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 58 of 95.
“Yes, the package might be wrapped in a few tartan bows and a few items of that nature, but the core and the heart and the fundamental is the Irish language legislation. You have only to compare the two proposed Bills for Ulster-Scots and the Irish language to discover which really matters. The Irish language commissioner, of course, is a commissioner with bite, an enforcer whose main function will be:”
“Obviously, the output of a legislature is its key function. A Member who spoke some time ago told us that what we had in the document was the headline of priorities. Indeed. We find that, in the primary office of the Executive, that of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the only priority that will make its way towards the statute book is the language package. Whether you call it a trilogy of acts or a trinity of acts, unholy or otherwise, there is no mistaking the fact that the centrepiece of the legislation is the Irish language legislation, the very thing that, Mrs Foster told us, would not happen on her watch and that was rejected in February 2018. Yet, here it is as the centrepiece of the package.”
“The Minister's statement refers to the emergency measures that will be forthcoming in the action plan tomorrow. It says that they will apply to Northern Ireland. Does that mean that any changes in legislation will apply automatically to Northern Ireland as a UK-wide Act? Does it mean that if any measures are taken, for example stopping large gatherings, they will apply automatically, or will you or your colleagues have discretion in that regard?”
“The First Minister said that they are only estimates, but they are her estimates. They are estimates that her officials, on her behalf, placed before the Executive Office Committee, and they are the only estimates that we have. It is surely not true to say that it is not an either/or situation. It is resource money, and therefore a choice is made. Do you spend £11 million on extra nurses as a resource, or do you squander it on the Irish language? That is the choice that the First Minister is making.”
“Does the First Minister agree that the extent to which the Executive Office is permitted to optimise the celebrations of the centenary will be a telling test of the platitudes of her partner in government when they talk about respect and a shared future? In that regard, will the Executive Office lobby for the proclamation of an additional public holiday to recognise the centenary? Will the Executive Office seek and support a visit by Her Majesty to address the Assembly on the occasion of the centenary of the formation of the Northern Ireland Parliament? Can the First Minister deliver on those things, or will she be thwarted by the Sinn Féin veto?”
“Right. The deputy First Minister said that the three Bills will move forward together. Can she be clear that we should nonetheless expect a separate vote on each at the Second Stage and the Consideration Stage of each Bill, there being three separate Bills? Is that correct?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it still a rule of the House that, in respect of ministerial statements such as we have just had, when calling Members to speak, priority is given to those who have sat through the debate and that those who flit in and out of the debate go to the end of the queue? Is that still the rule of this House, and if it is, how was Mr O'Dowd called at the point at which he was called?”
“While there may be much that is laudable about this proposal, I have heard little reference to costing. Is there a business case for this policy? Does it involve taking any land into public ownership? Is there any assessment of the husbandry costs involved? Those are the sorts of things we have not heard about. If it is, in part, about incentivising farmers to grow trees, what is the nature of that incentivisation and will it have any adverse impact on food production? Finally, is this statement and its proposal, linked to what has been grandly called the Great Ulster Forest, which was in 'New Deal, New Approach', supposedly something to do with the centenary? Is this what the Great Ulster Forest is, or is there are some other proposition and, if there is, what is the relationship between them?”
“the protocol? Is that taking us in a direction that he does not want to go? How can he ensure that it will not do so?”
“I welcome the Minister's firm declaration that he will not accept any infrastructure at our ports and look forward to him holding to that. In consequence, he was right to call out Simon Coveney in respect of what he has been saying. In that vein, does he not also need to call out three of the parties that he shares the Executive with? The Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP have all been adamant that the protocol must be fully enforced and implemented, so do they too not need to be called out for seeking to damage the economy of Northern Ireland? <BR /> <BR />In that context, can he explain a little more the paragraph of his statement where he said that there will be:”
“No, I will not go too far. Everyone adequately speaks English. Nonetheless, the House is going to have this nonsense expenditure, while, meantime, people cannot get a bed in our hospitals and kids cannot get their special needs assessment. <BR /> <BR />It is time we took a look at ourselves, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is time we got our priorities right. When a Minister comes to the House with a Budget that has its priorities right, then it will be a Budget deserving of support, but a Budget that anticipates that sort of foolhardy, unnecessary expenditure is not one that should recommend itself to the House.”
“There is not a Member who needs it interpreted into Ulster Scots — think of it — or into Irish, yet, as part of this vanity project, we are saying that the House shall have interpretation services, it shall have instant translation services and it will be provided with headsets to listen to those few Members who can speak Irish, with yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, being a notable exception. We will not have to wear the headsets for very long with some Members, because once they get past the opening remarks, there will not be much to say. <BR /> <BR />Think of the folly. The absolute squandering folly of a House in which every one of the 90 Members — yes, I will say it — adequately speaks English.”
