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 60 of 95.
“What we have not heard in the debate, of course, is why, if this is a matter that is exercising the Executive, they did not table the motion on Wednesday or Tuesday. Why did they wait until Friday evening to table the motion, knowing that that prevented amendments? We have had no explanation from the lead parties in the Executive or the Executive Office as to why the motion was not tabled in a timely manner. We are then told that it is our last opportunity. Is it? If the House sat on Wednesday, could we not debate the matter with amendments? The Bill is still in the House of Lords, as I understand it. It has yet to return to the Commons, so it is a bit threadbare to say that this is the last chance saloon opportunity.”
“If we are a proper debating chamber for Northern Ireland, we need to have the facility to sift, debate and amend any motion that comes before us. It is astounding that the very first item of motioned business in the House, from the most primary functionaries in the House, should be a motion that defies those most fundamental democratic rules and procedures and is a motion that cannot, by virtue of the lateness with which it was brought, be amended. That cannot be right. Therefore, I urge the House that we take the time to follow due process — until next Monday, if that is the scheduled date, or an earlier date that would allow amendments. There is nothing to lose in doing that, but a lot of credibility to lose in not doing it.”
“This is a very simple and net point: it is an elementary rule of debate in any forum, from a school debating society right through to the most elevated forum in the land, that, when a matter such as a motion is being debated, it can be amended. That is how fora express themselves and finesse the view of any particular forum. It is through amendments that that process is perfected. Yet here we have a proposition that, in the House, under the guise of a new approach, the Executive Office brings a motion so late that it cannot be amended. That is the sort of action that the Politburo would be proud of. <BR /> <BR />Either we are a properly democratic Assembly, so constituted, or we are just a tool of the Executive.”
“Further to that point of order, may I, under Standing Order 16, move that we delay the debate for seven days, on the basis that it is only right and proper that any matter, not least one of this magnitude, should be debated in circumstances where Members should have the capacity to propose amendments? It really is a sad situation if the Executive think that the Assembly is a mere tool that they can bounce motions through without any opportunity to amend. <BR /> <BR />I wish to have leave, under Standing Order 16, to move that we postpone for seven days or sooner.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that the debate that we are about to embark on is on a motion that cannot be amended in consequence of the Executive Office choosing to lay the motion late on Friday? If Members were like me, they got notice at 3.46 pm, and, of course, our Standing Orders require amendments to be tabled two full days before debate. In consequence, we have reached the farcical situation where we are going to debate a motion that no Member can amend. Is that correct?”
“How does he square that with the boast of the Secretary of State that there was money to deliver a resolution? Is it confirmation that parties signed up to a deal without the certainty of the funding, and how stupid was that?”
“I join the Minister in paying tribute to our remarkable health workers across the service. That was a well-made tribute. In that context, and although it was not the Minister's responsibility, the present dispute arose because a Northern Ireland Executive foolishly broke pay parity in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take the opportunity today, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, to apologise to the health workers for the breaking of pay parity and taking us into this crisis, which did not otherwise need to have that dimension? <BR /> <BR />Secondly, I am dismayed to hear that, although the Minister is finding money to sort the pay parity issue, he is having to borrow it from next year. How does he square that along with the assertion that there is no financial money to carry it forward?”
“Finally, I join with Mrs Kelly in urging upon the Minister speedy action to restore autonomy to individual schools on minor works. It is preposterous that, when you have a broken window or door, you cannot simply get it fixed as you could before, and the expense to the public purse is escalating.”
“Since there have been 165 applicants and there are still over 100 schools waiting, will the Minister publish the list of those that are still waiting for inclusion in the scheme?”
“Is there a particular reason why County Antrim is being ignored?”
“I express my disappointment at the neglect of the controlled sector in north Antrim. Indeed, in the entirety of County Antrim, it seems that no controlled school has been found worthy of the improvements. What a contrast with County Down and the Minister's constituency, past and present, where four such schools are to be advanced.”
“It is a title that is a nonsense in itself and is but, as I said, a perpetuation of the carve-up in this House. <BR /> <BR />Mr Stalford, I am sure, will carry off the role with great aplomb. It may not have been the title that he was hoping for, as he may have been hoping for that of junior Minister in the Executive Office. However, the crumbs are better, he may think, than nothing, although I would tell him that "nothing" is a very good place to be in this House.”
