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 55 of 95.
“Is this the first time that we have entered a new financial year without an approved Budget? In regard to our present transformed circumstances, we will obviously, going forward, have huge demands on health and the economy. How far, therefore, has the Minister advised or instructed his Executive colleagues to strip out non-priority resource spending? In the light of that, will he agree that it would be unconscionable in the circumstances to devote further millions of new spend to items like Ulster Scots and the Irish language? Should those projects, which were intended under 'New Decade, New Approach', now be parked for this year? <BR /> <BR />Finally, I think that the Minister said to Mr O'Toole that the Comptroller and Auditor General was relaxing his oversight. Is that what he said? What are the ramifications of that?”
“Can you tell us, Mr Speaker, whether the absolute privilege that applies under section 50 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply equally to an Ad Hoc Committee, such as this one, in the House? Will the same absolute privilege that applies to every Member when he or she participates in the Assembly, as the Assembly, apply to that intended Committee?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise for the third successive week to express regret that, in the setting up of the new Committee, we are about to make significant change to the processes of the House without the opportunity for debate. It may well be a meritorious suggestion. At this point, I do not suggest otherwise. However, it is a fundamental flaw in the manner in which we approach those matters that we do not facilitate and allow debate on them. The Business Committee, which brought the motion forward, could, at the same time, have brought forward a motion to suspend Standing Order 12(7) in order to allow debate, but chose not to do so. That is most inappropriate and regrettable. <BR /> <BR />Can I ask one specific question?”
“What is that? It could be Down's Syndrome. That is how shocking it is. I want to place that on record, on behalf of the 79% who responded to the consultation and were ignored. The Assembly, of course, has never been consulted on this issue. I want to place on record how aghast those of us who believe in life are at this wanton, calculated killing in the womb. <BR /> <BR />I urge the Assembly to find time to reverse this outrageous, obnoxious situation and to find a voice and to give a voice to the unborn.”
“I do not think that I am permitted to. <BR /> <BR />You can have the killing of the unborn on the pretext of severe fetal impairment.”
“What has happened elsewhere shows us that there is no qualitative test applied. It is effectively abortion on demand. Even after that, right up to the moment of birth, you can have the killing of the unborn.”
“The minds of us all, at this difficult time, are very much focused on the saving of lives. Therefore, it is all the more abhorrent and perverse that, at the very same time, we have regulations coming into effect today that will sanction the killing of the unborn. From today, what should be the safest place for an unborn, namely, its mother's womb, can become, on a whim, one of the most dangerous places, because we will have utterly unfettered, uncontrolled abortion, up to 12 weeks. That is abortion of babies whose hearts are beating, whose blood is pumping round their body, and yet, summarily, they can be killed; their life snuffed out. There is nothing progressive about that. That is regressive for our civilisation. Then, of course, up to 24 weeks, you can effectively have abortion on demand.”
“However, it has gone public to say that it has been unable to get an answer from your Department about whether its agency workers are covered. You have said today what your view is. Why can your Department not convey that to a major employer like Wrightbus rather than it having to go public, saying that it cannot get an answer?”
“May I suggest, Minister, that mixed messaging, particularly around which manufacturing businesses should be open, is an acute problem? We had an exhortation to the effect that if you cannot work at home, go to work. We had an exhortation from the Government; "Go to work if it is absolutely necessary". We had the deputy First Minister saying yesterday on Twitter that all non-essential workplaces must shut. We have had videos that say, "Stay at home". Which is it, Minister? What is the Executive's advice to the manufacturing industry, for example, across all our constituencies? <BR /> <BR />Speaking of one such industry, Wrightbus, in my constituency, announced today that it is closing for a number of weeks.”
“If it comes to it and we need army support in this Province to get through this crisis, are they going to stand behind that and support that or is that trumped by their politics? It is no time for that, and I trust that that will not be the situation. I will leave it there.”
“I think the Member is right in what he says. <BR /> <BR />I do not see this as a green and orange issue. This virus is colourless as far as that is concerned, but it does concern me somewhat that, in recent weeks, it was the greenery of some people's view that led their thinking about the schools needing to close: because it had been done south of the border, it had to be done north of the border. I think that it was those people who were allowing their politics to rule their head in this matter. Will that same politics rule their head if it comes to the need for army support? That is a legitimate question to which we need an answer from those who want to make politics out of this situation. Let them tell us.”