“I am saying to the House, "You need to get your priorities right". I was about to say, "This House in particular needs to get its priorities right", because the House under the "New Deal, New Dreams" document is going to provide for interpretation services. We are going to squander I do not know how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pounds, in the House to provide a service that no one needs. There is not a single Member who needs the English language interpreted so that they can understand it.”
“It has been feted beyond belief, and now we are going to pour — squander, rather — £11 million on some vanity nonsense about Ulster Scots and the Irish language and appoint endless commissioners and staff to enforce it on those who do not even want it.”
“Let me deal with that. It is not as though the Irish language community has been starved of funding for all these years and, suddenly, we will spend £11 million on it. Sorry, but the Irish language community has been one of the most feted communities in Northern Ireland. It has its own education system where, unlike any other sector, you can form a primary school with 12 pupils, whereas primary schools in the controlled sector face closure. The Irish-medium sector has its own North/South body with executive powers. It is a sector that has had expenditure of over £200 million in recent years. No one need pretend that the Irish language sector is being neglected.”
“Never mind that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Older People run on a fraction of £11 million. We are to ring-fence £11 million of resources for language issues". Really? <BR /> <BR />Then, we stand up in the House and empathise with our constituents about their real needs. We say how appalling it is that they do not have the health service that they deserve and how we will make sure that they do. At the same time, we talk about wanting to squander money like that. It is time that the House took a good look at itself when it comes to these issues.”
“You may be short of nurses and other things, but this is so important that we are determined to do it". We talk about priorities. Is the House not headed in entirely the wrong direction when it comes to priorities? It is a colossal sum of money for that sort of project. <BR /> <BR />Let me refer Members to the fact that the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which does real work in the community and is essential to the whole process and workings of government, has an annual budget of just over £7 million. It has a staff of 106. In recent years, it has diminished its budget demand and staffing by tightening its belt. Here we are saying, "Never mind the Audit Office with its £7 million. Irish language and the rest of it needs £11 million.”
“Knowing of the need in health, knowing of the shortfall, knowing of the constant stream through our offices of people complaining about waiting lists, delays, not being able to get a bed, not being able to access the health service in the manner in which they ought, who of us, faced with that, could say to any of our constituents, "Well, in fact, it is more important to have Irish language or the nonsense of Ulster Scots than to have 275 extra nurses a year". Yet the Executive, First Minister and deputy First Minister are saying to the Northern Ireland community, "We want to take £11 million of scarce resources and not give it to the health service or schools. We want to put it into Irish language or Ulster-Scots identity projects. Suck it up.”
“There is an example of one today. Since the First Minister and deputy First Minister want to spend £11 million annually on Irish language and associated concepts, I asked the Health Minister, whose mathematical skills maybe mean that he should be the Finance Minister, what £11 million would buy for us in the health service in extra nurses. Wizard-like, he told us that £11 million a year equates to 275 extra nurses.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to comment, if I might, on the position going forward. We heard many references today to the need for prudence, sensibility, living within our means and the necessity to demonstrate to the public our probity in respect of handling public money. All those things are right and proper. In the same breath, we heard about the extreme pressures on various sectors: health, education and infrastructure. Outside the House yesterday, we heard the Minister talk about the fact that, for the future Budget, he is already £600 million short. <BR /> <BR />If that is the context in which the House is dealing with public finances, the Budget Bill and prudent expenditure, it leads me to ask the question: why, then, are some — indeed, why are the Executive — wanting to indulge themselves in various vanity projects?”
“If there are answers to that, I would be delighted to have them but, looking at these things, it seems to me that there is a certain shoddiness, but maybe it is not; maybe it is, but I am surprised, subject to the explanation that is proffered as to how those matters arose and how they have appeared in that situation. That was the sort of stuff that I wanted to ask about yesterday. I look forward in this debate or subsequently to receiving an explanation about that. <BR /> <BR />In the overall context of the budgetary arrangements, where now stands the financial process reform, which the Department was taking forward for some years? Has that been implemented? Has it been abandoned? Is it still a work in progress? What exactly is the position with the financial process reform?”
“Maybe there is an explanation and that is why I am asking, but why are we being presented with documents that, on the face of it, have those contradictions and those irregularities, particularly in circumstances where these are documents that should be, as far as they can be, intelligible for the purposes of openness and transparency? I do ask that. <BR /> <BR />On a similar theme, I want to ask a question relating to the Department for the Economy, which, at page 59, has black-boxed almost £15 million for Northern Ireland Screen. However, when you flick back a page or two in the Estimates for the Department for the Economy, you discover that the very figure that has been black-boxed appears as a grant on page 49. If it is already in the detail of money under grants, why is it black-boxed on page 59?”
