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 65 of 95.
“— and that clearly extends to the interchange at York Street as much as to anything else.”
“It is not to the point of letters of offer; it is to the point of projects signed —”
“I am seeking to ask a question, if I might be permitted. He will underwrite projects signed to the point when the UK leaves — and we will leave.”
“He will underwrite projects signed until the date —”
“Clearly, it is not, but should it not be beneath the Minister to scaremonger on this issue? The Chancellor's commitment is very clear —”
“Further to that point of order, I have been a Member for over five years, and, in that time, I suspect that we have debated in excess of 500 motions. Never once have I been permitted the privilege of proposing a motion because of the closed shop that operates in the selection of motions. That is linked to the fact that those of us in this corner of the House are denied representation on the Business Committee, which makes the choices. When will that inequity be addressed?”
“— been granted something wholly negative, not positive, and will continue to be, unless and until the issue of definition is addressed.”
“They proffer the victim-makers the opportunity to give, in secret and anonymously, their selective account of who they murdered and why they murdered them, and they can justify it. None of what they say needs to be corroborated; none of it can be tested; none of it can be used against them. Indeed, the very victims they made cannot be told who said what about their relative and why they were killed. What a perfect setting for the rewriting of history. <BR /> <BR />That will then be tapped into by a further body, the Implementation and Reconciliation Group, which, at the end of the process, will take up the themes — you can guarantee that alleged collusion will be one of them — that they have been fed from this rewriting of history. Then innocent victims are supposed to applaud and think that they have been granted something wonderful.”
“It has had multiple opportunities — at St Andrews, at Hillsborough, at Stormont House, in the Fresh Start talks — to make the definition of a victim a red-line issue, but never once did it do so. Lip service was easy; doing something that might threaten their love and lust for power was far too hard an ask. So, we are in this vicious circle. Innocent victims continue to suffer the injustice of the definition that attends them. <BR /> <BR />Under these proposals, that will be compounded through a body with a grand-sounding name, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. That is an odious suggestion. The rules that govern it will set the scene for a rewrite of the history of the Troubles.”
“So long as that is the definition in the law of the land, there will be no fairness, no justice, for innocent victims. Frankly, it is only innocent victims I care about. I have no brief for the victim-makers or for those who inflicted on themselves their injury: they got their just deserts. I do care, however, about their innocent victims, and unless and until we bring justice to the definition of a victim, which this motion and amendments do not even mention, we will go round in circles and deliver nothing for innocent victims. <BR /> <BR />Yes, many pay lip service to the need to change the definition of a victim and to right that great wrong, but it is lip service. Take the DUP.”
“With the victim-makers at the top and heart of government in Northern Ireland, anyone who thinks that their innocent victims are going to get a fair deal is deluded, just as they will take no comfort from the platitudes of a bomber and of a killer who have spoken in the Chamber today. Right at the heart of this injustice for innocent victims is the pernicious definition of "victim" that rules in this land, that which obscenely equates perpetrator and victim-maker with those whom they make victims.”
“The Minister said that this went to Brussels because United wanted clarification. Did you also say that, separate to that, there was a complaint? If so, who was the complainant? With regard to the airport as a whole, has there not been a failure for many years both before and, sadly, since the return of devolution? There has been an absence of a strategic holistic approach to the development of the International Airport with regard to its communication and rail links — nothing. Its roads are as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Has there not been a holistic failure to develop the airport and that, in part, is a contribution to its dwindling prospects?”
“Why was the opinion of the Attorney General not sought before the decision was taken to exercise the royal prerogative? Would it not have been most appropriate to get the benefit of his opinion?”
“It is patently obvious that this right decision was made in anticipation of defeat in the upcoming judicial review. What lessons have been learnt or will be learned by officials in her Department who thought that, with the aid of the previous, compliant Minister, they could railroad through such ill-judged decisions?”
“I greatly welcome the decision, particularly the reprieve for the very historic courthouse in Ballymena, a place I spent many happy, challenging and, I suppose, rewarding hours.”
“I want to return to the renewable heat debacle. It appears that the Minister has had to find £20 million from central resource DEL that he does not really have because he is now substantially overcommitted by the need to bail out part of the £30 million deficit this year. Since this was a 20-year scheme, does that mean that the longevity of that for that period will affect a similar level of shortfall going forward?”
“Will the Minister undertake to look at the departmental guidance on the young farmers' scheme, particularly with regard to the bizarre and seemingly unnecessary stipulations on partnership agreements? For some unknown reason, there is a stipulation that, although one is head of holding, one has to consent if a partner wishes to leave the partnership. That is unheard of in partnership law, yet it has become an obstacle to some young farmers who otherwise qualify qualifying for the payment.”