“I do not think I am trying to create a problem. I am asking a legitimate question. If we should, in the extreme of this situation, arrive at a point where the National Health Service facilities in this part of the United Kingdom are put beyond breaking point, because of an influx from outside this jurisdiction, is it not a fair and legitimate question to ask? Does the Minister have the powers to deal with that situation and remedy it? I think he should, but the Member thinks he should not — maybe it is the Member who lets his politics override his judgement.”
“Are we going to see a mix and match of those powers? Should it be made clear to the public that it is not just the powers that are in this Bill, shortly to become an Act, but also those in the Civil Contingencies Act? <BR /> <BR />If it comes to it, and things get as bad as is feared, are we going to be fettered in any way in calling in the necessary support of the army in this part of the United Kingdom? Is there going to be any fetter on that? There certainly should not be. If we get to a point where hospitals, particularly on the border, are being overrun by people from outside the jurisdiction, anxious for help, are there steps we can, would or should take in that regard? Are there powers in the Bill to allow the Minister to deal with that extreme situation?”
“That makes a mockery of all we are told about social distancing. What is the capacity to deal with that situation? The ultimate extreme action is to close such a factory. If such an extreme action were necessary, is there power in the Bill to do it? Does it lie elsewhere? Does it fall within the clause about stopping gatherings and closing premises? Does that extend to closing factories? Maybe it does, maybe it does not, but it is the sort of vagueness that Mr Nesbitt talked about in his contribution. We need some clarity about issues like that. <BR /> <BR />Where, Minister, does this legislation sit with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004? Is there a crossover? Are we going to be relying on both? Under that Act, there are also extraordinary powers that can be taken. I do not read this Bill as superseding those.”
“That is what we are talking about in the scale of things, and yet that facility has been removed. I simply make the point that I do not think that, in these circumstances, that is healthy. It is not a step that should have been taken, but taken it has been. <BR /> <BR />I wish to make a few miscellaneous points for the Minister's consideration. Under the Bill — somebody already referred to the fact that the powers are expressed pretty vaguely, and maybe there is a reason for that — is there a power to compel a factory, for example, to close? <BR /> <BR />I have had representations today from constituents, working in factories in my constituency and in Minister's, who, by virtue of the sort of employment that it is, on an assembly-line or a production line, are effectively working shoulder by shoulder.”
“The Member makes a valiant effort to dress it up, but the reality is that the facility that existed for MLAs to ask the questions that were on their minds of Ministers about actions that they were taking in their Departments has been stripped out and taken away, and in its place, we have the offer that Ministers may, at their discretion, by and large, come to the House, make a statement and answer or dodge questions as they wish. That is a very poor substitute. It is not something that I believe needed to be done. <BR /> <BR />The Member referred to the 800 questions to Minister Swann. Those 800 questions were in written form. We are talking about a Minister coming to the House once every two or three weeks to answer maybe half a dozen questions.”
“Of course, it is necessary and right to keep the public fully informed, but this is an elected House for a purpose, and the purpose should be that Ministers convey, through the House, as much as they can to those whom we represent.”
“That is my gripe about this matter: that we are coinciding the — I will not say "excessive" because much of it is necessary — increase in powers to Ministers at a time when we are surrendering and downgrading the right to ask questions in the House of an Executive that — I am going to frankly say — a week ago, could not agree when our schools could be shut and that were pulling in opposite directions. The past few weeks in that regard were not a confidence-building measure. Therefore, to now see that we have bestowed upon those Ministers —. Without Question Time, we are effectively going to have government by press conference.”
“Yes. The Member makes a valid point. Very often, the question is asked not so much with great expectation as to the answer, because sometimes the answers can be disappointing in just how opaque they are, but in order to put the focus on an issue. <BR /> <BR />Here we are, heading into territory where we have bestowed on Ministers — yes, in a time of great extremis, it is necessary to give extra powers, but it is not a time when it is necessary simultaneously to remove powers of scrutiny.”