“There is Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service expenditure relating to the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board of £434 million. Why is it black-boxed under two Departments, in both cases in excess of the limit? Is it not already provided for in legislation, in which case it would not need to be black-boxed? <BR /> <BR />The same arises in respect of victims and survivors' payments of £105 million. On page 228, it is black-boxed under TEO. On page 199, the exact same figure is black-boxed under the Department of Justice.”
“You read down a list that includes expenditure relating to the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board of £434 million. 'Managing Public Money' is quite clear that the limit on black-boxed expenditure is £1·5 million. Here we have a colossal sum of £434 million black-boxed as approved under the sole authority of the Estimates. <BR /> <BR />I have two questions about that. Surely, that was authorised under the legislation passed in Westminster, and, therefore, it does not need to be black-boxed. If that is not correct, how can it be black-boxed over the limit that is in 'Managing Public Money' of £1·5 million? My second question about that is: why is it duplicated in the Department of Justice figures? When you go to the Department of Justice section, you see that it is black-boxed there as well, on page 199.”
“Applying that test to some of the matters that have been black-boxed in the Estimates raises the questions that I have. If you turn to page 228 of the Supplementary Estimates and you begin to read about the Executive Office, you see that it says:”
“It then says that the Assembly can do that subject to conditions, and the first condition is that the expenditure is no more than £1·5 million a year or is expected to last for no more than two years.”
“That 'Managing Public Money' document then circumscribes the circumstances in which you can do that. It is very clear, in the appendix to that, at paragraph 2.5.15, that:”
“<BR /> <BR />Some of the matters that I want to refer to touch upon the openness and transparency of the system, particularly some of the items that appear in the spring Supplementary Estimates booklet. The Minister referred this morning to the black-boxing of certain expenditure. He explained that, where there is no other already approved legislative authority for spend, one can, within these procedures, authorise that expenditure on the sole authority of the Budget Act, putting a little black box beside it to indicate that that is so. All that is entirely correct because it comes out of the 'Managing Public Money' document.”
“Yesterday, because I was so generous with interventions, I allowed myself to be led astray and did not get to finish the remarks that I wanted to make. I indicated that there were some matters that I might refer back to and, with your indulgence, I will. <BR /> <BR />I asked one question yesterday of the Minister — I think that I had it answered in previous Budget debates, but if I did, I have forgotten the answer — and I am genuinely interested to know the answer. Why is it that, in the vote for Supply, we only vote on resources? Why do we not vote on capital? In the forthcoming period, there will be capital expenditure. I am sure that there is a technical and perfectly logical explanation, but I would like to be reminded of what it is.”
“Is it not a very perverse reflection on priorities if, in the straitened circumstances in which our present Budget exists, particularly in his Department, we were to take £11 million of such scarce resources and, each year, squander it on unnecessary matters while a Department like his goes short? If that situation comes about and his Executive colleagues persist with that squander, will he remain a member of that Executive?”
“I congratulate the Minister on his maths, on the presumption that he is right.”
“The Minister did not indicate when this ministerial code might come into operation, but I am really more interested in how robust it will be. For example, if a Minister, after a paramilitary killing in his constituency, described the innocent victim as a "criminal" to take the heat off the organisation that carried out the murder, and if he then vacillated between denying having said that and, ultimately, apologising for the hurt caused but never withdrawing the words that the victim was a "criminal", would such a Minister be caught and accountable under the ministerial code that this Minister is bringing forward?”
“Whereas the Minister's creative accounting may be exceeded only by the creative fiction of Mr McCann, will the Minister detail why, in response to Mr Givan, he compared the figure of tax raised with the £21 billion resource spending, instead of comparing it with the figure that is in the ONS document of £28 billion of public-sector expenditure? Of course, that is the gap that he cannot explain and can never fill, and neither can the country that he aspires to be part of.”
“That is why the union is a strong financial bond. He wants to take us into a supplicant state of the EU, which now has to pay money to the EU that it cannot even find.”
“The Minister distorts the argument. What is the strength of the union is the strength of the United Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world.”
“to list matters. In the document, there are matters as high as £400 million listed under the authority only of the Budget Act and the Estimates. There are questions that require answers, and I will pose those questions tomorrow.”
“Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I could not possibly fathom or rationalise what Ms Anderson thinks. <BR /> <BR />There are other issues that I want to raise about the Estimates. In truth, I cannot do them justice, but I will speak tomorrow in the Budget debate and refer, if I may, to some of the technical issues in the document, particularly whether the issue pertaining to 'Managing Public Money' has been honoured, particularly Appendix A.2.5.15, which states that there is a limit of £1·5 million a year where you can rely:”
“My goodness, they are quaking about having to pay £2 billion to Brussels, and here we have a subvention of the order of £10 billion and more to Northern Ireland. It is such fantasy politics that only somebody of the calibre of Ms Anderson would even think that the debate should go there.”