“As has been said correctly, this is a non-post. It is sheerly a post for vanity purposes to emphasise the carve-up between the two main parties. <BR /> <BR />I remind Members that the post was specially created in 2011 not because of need or because of any compulsion to help the running of the House but as a sop to Sinn Féin and to give someone a title. Of course, some from the Sinn Féin Benches in a former life enjoyed titles and are perhaps finding it difficult to live without them. We therefore created the preposterous post of Principal Deputy Speaker, as if inserting the word "Principal" bestowed any powers over and above those that exist for any Deputy Speaker. The Principal Deputy Speaker has no powers, no rights, no authority and no standing above any other Deputy Speaker, so why do we have the title?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is not a matter for the Business Committee to change Standing Orders, surely, and, if Standing Orders provide for 11, the only manner in which you can avoid 11 is either to change Standing Orders or to suspend Standing Orders. Are we getting to the point where we will suspend that Standing Order?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that the motion that we have just passed ties itself to Standing Orders 48 and 49. In consequence, does that mean that the Statutory Committees are going to continue with a membership of 11, because that is what, of course, those Standing Orders say?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now, Mr Speaker, that you are Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, would you like to take the opportunity to apologise for and withdraw your statement of 2018, when you referred to Northern Ireland as a "putrid little statelet"?”
“— to have an Opposition. I will do my best to give you as much opposition as I can.”
“— reptilian turn of phrase, when she knew what she would be doing if she gave in to the Irish language demand, but power — any power — is the supreme draw. Even now, we are not even going —”
“— by the passing of the Stormont House Agreement's unbalanced legacy proposals. At the end of it, however, this is only a staging post for Sinn Féin. The First Minister knows that. She has known that since her infamous —”
“What a digestive system the DUP has. <BR /> <BR />I remember in 2017 the call of the First Minister on Irish language legislation was, "Not on my watch", yet, here today, she is the handmaiden of that very legislation. Here today, she is the sponsor of an Irish language enforcer who will put Irish upon every public authority, including this House, where we will have the ludicrous spectacle of needless interpretation. In every council chamber, we will put our ratepayers to the needless cost of translation. <BR /> <BR />There may well be a honeymoon period for the Executive, at least until the Irish language legislation is safely on the statute book and at least until the innocent victims have been betrayed —”
“Of course, we are here today only because of a double blackmail: blackmail of a Secretary of State who says, "I have the money to fix the health service, but I will not give it unless there is an Executive", a Secretary of State who shamelessly put the life of an Executive above the life of the sick; and, of course, the blackmail of Sinn Féin that you can have a Government only if you pay the ransom that they demand. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, it is a commentary in itself on the perversity of these governmental arrangements that, although it was Sinn Féin that tore down the institutions, for what they were worth, it was the DUP that had to pay the price to get them back, and what a price it was: to eat a mountain of their own words, laced with yoghurt and curry, a special brand of Campbell's soup.”
“I get it that people are desperate to have their health service fixed, but I will not join in the pretence that an Executive here that can exist only by the grace and favour of a party that does not want Northern Ireland to exist will bring them the stability they crave. <BR /> <BR />I also remind the public that the present health crisis was made in Stormont. It was the Executive that broke with pay parity for nurses. It was the Executive that, through successive Ministers, radically reduced the number of beds in our hospitals.”
“Neither of them has baggage that should prevent them from doing the job, and neither of them has baggage that would proclaim loud and clear that this is not a new approach but the same old, same old.”
“"New Decade, New Approach" is the supposed catchphrase of the day, and, yet, here we are, on the very first item of business, and it is "New Decade, Old Approach", old carve-up between the DUP and Sinn Féin. If that is how things will continue — I suspect it is — nothing has changed, nothing is new and nothing good will come of it. The spectacle of seeing the DUP obediently troop through the Lobbies to support a Sinn Féin Speaker will not be lost on many. <BR /> <BR />Of the three candidates, I would much prefer either of the other two, both of whom have been Deputy Speakers in the House. Both have acquitted themselves in that regard. Both have the personality and the capacity to do the job.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second point I wanted to make is that it is an illustration of the absurdity of the governmental arrangements in this place that a party such as Sinn Féin, which does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, can, by a veto, prevent this House from effectively doing any business. Unless and until that is changed, there is no hope for these institutions.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been very generous in relation to points of order, but could I make two points? Until this moment, until this day in Northern Ireland, the safest place for an unborn child was in the sanctuary of its mother's womb. Sadly, from tonight, the most dangerous place for some unborn will be in the mother's womb because the wanton decision can be taken to kill them. That is really what we are talking about, and that is something which rightly provokes a lot of feeling. It is a matter of immense regret to me that this House has not been able to face up to that situation.”