“Instead of thinking that that might be a time to amplify and increase scrutiny, and to add to the opportunity to question, we go in the opposite direction and, as a House, remove from MLAs the right to ask a question for oral answer, and we actively discourage the tabling of questions for written answer. That is a House that is headed in the wrong direction in circumstances such as these.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to say something that I referred to yesterday: I am made even more uneasy about the exercise of these powers by virtue of the fact that, simultaneously, we have stripped out of the House many of the oversight scrutiny powers of MLAs. I refer to the fact that, yesterday, without debate — on a vote on the nod — we removed from the House the right of MLAs to table questions for oral answer or topical questions to any Minister on any issue. That coincided with the moment at which we are about to give those Ministers the most extraordinary powers.”
“As the House knows, a statutory rule can be made pre-emptively without effective scrutiny; there may be retrospective scrutiny, but there is no prospective scrutiny. Therefore, the powers that we are giving away are being given away at the cheapest possible price of mere statutory rules, and we are doing that in legislation that not only can last for two years — which seems longer than it needs to be at this point — but be extended in six-month bites. It is not the case that there is a cut-off point after two years; this is legislation that can be extended incrementally. That can be done in Northern Ireland by a Northern Ireland Department taking these powers and extending them. These are serious matters that we should not be meekly accepting.”
“I absolutely agree. To all intents and purposes, this is a special powers Act, because, by its essence, it is removing the norm and the hedge of protection that is in place and giving extraordinary powers of a summary nature to government. In his speech, Mike Nesbitt articulated some of those points very clearly. None of us, therefore, should shrug and say, "Just let's do this". These are serious measures. <BR /> <BR />It is notable that the actions that can be taken by government, according to the legislation, have been placed at the lowest possible level with regard to how they can be taken. These matters are to be perfected by statutory rules rather than statutory instruments.”
“Not quite. I am sure that the honourable Member who interrupts from a sedentary position — most surprising, given his august status in the House as Principal Deputy Speaker — is a well-read gentleman who knows all about Drakon. He introduced various penal codes that, for the most trivial of offences as well as the most serious, decreed that the penalty was death. I do not think that we are quite as bad as that but, make no mistake, these are proposals that none of us, as legislatures, should be at ease with, because they strip out rights and protections that all of us should value.”
“Although the individual who gives rise to the word "draconian" — Drakon — was a leader in the 7th century BC in Athens who reached considerable notoriety for the harsh penal codes that he imposed —”
“I want to begin by commending the Health Minister for the leadership that he has shown and given in this matter. It is good to have a steady hand on the tiller at this time. Of course, he represents some of the most selfless and committed individuals from across our health service that keep the service going. With others, I pay a heartfelt tribute to them for all that they have done and all that they have yet to do. I suspect that we do not know the half of it at this point. To health service workers and to all who are keeping the machinery of government, particularly health, moving a very big "Thank you". <BR /> <BR />Some members have referred to the legislation that we are discussing as "draconian" and that is a fair enough description.”
“I want to direct attention to the knock-on effect in our health service. What should I say, Minister, to the family of the 32-year-old mother who have contacted my office? She is a patient with a very serious cancer, and she has a two-year-old child. She has just been told that her chemotherapy will end because choices have to be made as to who will be treated. <BR /> <BR />We have talked much about social distancing, yet I was contacted this morning by a worker in a production factory in Ballymena who told me that the production line continues as was with people working elbow to elbow. What instructions have been given to factories in that situation?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just checked: there are no copies of the statement available to Members. Have we also suspended that expectation?”
“I want to raise with the Minister a very sensitive issue, touching upon the management of funerals and cremations. Schedule 27 to the Bill that is going through Westminster contains a provision that would disapply the current protection that means that a deceased person can leave instructions that they do not wish to be cremated. There is a power within the Bill to disapply that protection. Does the Minister anticipate utilising such a power? Is she fully aware of the devastating impact that would have for many grieving families if such a course of action was taken? <BR /> <BR />The Minister has not mentioned our courts, but schedule 26 to the Bill contains provisions for live links for our courts. Have we got a sufficiency of infrastructure to enable that to be availed of?”
“Yet, that will coincide with removing the regular facility of the House to question Ministers at Question Time. That is not happening, generally, elsewhere. It is not happening in Westminster. The First Minister in Scotland is still taking questions, and, I believe, it is so in Wales. Yet, in this House, we will, on the nod, remove that facility from Members. That is incongruous, it is wrong and it is particularly wrong that we will do that without debate. If that is the will of the House, then let it be manifested in debate. The House is a place apart. It is a place without an opposition, and yet now we will have an Executive with the facility of Members to even question them removed. That seems wrong.”
