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 62 of 95.
“I trust that, when they are arrested, they will not be easily, as was the person charged with the attempted murder of David Black, admitted to bail, and that their bail terms will not be made so easy if they are admitted to bail, and they should not be in the first place.”
“<BR /> <BR />I listened today to condemnation from Mr Gerry Kelly, himself a convicted terrorist, who, to this day, has not acknowledged that his terrorism was wrong, unjustified and uncalled for, but rather still honours and glories in, as does his party, those very acts of terror. What does that do today? It does not just speak to their character, but to today's terrorists; gives them succour, provides a crutch for them and causes them to conclude that if it was OK for the Provos, it is OK for them. Until those who represented that previous terrorism acknowledge and renounce it, then that crutch is going to continue to be provided. <BR /> <BR />I will make one other point. I hope someone — hopefully, more than one person — is made amenable for this crime.”
“My primary thoughts are with the officer who was subjected to this vile attack last night. We wish him well and a full recovery. It is a reminder to us of how the police and security services stand between us and those with murder in their hearts. Although, happily, this officer escaped death, that was not thanks to those who set out patently with murder in their hearts and used weaponry that was most likely to occasion murder even on a mass scale. It is a quite shocking situation, but let it be said that it is no more shocking, no more vile and no more unjustified than the terrorists of the IRA or anyone else who, for years, inflicted such horror; those who, with murder in their hearts, went out and did murder.”
“— and make direct rule accountable to the people by retaining the Assembly for the legislative and scrutiny functions. That is the only way that, I believe, we can make progress. It is quite clear that if we give a veto to Sinn Féin, a party that wants to destroy Northern Ireland, through mandatory coalition, it will do exactly that.”
“The Assembly has three functions. Two of them have worked reasonably well. One is lawmaking and one is scrutiny. They have worked reasonably well. The one that has been catastrophic is the Executive powers. If the Executive powers are the failure and you cannot agree on voluntary coalition, take them out. Put in British Ministers —”
“In a moment. What needs to happen then is that British Ministers need to take over the Executive, but, this time, direct rule can be made accountable by keeping this House as the lawmaking body so that Westminster's Ministers have to put their laws through this House on devolved issues and are held to account through scrutiny by this House.”
“That is the fundamental flaw of mandatory coalition. When, in the doing of that, you bestow that discretion on a party that does not even want the country of which they are governing to exist or to succeed, it is quite clear, I would have thought, that it is a system bound to implode when it has served its purpose for those prepared to use it and exhaust its credit. That is the point that we have reached, and unless we get to a system of voluntary coalition — government by the willing — we will never have durable, lasting devolution. That reality needs to be faced. If the parties in the House are not mature enough to come to the point of voluntary coalition, we are headed for direct rule.”
“The DUP made the most colossal concession that we would abandon the fundamental principle of democracy that who is in government lies in the discretion of the people, and that we would bestow that discretion on the parties. That is the essence of mandatory coalition. In any other democracy, the people have the discretion to decide who is in and who is out. They can decide to vote a party out of government; that is in their discretion. However, because of the iniquity of mandatory coalition, that discretion is removed from the voters and is bestowed upon the parties. <BR /> <BR />Once you create a system that says that you are entitled, as of right, provided that you have a handful of MLAs, to be in government, you transfer the discretion, which is the heart of democracy, as to who should be in government, from people to parties.”
“<BR /> <BR />After 10 years of bleeding what it could out of mandatory coalition and having decided that there is nothing more for it unless someone wants to come and load it up with more concessions, it has decided, strategically, that Stormont is over. The only thing that will bring it back here is if the continuance of Stormont so serves its ends because the DUP decides after the election, for the sake of office, to fill Sinn Féin's boots with more concessions. You can have a Stormont under mandatory coalition if you are willing to pay that impossible price. Sinn Féin is testing you to see just how desperate you are to hang on to power, and if you pay the price again, you will pay it again and again and again.”
“It is no surprise to me that mandatory coalition has imploded. It was bound to happen because it is a system incapable of long-term survival. It has imploded because, at its heart, was a party that never really cared whether good government was brought to Northern Ireland or not. Indeed, one of the searching questions that all democrats, and particularly unionists, have to ask themselves now is whether Sinn Féin ever did intend or ever does intend to help make Northern Ireland work or whether Stormont was only ever a phase in its struggle to, in fact, destroy Northern Ireland, to extract what it could and when it could extract no more, to move on in its militaristic terms to the next phase of the struggle. That certainly is my belief. I believe that it is that point that we have reached.”
“Does the Minister agree that it is a shocking indictment of our criminal justice system when someone charged with aiding and abetting one of the most horrendous murders of recent years is treated with kid gloves by the system, whereby the courts, through serial relaxations of his bail, removed the tagging restraint, reduced the number of days that he had to sign and allowed him out to attend hotel spa weekends? Then — surprise, surprise — he skips bail and the police do not discover it for over a month. Could there be a more shocking indictment? Have any real lessons been learned both by the judiciary, who are not above reproof in the matter, and by the police?”