“Yes, in coming back to the motion, I remind you, Deputy Speaker, of the resource figure in the resolution: £21 billion. There it is in black and white. <BR /> <BR />The Member asks where all the money comes from, and I am glad that Sinn Féin is beginning to think about that; that is a novelty in its terms. Where does it come from? Yes, we all pay taxes. Yes, our corporations pay taxes, but they do not pay £28 billion a year in taxes. Let the Minister's strategic policy unit tell us what the estimated tax take is from Northern Ireland, and we will all find that it is far below the £28 billion that we spend. Where does the balance come from? It comes from the subvention, the subvention that Dublin could not make.”
“I agree absolutely. Of course, we only need to look across the border. The Member mentioned national debt: the Irish Republic, per capita of population, has the third highest level of national debt in the developed world. That is the panacea for "spend, spend, spend" Sinn Féin, who never have enough and always want to grab more, and then they say that the answer lies in joining the half-bankrupt Irish Republic.”
“It does not seem to worry Ms Anderson and, clearly, not the Minister, but that is the reality. That is the realpolitik. Is he truly saying to us that his precious Irish Republic could afford any of that? When you look at the state of the Irish Republic and its homelessness and housing crisis — all of those things — you ask, "How would they ever hope to pay for any of this?". Of course, they would not. <BR /> <BR />Someone wanted to intervene.”
“I ask the Minister, in his reply, to tell us the total gross resource and gross capital spend in 2019-2020 in Northern Ireland, and then let me ask he who would have us in an all-Ireland republic how he would ever hope to raise that money. <BR /> <BR />Here we are in Northern Ireland with a working population of 800,000 people, and we are spending something like £28 billion. That is about £35,000 for every person who works in the Province. Is that the level of Venezuelan tax that we can expect in the utopia of a united Ireland?”
“Venezuela? Maybe. That figure came from the benighted, much-abused British Treasury. Of course, that is not the end of the story, because £21 billion is only the resource figure. To get the full spend in Northern Ireland, you have to add other things, such as the capital figure. Indeed, as an aside, I ask the Minister to remind us why we do not vote on the capital spend in the resolutions. You have to add the capital spend, the accruing resources and things that are obliquely but not emphatically referenced in the spring Supplementary Estimates document, such as state pensions and judicial salaries. I suggest that, when you do that, you come to an annual spend in Northern Ireland of somewhere in the order of £28 billion. Do not take it from me, however.”
“Debates such as this can sometimes be a bit dull — even boring — and so this one might have been. Then Ms Anderson came along and led us into the fantasy land of Irish unity. Did she even read the first resolution? As you go through it, you cannot be but struck by the eye-watering figures that keep this place going. You come to a resource figure of £21 billion. Where does Ms Anderson think that figure came from?”
“Does the Minister agree that it is important, particularly with people of an impressionable age, to debunk the hysteria that attends this subject and, indeed, to deal with the tendency towards anarchy among, for example, the Extinction Rebellion protests? Does he further agree that it is very important that, when our children deal with the subject, they do so in a balanced way, that eco-fascists do not put their view upon them and that people who would lead them, for example, into the anarchy of Extinction Rebellion are properly addressed as an example that is not to be followed?”
“How can the Minister optimise the economic opportunities if access to and from our biggest market is fettered? Whereas the hyperbole of the Prime Minister might be very soothing, is it compatible with the cold print of the withdrawal agreement?”
“The farce could get even more extreme than it already is. I implore you, sir, to refer this back to the Business Committee and let it draft a motion that can be debated in the House.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is of little comfort that, for the future, this issue might be addressed. The reality remains that, today, the Assembly is being asked to set up a Committee that it cannot debate. It seems that there was debate in the Business Committee, but not in the House. Surely, the House should make this decision. If it is then compounded by the fact that we will not even be able to know, by notice, who is serving on this Committee, we could well arrive at the farcical situation where an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with human rights issues could be peopled, in part, by human rights abusers. There may be put on this Committee, unknown to the House, those who are human rights abusers by virtue of the fact that they are convicted terrorists who abused, in that role, the human rights of others.”
“The House, in whose name this Committee is being established, can neither debate its establishment nor the names of those appointed to it. How does that fit with good order and with the credibility of the House?”
“If I understand correctly, the House is not to be permitted to debate or amend that motion. All that the House is permitted to do is to vote on it. Why, since Standing Order 53 places no prohibition on debate when the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee is the subject matter, are we to be denied the right to debate a motion such as this? More than that, my understanding is that, if the motion is passed, the names of those who will serve on this Ad Hoc Committee are never to be put to the House. Normally, when we establish Committees, we name them in a subsequent motion and approve the individuals. However, in this case, I am informed by the Business Office that there will be no follow-up motion. All we have is the carve-up between the parties, and they then choose the individuals.”