“The House is being invited to consider that motion without debate. Yet, that motion will remove the opportunity for Members during coming weeks to ask oral questions of Ministers in the House. That seems to be a wholly retrograde step compounded by the fact that we are not even to debate it. <BR /> <BR />I recognise entirely that these are utterly unprecedented times and that our focus should be single-minded in respect of the medical crisis but we are sent to the House as MLAs, and part of that function is to scrutinise the work of the Executive. Once the Coronavirus Bill is passed, tomorrow or in the following days, the Executive will acquire immense, draconian powers, because that Act is effectively an amazing special powers Act.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are going to invite us to consider another motion.”
“so maybe I did. He was a very personable and honourable man, and he will be much missed, but primarily within his family. To his wife, Betty, and family, I add to the condolences. <BR /> <BR />While I am on my feet, I convey to Mike Nesbitt our sympathy on the loss of his mother. No matter how long we have our mother, and Mike had his for many decades, the parting is not easy. I am sure that we will all join in conveying that to Mike.”
“That was typical of Ivan: even though he had retired, he sustained an interest on behalf of such a variety of community interests. There he was, and we had a good chat and look back over some old times. <BR /> <BR />When I was first in this House, from 1982-86, I was the Chief Whip of the DUP group, and Ivan Davis was the assistant Whip. I will not say that I taught him all that he knew, but he did follow my example of leaving the DUP”
“The late Ivan Davis was a man whom I had the honour of knowing for over 40 years. I found him, at all times, whether in agreement or disagreement with him, to be as he is being described today: a true gentleman. <BR /> <BR />Ivan personified what it was to be a community politician. He was "Mr Lisburn" for many years, and the torch that he carried for that city always came first. Within the community, he was undoubtedly the go-to man, from the mundane to right above that when people had problems. It earned him, quite properly, a remarkable reputation as a community and political representative. He served in all the various fora that we have heard about. <BR /> <BR />I last saw Ivan at a disabled police officers' event.”
“The answer is that there is nothing in it yet, but since that point was raised with me at the Finance Committee, I am favourably disposed to an amendment that would say that a petition of concern may not be used in respect of a report from the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Member may have had the benefit of that in the past, but I am not sure that it was good procedure. It is something that the House would need to look at because it is, maybe, a step too far in affording a party the right to throw a protective shield — a human shield — of fellow Members around that individual, whether they are a Minister or a Member. That is something that will probably give rise to debate, if and when we get to that point. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful for the time that I have been given, and I am happy to leave my remarks there.”
“I think that I have dealt with the points raised about whether a criminal sanction is needed. Clearly, that will be a live debate as we go forward. Mr Muir, the SDLP and others raised the matter. I will happily address those issues further down the line. <BR /> <BR />I want to acknowledge what Rachel Woods said. The inspiration for clause 5 is indeed Steven Agnew's motion, which was the last motion passed by the House in January 2017. It was a very simple but compelling proposition: if we have a Standards Commissioner who looks at MLAs, he should look equally at MLAs who happen to be Ministers under the ministerial code. Why are we reinventing the wheel when we have that mechanism? All that we need to do is add the ministerial code to his ambit. That is reasonable and sensible.”
“His intervention reminded me of his earlier intervention. He asked the question — I think that it was him — about the consultation requirement. My understanding is that for this Bill, because I drafted it myself, there was no obligation on me to consult, although I did consult on the first several clauses of my 2015 Bill. Where the Executive bring a Bill, there is a guidance requirement for consultation. It will be interesting to see, for example, whether that is met for the language legislation that is coming. I do not think that it has been met yet. There is that requirement for Executive legislation. However, the particular circumstances of my Bill mean that there was no such requirement. <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr Beggs and others for their general level of support.”
“The evidence in the RHI inquiry was that the permanent secretary in Stormont Castle turned a blind eye to the fact that a party super-spad, who oversaw the regular spads, had the run of the place and that that was being facilitated. In an attempt to close down that circumvention, I want to make it emphatic that that cannot and must not be done. There is no better way in which to pull not just civil servants but everyone into line than by having something in statute so that not to do it is unlawful. Civil servants, if nothing else, are creatures who naturally and properly want to obey the law. If we put an obligation on a permanent secretary not to facilitate those phoney super-spads, there can be a fair expectation that that is what will happen. <BR /> <BR />Mr Storey raised another point.”