“So, here we go again. Another fresh start in health. The recycling of a great plethora of fine words from an Executive that, since 2011, have reduced beds in our hospitals by 10% and then are surprised by the chaos that results. How can the Minister come to the House with grand proposals that she has not costed? What is the costing of what the Minister is proposing? Surely any proposal, to be credible, needs to be costed before it is embraced.”
“In light of what the Minister says, how does funding those closely associated with illegal organisations as chief executives or otherwise help to address paramilitarism? Does that not just confirm them in their self-inflated idea that they are "Mr Big" in their communities, which they are still determined to dominate? Is it not folly to pick out such people and organisations for funding?”
“Is it not quite appalling that, having been able in another answer to indicate that there have been 132 attacks on Orange halls in the last five years, the Minister cannot tell the House how many prosecutions there have been? Is that because of embarrassment? Surely if there is a spreadsheet showing the number of attacks, there must be a column, so to speak, that shows whether anyone was prosecuted or brought to justice. Is the Minister too embarrassed to tell us?”
“It is interesting to hear the Member so assured that there is no control. Is part of the cancer in prisons that the present system creates an aura of Mr Bigs in the prison and then, when they are out in the streets, they still think that they are Mr Bigs who can dictate to the Government as well as everyone else?”
“I suspect that I am not the only Member who finds that some answers are the very antithesis of that; they avoid the question and do not answer it. Two examples of many are AQW 586/16-21 and AQW 4663/16-21. What sanction or capacity is there to ensure that Standing Order 19(5) is honoured by the Executive Office and others and that they answer the questions that are actually asked?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a point on Standing Order 19(5) in respect of the asking of questions for written and oral answer. I have in mind questions for written answer. Standing Order 19(5) is emphatic. It says:”
“That is an indictment of this Government, and of the Executive.”
“Therefore, before too many get on that particular high horse, they should remember that, when we last debated this subject, they did not even think it worthy of contribution. The fact that this motion refers to the huge waiting list is not something to be resented, as Ms Lockhart seemed to resent it, for it is a fact that there are approaching 400,000 people in this Province on waiting lists of all varieties.”
“I have no knowledge of what the Member refers to, but I will say this: Members from the Member's party should not be too quick to get on their high horse about this issue, because, last year, when we were debating cancer in the House, they absented themselves, pretending that they were objecting and marking an IRA murder — a pretence that, of course, soon fell apart when the lure of office once more overcame them.”
“I include all hospices that give the end-of-life care that is so needed; it is done so tenderly and with such sensitivity. We all should recognise that. <BR /> <BR />Given the all-embracing nature of the issue that we are discussing — it is no respecter, like death itself, of anyone — I have been somewhat disappointed by the ill-judged, knee-jerk reaction of some Members in the House. I understand that the Executive have a very low threshold of toleration for criticism, but some of the observations made today have been so ill judged in their churlishness and in their resentment of anyone daring to point out that things could be done better that, really, they do not speak well of those who have taken that stance. It is a fact — an unpalatable fact — that there are huge waiting lists in the Province.”
“It identified for us that, every day, 30 people get the diagnosis they dread of cancer — that is to say that twice a week we could fill the Chamber to overflowing with those diagnosed with cancer — and 4,000 people a year die from this hateful disease. Therefore, doing all that can be done is an unavoidable imperative for us all. <BR /> <BR />We should also be mindful of the dedication way beyond the call of duty of so many who tend to cancer patients, of our excellent clinical nursing staff and people like the Macmillan nurses, who bring palliative care when it is needed most. Indeed, when you watch and see the work of people like that, each one of us in the House should realise that our job here is a doddle in comparison.”
“The rising scourge of cancer in our generation is, frankly, quite frightening. I am sure it is the experience of us all that we constantly hear of individuals we know, family members or acquaintances who have got the dreaded news of a cancer diagnosis and then of their passing. Indeed, as the debate started, I got a message that a friend and member of my party in Ballymoney had this morning lost his battle with cancer. That is a persistent theme that we encounter many, many times. <BR /> <BR />The Macmillan organisation provided us all, before the Assembly election, with the Macmillan manifesto.”
“Terrorists: the question was about terrorists.”
“So it is the official policy of the Executive and Department to do nothing about terrorist memorials on public property. Is that a complacency borne of empathy with the glorification of terrorism, which these distasteful memorials represent?”