“In terms of things that the Minister seems to have forgotten about, will he give us an update on the long-awaited park-and-ride scheme at Cullybackey, particularly now when he tells us that there is going to be an hourly service through Cullybackey to Londonderry?”
“The record of these various junctions on the Lisnevenagh Road has been horrendous. Why has the original plan to attend to the junction at Maine Road been abandoned? Its having been a junction identified as in need of remedial works, it seems rather odd that the remedial works or any plan for them have been abandoned.”
“— that might well be a reason, but it is not a reason to deny the public the truth, and that is what must be obtained.”
“Fine. I am glad of the clarification. <BR /> <BR />It seems that there was a vested interest somewhere about the closure of the scheme, and, going by what Mr Bell suggests, that vested interest rested in Stormont Castle. Is that not exactly the sort of thing that we need to have ventilated and exposed to the glare of a public inquiry? Maybe that is why, until this moment, there has been great reluctance from the primary party of government to have a public inquiry. If there are countermanding instructions emanating from Stormont Castle —”
“Why was the date of 1 October 2015 — the end date of the old scheme and the start date of the amended scheme with tariffs — changed? Who changed it? At whose behest? At whose direction? For whose benefit? Those are the questions that go to the heart of the matter. <BR /> <BR />Mr Bell has shed some light on that by indicating that compulsion was applied; indeed, he said this morning that, within half an hour of him deciding to close the scheme, his instruction was countermanded by Stormont Castle. If that relates to 1 October, that goes to the heart of the matter. Why would there be such a countermanding?”
“Not just yet. <BR /> <BR />There are very net issues to be addressed. This is not a Saville or anything else; this is something that can be done in a few months at most. It is a very focused issue; indeed, there are some issues for which, it is abundantly clear, there are already answers. There are issues for which answers are definitely needed, but, for example, there is no dispute that it was Arlene Foster and Arlene Foster alone who signed off the scheme and decided, as a policy, to take out of the GB scheme the tiering in the tariff, with disastrous consequences. That is indisputable. She alone decided that. Yes, there are areas to be explored; some of them go to the heart of the matter and the heart of the potential corruption.”
“There never was a need for a protracted inquiry, because there are —”
“There is nothing like a looming election to focus minds and to try to get on the right side of public opinion. Now we are told that the DUP supports a public inquiry. Good. In fact, we were told, this day last week, by Mrs Foster that one would be announced within 24 hours. Where is it? Was that just another sound bite to get through another day? <BR /> <BR />The case for a public inquiry is overwhelming. There are some things that are —”
“The case for a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is unanswerable. The question is this: why have we not already got one? The answer, in large measure, is because the parties hitherto of government have, to this point, blocked such an inquiry. Indeed, with considerable vehemence, we were told by Mr Poots, just four weeks ago:”
“You are the man who said, "No public inquiry".”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If Mr Murphy did not speak in a debate, does he have the privilege of the House?”
“What we were to debate today should have been tackled months ago but now it is rushed at the very last minute. It is right and appropriate that, if there is another week, it is taken so that some semblance of scrutiny can be given to it and we can address it on a more proper footing than hitherto. I support the motion.”
“There is nothing to be lost and potentially something to be gained by an adjournment. This matter has been bounced upon the Assembly with incredible speed and without any of the routine or attempted scrutiny that would normally be expected by our Standing Orders and by due process. There never was a need to rush it, because the Minister has known since the day he came into office that there was a major issue here, as did his predecessors for months before that. Yet if there had not been the BBC 'Spotlight' programme, and if we were not facing into an election, I suspect that we would not have this proposal at all, because there was a laissez-faire attitude of, "Let's brush it under the carpet" until it became uncontainable in consequence of the 'Spotlight' programme.”
“Just on that point, the Minister today sought to make the excuse that the scheme was more generous than originally intended. Would the Member agree that that is an unsustainable argument, since the tariff that was set was the top-line tariff with no secondary tariff and, therefore, was obviously intended to reap whatever benefits the top tariff reaped? Is it not, therefore, disingenuous to suggest that it did not actually operate as intended? It patently did, and that was why the tiering was taken out.”
“There could not be a more acute instance of why Standing Order 43 exists and why its defiance, which is what is happening here today, is so inappropriate.”
“On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the circumstances that we are in today, are the exhortation and expectations of Standing Order 43 not all the more acute? In paragraph 6, it specifically anticipates report to the House by the Committee where the statutory rule:”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since the Chair has the duty and responsibility to protect the processes of the House, will you explain how the provisions of Standing Order 43 have been complied with in the tabling of the business we intend to embark on?”
“I am tempted to say that those in Sinn Féin are the last people to set any standards of probity about anything. On the Minister's legacy, will she, before she leaves office, implement the call from international experts to ensure that the air ambulance is doctor-led from day one?”
“Sorry, that is not how the public see it.”
“There are other Members on those Benches whose friends and family benefited from this scheme, as well as the friends and family of SpAds, but it is everyone's fault but theirs.”