“That is absolutely right. As I was going through the Bill, I drew attention to clause 1(6), which places a statutory obligation on a permanent secretary. It states:”
“Sinn Féin. Here is that party telling us that all of this could be done through codes, yet its Members are the very people who did not want codes in the first place. When it is obvious that those codes have deficiencies and have neither deterrents nor impact, they nonetheless say, "Let us do this just though codes".”
“If the Executive have other things that they, in a more considered, long-term fashion, have to do, let them do it, but that is not a reason, I respectfully suggest, for not doing what urgently needs to be done. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Dowd also suggested that the Bill was unnecessary and we could, effectively, do all this in codes. Apart from the fact that the codes we have had some of this and did not count for a row of beans — that is why you need it in legislation — I remind Mr O'Dowd that, if his party had had its way, we would not have even statutory codes. Statutory codes — a code of conduct for special advisers and a code of appointment for special advisers — came about in statute only through sections 7 and 8 of my first special advisers Act.”
“I acknowledge that, for good reason, the Member was not present when I opened the debate, but the first thing I said was that I totally recognised, out of the RHI report, that there were many things that only the Executive could consider and do. I am not here to usurp their role. There is reform in the Civil Service. There are all sorts of things pointed out in a multitude of recommendations, but there are some things that are so patently, blindingly obvious: we need to have a requirement for minutes; we need to have a register of interests; we need to stop people leaking documents. There should not have to be a lot of debate, and the Executive should not have to ruminate over any of that. If there are things that we can do now, let us get on and do them.”
“Yes, they do, but it is not exclusive. We are a legislative Assembly. We are here to legislate. Therefore, it would be wrong for us, as legislators, to say simply that, without dealing with the content of the Bill, it should not come by this vehicle. Maybe the problem was that it was the wrong private Member; I do not know. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wells made the poignant point that, if it had to come through the Executive, Sinn Féin and the DUP equally had a veto to block any legislation. Hence the reason —.”
“A whistle-blower is not blowing the whistle for "financial or other potential benefit". However, it would be a useful safety net to amend that clause to say that it shall be a defence to any charge herein to show reasonable excuse or that the person was acting in the public interest. That is the catch-all for whistle-blowing: acting in the public interest. If people are concerned about that, I am more than content to see that added to clause 11. That would be a useful enough addition. <BR /> <BR />I will not deal with everyone's contribution, but I will deal with a few of the points. Mr O'Dowd said that this should not be a private Member's Bill. You could probably say that about most private Members' Bills, if you think that the Executive are the fount of all knowledge and have the capacity and the right to legislate.”
“I look forward to debating further with Members the necessity for all of that, the proportionality of that and whether clause 11 could discourage whistle-blowers, as has been suggested. I do not think it would, because it says:”
“I do not want to send spads, Ministers or civil servants to jail, but, given what has happened, given the capricious leaking of documents, the deliberate hiding of material through private emails and the advantage sought to be levered to family members by leaking documents and given that the old codes, which already said that you should not do that but must behave with integrity and honesty and respect confidentiality, were patently not enough, a new code that simply repeats that will not be enough. That raises this question: do we not then need legislation that says, "If you do that, you break the law. If you break that law, there is a risk, upon conviction, that you could go to jail"? I think that that is a necessary deterrent. That is why clauses 9 and 11 contain that ultimate deterrent.”
“I do not claim to have thought of everything that needs to be done in the sort of functioning that the Bill addresses, but, with the long title, the Bill can be amended to make it better as we go along. <BR /> <BR />A recurring theme with some Members was whether we needed a criminal sanction. The best testimony to good legislation with a criminal sanction is that it never needs to be used; it is the existence of the deterrent.”
“I am grateful for the contributions and the general indication of a fair wind for the principles of the Bill. I do not expect everyone to be bowled over by every clause, but, if Members, on balance, can see wisdom in the general thrust of the Bill, that is a good start. I look forward in the further stages, as they arise, to debating the detail of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will not overly detain the House, but I would like to deal with a couple of issues. On behalf of the Committee, Mr Frew — he is not here any more — drew attention to the fact that the long title of the Bill is deliberately drafted with a wide ambit so that it lends itself to being a vehicle for further amendments.”
“This is a little part of that architecture, and the House should not run away from that. It is not it all, but it is a start on pretty basic but necessary provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.”