“Why is she even anticipating reducing the level of service at a hospital that provides for much of North Antrim and East Londonderry. She could, as I suggest, do better.”
“— of acute services. The fact that she has been unable to do that today will be very disconcerting for my constituents.”
“I suggest that the Minister could do better. Her predecessor was able to commit in the House to the continuation —”
“The Member may be interested in an answer to a written question from me yesterday on the renewable heat incentive scheme, which states that the anticipated cost in the upcoming year is £37 million.”
“Would the Member agree that this debate highlights the division between the two Executive parties? We have a Sinn Féin amendment castigating house sales that the DUP is patently not going to accept. In so far as the debate highlights division, is it not a chasm at the centre of the Executive on housing policy?”
“The Member, I presume, recognises that the test for prosecution is exactly the same in a sexual offence as any other offence, namely, whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Is it not a reality that sexual abuse cases are mostly instances of one word against another, which presents great difficulties to any prosecutor in determining whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction? Is that not one of the underlying reasons why there is a disproportionate number of lesser prosecutions? It is not because of some systemic aversion to prosecuting but because the test, as it must be, has to be applied across the board, whatever the offence.”
“It is a disgrace that you did not report it.”
“It is a disgrace that you did not report it.”
“Does the Member agree that a culture of silence often attends in the aftermath of these horrendous crimes? Indeed, is the Member a fit person to make this proposal since, in 2005, she was advised by Máiría Cahill of the allegation of rape against her and she did not report it to the police? Is that not the real test of sincerity and probity in these matters?”
“I also note the total lack of the words "rural proofing" in the Minister's statement. Is that because, when it comes to wielding the axe, rural proofing will be far from his mind?”
“You seem to have some hesitation, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there we are. <BR /> <BR />I express regret that MLAs are being required to ask questions about an area plan that we have not yet been permitted to see. That may make things easier for the Minister, but it certainly does not make things easier for Members, although I suppose that that was the purpose. <BR /> <BR />In this statement, I see no reference to providing schools that meet local access needs. I am thinking of parents in Ahoghill — 13 families this year were unable to get their children into the local primary school. There does not, however, seem to be a thought about making schools more accessible.”
“What credibility have the Executive in purporting to promote the disbandment of paramilitary organisations when the deputy First Minister still denies the findings of last year's Government panel that his IRA still has its structures — though reduced — and is still controlled by an army council? If half the Government deny the existence of one of the primary paramilitary organisations of our day, what credibility is there in pretending there is a policy geared at disbandment?”
“Is it not the reality that, if Mr Donaldson's advice was followed, like the SDLP advice, it would have the result of driving the border to Stranraer, whereas any border there is has to stay between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Is that not the folly of what Sir Jeffrey Donaldson was saying?”
“I must say that I was very alarmed by what Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said. However, when I raised it with one of his senior colleagues, I got the rather withering response:”
“It is the Member who wants the border down the middle of the Irish Sea. There will be what is called a "hard border" only if the EU wants a hard border. Otherwise, the UK wants no tariffs. If the EU wants tariffs, there will be a customs border. There will be a passport border only if the Republic of Ireland opts out of the common travel area and joins the Schengen Agreement. All of that would be at the behest of the EU and one of its member states, not at the behest of those who voted to free us from the EU.”
“Is that not precisely the outcome that would flow if the Member had his way? He is insisting on this special status, which, effectively, would keep Northern Ireland within the EU, and the border, in consequence of that, would be moved to Stranraer. I can understand that, as a nationalist, that is his goal, but is that not really the underlying thrust of why the Member is so anxious to keep Northern Ireland in the EU: he knows that that moves the border to Stranraer, whereas this United Kingdom has voted to leave, and this United Kingdom, when it leaves, will have its single land border with the Irish Republic?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the information of the House, the previous ruling from the Speaker was that, if a person was not present at the start and for all of a Minister's statement, they would go to the back of the queue in terms of asking questions. Will you indicate if that previous ruling has been revoked?”
“In the aftermath of the Máiría Cahill case, Frances Fitzgerald said that she was minded to establish a cross-border inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse by members of the IRA. At the time, your predecessor said that the time was not right because the Keir Starmer review was under way. That has long since finished. Has the Minister ever discussed that issue with her counterpart or has it simply been swept under the carpet?”
“Has the Minister any concerns that the generosity of the Executive's multi-million-pound bailout for the Newark route will leave us hostage to similar expectations and pressure from other operators and future operators?”