Executive not announce that hotels would open on 20 July, and did Mr Leo Varadkar not then steal a march on them and pull it back, in his case, to the end of June. Low and behold, suddenly, science allowed us to open our hotels on 3 July. The public are not fools. They can see the politics at play in much of this. The public also know they are being played. <BR /> <BR />The best-case scenario has never been made available to the public. Why? As they wanted to scare the public and could not tell them that we also had a best-case scenario. We are told, through the promptings of 'The Nolan Show', that all the parties now agree that the medical advice can be released. Where is it? It is still hidden. The R number is now a range. We do not know if it is the range over the week or the range for a particular day.”
“<BR /> <BR />In pursuit of that, we have had the situation played out before us. One day, we are told that retail shops can reopen, and then, to keep the public happy, the Executive say in a couple of days, "You can now have shopping centres". One day, the Executive say, "You can have a fair-weather wedding, but you rely on us, the Executive, to tell you when you can have an indoor wedding. Even though the contradiction is plain. You can have an indoor funeral in a church, but you cannot have an indoor wedding. Supplicant public, we the Executive will tell you when you can do that". <BR /> <BR />I think there is a bit of that going on here. I think there is politics in it. I heard Mr Chambers say that he accepted and was glad that we are not following anyone else's lead on these matters. Are we not?”
“I understand, because of the drip-feed nature of the changes, the necessity for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow some latitude. Here we are debating the amendment (No. 4) regulations. In fact, we have probably already had twice that number. Naturally, because none of the amendment regulations is an island, it is right that you are allowing the latitude that you are. <BR /> <BR />On the concept of the regulations being drip-fed to us, is that coincidence or is it by design? Does that serve the purpose of an Executive anxious to establish credibility in their early days and trying to escape the cloud of the renewable heat incentive (RHI)? Does it serve a purpose to keep the public on a string, hanging on their every word about when the next amendment regulations will come, or is that mere coincidence? It is more likely to be the former.”
“Can you take that back to the Speaker's Office and the Business Committee? Why are we doing that when we have a proven system for Question Time with topical questions, which is far more effective?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. While I was fortunate enough to be called twice in the unscheduled supplementary questions, is it in order to place on record the observation that, apart from the last five minutes of each of these Question Times, they were largely ineffective because, whereas they may have been an exercise in shielding the Ministers and may have worked for them, as far as this House goes, in regard to sustained focused questioning, which often comes from a succession of questions on a particular topic, they were largely ineffective, and ill served the scrutiny function of the House?”