“Could you just clarify, Mr Speaker? You have already said that if a Speaker was elected — and the SDLP, clearly, are of a mind to thwart that — the Assembly could debate motions. Could it also, then, at that stage, suspend its Standing Orders to allow the introduction of private Member's Bills? So, by stopping the election of a Speaker, not only are motions being prevented but the opportunity through Standing Order 77 is being thwarted to actually pass legislation on this issue.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.”
“That is right, Mr Speaker, and legislation.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it correct that if the Assembly were to elect a Speaker and Deputy Speakers but was not able to form an Executive, it could, nonetheless, proceed to do business in this House, which could include private Member's Bills to seek to make legislation? Therefore, does it follow, if that is correct, that those determined to thwart the election of a Speaker are, in effect, thwarting the possibility of taking action to defend the unborn, whose voice cannot be heard here today but whose voice is the one crying out to us all in this Chamber? Is it not a tragedy that the SDLP, who proclaim themselves as a pro-life party, will take a step, it seems, to stop a Speaker being elected knowing that that stops legislation to prevent the introduction of section 9 of the appalling Act from July?”
“<BR /> <BR />When you marry that to the unfettered discretion in section 39 and pay due regard to what the House of Lords said, there is absolutely, I submit, no reason that Mr Givan's proposal to suspend Standing Orders, subject only to cross-community support, cannot be heard, and it most certainly should be heard. If it is not, of course, there is a facility in schedule 10 to the 1998 Act for the Attorney General to test the matter elsewhere.”
“a Speaker — "a Presiding Officer" — it can then do none other. <BR /> <BR />As Mr Givan referred you to, however, a matter such as this has been litigated on in the highest court in the land at the time, the House of Lords, when Peter Robinson took an action against the First Minister and deputy First Minister of the time. The House of Lords ruled that, when it comes to interpreting the word "shall", you interpret it in its context. You therefore look to see whether there is a context such as, "You shall do such-and-such, and if you don't, these consequences flow". When you apply that test to section 39, there is no such context. It does not state, "You shall elect a Speaker, and if you don't, no further business shall be done".”
“You have decreed that, because it states:”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I agree entirely with what Mr Givan has said. This really does come down to an issue of whether or not this Assembly is master of its own proceedings. Where we find the answer to that is in both the Northern Ireland Act and Standing Orders. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 77 provides, very emphatically and in a totally unfettered way, the opportunity for this Assembly, if it is the will of this Assembly, to suspend all of Standing Orders, subject to one reservation and one only, which is that it can be done only on a cross-community vote. There is no further fetter in Standing Order 77. There is nothing that requires it to be subject to any other Standing Order or any provision in any legislation. The section in which you seem to take refuge, Mr Speaker, is section 39 of the Northern Ireland Act.”
“— which would not debate cancer or autism but returned to protect the vested interests of SpAds and to vote it down. That says it all, really.”
“Thank you. I certainly do. Indeed, the Member will recall that, after the Red Sky debacle, I brought a second SpAd Bill to the House. One of the things it sought to do was to make the SpAds' code of conduct and measuring them against it subject to the Civil Service disciplinary procedures. Who voted that down? Sinn Féin, a party of suspension at that time —”
“— and we saw how his party surrounded him in the Committee to protect him.”
“Therefore, this is simply about extending his remit to Ministers who, until now, have been the untouchables in the House. We saw scandals, like how Mr McCausland conducted himself with Red Sky and elsewhere —”
“So, for all practical purposes, there is neither a means of investigation nor a means of holding to account Ministers in this House. Hence, to suggest we should extend the powers of the commissioner, who examines us as MLAs, to Ministers in their role as Ministers is not mischief-making. It is a very basic component of the start of accountability that anyone would reasonably expect. The fact that, at the moment, the primary party in the House is seeking to block, avoid and thwart that extension is a huge commentary on that party and, as someone said in the debate, an indication that the last couple of months have taught them nothing. <BR /> <BR />What Mr Agnew is asking for is the barest minimum of an investigative process that will not cost the House anything of significance because the apparatus already exists with the commissioner.”