“— the scheme that was amended in November, that had the tiers put into it, that was then rectified and became a fair scheme. That is the scheme that was closed in February 2016, not the scheme in its original form with its runaway expenditure. That is the scheme that the DUP brought in and that the Minister repeatedly endorsed. <BR /> <BR />We have heard much talk of affirmation, "Oh, we want public inquiries". Do you? If you do, then you will commit to one under the Inquiries Act, because only such an inquiry can call and compel witnesses. <BR /> <BR />There are DUP Members on these Benches who could tell a lot about this scheme, who could tell about their party donors who have benefited. Lord Morrow, the party chairman, has disappeared. He could tell us quite a lot about party donors who have benefited.”
“Thank you. We heard some nonsense today that some of us voted against the closure of the scheme. No, we did not. We voted against the closure of the amended scheme —”
“All the Department can say is, "Administrative oversight". No, not administrative oversight: Minister asleep at the wheel. <BR /> <BR />Then, lo and behold, when suddenly they catch on that it needed to be reapproved, it is finally sent to DFP. Who is the Minister by that stage in DFP? Mrs Arlene Foster. And who, in October 2015 — I remind the House that this is at the height of the spike in applications — is the Minister heading the Department that reapproves the scheme? Mrs Arlene Foster. So, whether in DETI or DFP, she is asleep at the wheel.”
“On Arlene's watch, that was ignored. When the scheme was approved in 2012 by DFP's Supply officer, the letter of approval said the scheme must be reapproved in March 2015. The responsibility for ensuring that that happened rested with DETI, but it did not happen — because, again, asleep at the wheel — and the opportunity to correct it, to catch on and to get the tiering into it was missed.”
“That is signed by Arlene Foster, Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. It is not signed by some hapless civil servant or some nameless consultant. It is signed by the Minister. Yet, when faced with the consequences of her negligence, she says, "Oh, it's the civil servants' fault" or "It's a consultant's fault". It was even Mr McGlone's fault; it is all our faults. But, it is not Arlene's fault. Sorry, Arlene Foster and Arlene Foster alone signed the scheme into existence, and, from that flows the runaway nature of the scheme and the debt of the future. <BR /> <BR />She did not just fail there. In 2013, Cambridge Economic Policy Associates said, "You need to get tiered tariffs into the scheme". The Department, under Arlene Foster's watch, ignored it. In 2014, Ofgem said the same, "You need to get tiered tariffs into the scheme".”
“The First Minister clearly does not get it. Otherwise, she would not be trying to spread the blame to everyone but herself. The public and the taxpayer certainly get it, because they see to the heart of the matter that it was the Minister, and no one else, who signed off this flawed scheme, and who consciously and deliberately took out the tariff-tiering that was in the GB template and put in only the high tariff, who was the author of this squander made in Stormont. There is no hiding place for the First Minister on that seminal issue, because it is her signature, and hers alone, which signed off the scheme on 13 April 2012 when she signed the declaration which stated:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the rule of the House that any intervention after the five-minute period is null and void?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not challenge at all the veracity of your original summonsing of the House faced with the request that you had, but it is quite clear that that request has effectively been revoked. Hence, I press, for the third time, for a ruling on whether or not you regard as a ministerial statement what it is anticipated we will hear from Mrs Foster. Are we now going to hear a ministerial statement or are we not? That goes to the heart of the matter.”
“Very much obliged. Could you rule whether what it is intended that we will hear is or is not a ministerial statement?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, could you rule —”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. We were notified to come here today to hear a ministerial statement. The Order Paper decrees that we will hear a ministerial statement. I presume that the Order Paper is issued under your direction. Can you, therefore, indicate how this now can be a ministerial statement from the Executive Office since one half of that office has withdrawn its imprimatur? Surely this no longer is a ministerial statement. I ask you to rule whether it is a ministerial statement. If it is not, by what Standing Order has the House been recalled to hear a personal statement? I know of no such Standing Order. Is this a ministerial statement? We need to know that.”
“— for the purpose of a personal statement, and that is what this is.”
“Mr Speaker, before this turns into a total farce, I implore you to take a point of order on the probity of what is about to happen, in that this could not be a ministerial statement in that it does not have the consent of the joint office on whose behalf it purports to be made. There is no power in Standing Orders or in legislation to recall the House —”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a statement that is not a ministerial statement be made to this House?”
“Will the Minister bring clarity to the situation? It is said that £1·3 million can be saved by closing the centres, but it is not a saving to the Minister because the money will be redirected within the Youth Service. Is that not correct? Therefore, it is not a question of where it is best spent.”
“— to the closure of such a marvellous venture.”
“— feel and experience the commitment, dedication and output before he is a party —”
“I invite him to come to Bushmills and visit the centre when it is in full operation. I visited it last Friday. Others have also visited it. I would like him to see —”
“That is worth far more than £1·3 million, yet that is the balance in which we are putting that achievement. For some kids, an outdoor activity venture is their parents paying huge amounts of money for them to go on a ski trip. However, many more parents are very glad of this affordable outlet, whereby they can give their kids the advantage of this scheme. It is those kids that we are putting down. Shame on the Education Authority for even thinking in those terms. <BR /> <BR />Let us not forget that Bushmills is much more than an outdoor education centre in one of the most beautiful parts of our country. It provides critical adult training for those who deliver things such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Where will that now be delivered? The Minister needs to get a grip on this.”