“She told us that she believes in accountability, transparency and matters of openness, and then she berates the very modest suggestion that we should have some mechanism to investigate Ministers' alleged failures. For her to tell us that that is mischief-making is itself quite astounding. <BR /> <BR />Ordinary MLAs are subject to an investigative process through the commissioner. Yet Ministers, who make the real decisions in this House — who get into the sort of trouble that has landed us in this present situation — are immune from investigation. They are protected by a system that affords only the First Ministers together acting against their own, which is unheard of in this incestuous place, or 30 Members raising an issue that the DUP does not block by petition of concern, as it did in other cases.”
“Mr Ford rightly observed that, as this Assembly collapses, and it is not unrelated to the issue of ministerial accountability, it is ironic that we are discussing the total absence of any system to import accountability in respect of Ministers, and so it is. It is also fitting, because it is quite astounding that, after all the years of limping through devolution that we have had, we are still at the point of effectively having no mechanism to hold Ministers to account for their actions as Ministers. Yes, we have a code of conduct. Yes, there is a ministerial code. But there is no mechanism to investigate, in any independent sense, whether or not a Minister has fallen short of the standards thereby imposed, and that is deliberate. <BR /> <BR />Today, we see a deliberate intent to hold on to that. Mrs Cameron's speech was quite amazing.”
“Would the Minister anticipate that this inquiry will operate on the basis of the chair appointing counsel to the inquiry, who will then cross-examine all witnesses? Further, will there be provision and criteria for legal representation by those appearing before the inquiry, and will Sir Patrick set that? Finally, if I can, does the Minister have any concerns that a permanent injunction that bans the naming of recipients could impact adversely on the inquiry?”
“An interim injunction is generally granted as an ex parte application: that is, without the respondent being present or heard. Was that the situation today, or was the Department heard? If it was an interim injunction on that basis, it lasts only until there is a full hearing. When is that full hearing?”
“Can the Minister give any explanation as to how it was that St Saviour's Church in Connor, in my constituency, received a letter advising them that they had been successful under the community halls scheme, which brought them great joy, only to be followed by a telephone call from the Department to say it was a mistake? Can that matter be most thoroughly investigated before church representatives and I meet his departmental officials tomorrow?”
“Is one of the concerns in the implementation of that regime that it appears, as time goes on and someone is longer in custody, that the courts become easier satisfied on the granting of bail? They may have refused it on the basis that the person might interfere with witnesses or not turn up, and then suddenly, a year down the line, they release that very person whom, hitherto, they had made those findings against because they had been longer in custody. Is it not a concern that it seems to dilute the requirements as time goes on?”
“— is the delays in criminal trials, which accentuate the burden on the judiciary to give bail.”
“I am told that I have no extra time, so, not on this occasion. Sorry about that. <BR /> <BR />Yes, we need to scrutinise carefully what our judges are doing, as I think that they are too generous in their interpretation. We also have to ensure that when bail is granted it is properly policed. One of the most scandalous things about the subject case is the indifferent attitude to the policing of that bail and how that person was able to be out of the jurisdiction, we presume, for a month before anyone realised. What was the point in asking him to sign, five days a week, if no one was following up on the fact that he had not signed? That is a scandalous dereliction of duty. <BR /> <BR />The other contributor to too much free bail —”
“If the United Kingdom Government reviewed the Human Rights Act, that would be one fruitful area in which they could and should review its operation.”
“I have a criticism of our judges. Judges in Northern Ireland are more timid and more generous in their attitude to the European Convention and, therefore, more generous in their granting of bail, I perceive, when contrasted with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Justice Minister could do a useful piece of work by having a study conducted to compare and contrast the attitude to bail, which operates under the same European Convention, in Northern Ireland as opposed to GB. The journalist Ben Lowry has done some good, insightful work on this that indicates that there is a problem. The Justice Minister could have a good piece of work done on that. <BR /> <BR />We have to go to the source to recognise that, not for the first time, the European Convention on Human Rights has got its balance wrong.”
“There patently is a systemic problem in the administration of bail, and I think that there are proper criticisms to be made arising from the case that most recently evidenced that problem, the McLaughlin case. However, we have to recognise where the source of this problem is. The source is the European Convention on Human Rights. Under article 5, the European convention creates a presumption in favour of bail. The prosecution has then to displace that presumption by proving that one of five matters is a good reason to deny bail — that is, that the accused may abscond, reoffend, interfere with witnesses etc. It is that tilting of the balance in favour of the person accused and against the police that has created the situation that has evolved. Our judges have to work with that.”