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 67 of 95.
“At this meeting, the Council and the Minister approved the budget for 2016: a staggering figure of over £10 million for Foras na Gaeilge; less than a quarter of that for Ulster Scots. Does the Minister have any vision for, during his time in office, addressing this extravagance and that inbuilt disparity? If he has such a vision, how does he intend to deliver reducing this extravagance?”
“Why has it not been costed, and why has it taken so long to date?”
“Is there no urgency in the Department to address the issue?”
“It is over 18 months since the sad fatality of the young married woman at Woodgreen cross gave rise to the review, yet, 18 months on, we are still having excuses for why action cannot take place.”
“Does the deputy First Minister intend to further abuse the royal prerogative by usurping the legislative functions of the House?”
“If the implementation of the Programme for Government requires any fresh legislation on any subject, will the introduction and processing of that be left to the House — this legislative Assembly — or does the deputy First Minister anticipate again donning his royal persona and changing legislation by royal prerogative?”
“It is not about making the best of a bad job; it is about embracing the opportunities which are manifold in leaving the EU.”
“— that embraces the opportunities that lie ahead.”
“There is a suggestion, too, of a war room. Well, there might be some from the ranks who might be in the war room who might have a little more paramilitary or military experience than others. <BR /> <BR />What we need is a cogency of approach —”
“I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party, in this document, has accepted that we are leaving the EU. When we leave, all of the United Kingdom must leave on equal terms. There can be no such thing as special status that keeps Northern Ireland half in and half out. We went in as one nation; we leave as one nation. There must be no compromise on that fundamental issue. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated, some of the content of the document does not impress me. I am not impressed, for example, by the suggestion that the issuing of visas should be devolved to Northern Ireland. That should never be devolved in a united kingdom: different visa arrangements are totally incompatible with a united kingdom. There is an incongruous proposal for a peace centre. It seems to come out of the blue, for whatever reason.”
“Of course, that highlights the fact that we have an Executive who are pulling in opposite directions on this seminal issue. We have Sinn Féin wanting to stay in Europe and the DUP wanting to leave Europe. It is no surprise, then, that there is no cogency or coherence to anything being said on behalf of the Executive as a whole and no surprise that there is no document from them. <BR /> <BR />I am saddened that, in the debate, many of the "Remoaners" are still fighting the battle that they have lost. On the Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance Benches, we have had some of the Japanese soldiers who are still fighting the war in the Philippine jungle. The referendum is over. You lost. We are leaving the EU. Get over it and get into a state of mind where we will grasp the opportunities that have opened up.”
“In the day that is in it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I regret that you have not used your prerogative to extend my four minutes, but there you are. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that, in many places, the content of the document is quite haphazard and random, but the colour scheme is excellent. However, we need to recognise that the Ulster Unionist Party has produced more than any of the rest of us. It has produced a document, which is more than any other party in the House, my own included, has produced and more — where the expectation would be greater — than the Executive have produced. Hence, of course, the rather churlish and embarrassed response from the Executive Benches in the debate. Although the document can be properly critiqued and criticised on many fronts, it is, as I said, more than anyone else has produced, least of all the Executive.”
“To explain, Mr Speaker, it is about you as the guardian of the processes of the House and whether you think that it is appropriate that prerogative powers —”
“I totally accept that the Minister has no responsibility for what happened in his Department before he was Minister, but I have no doubt that he is concerned by the boasts in the 'Spotlight' programme from a gentleman who, while feathering his own nest, said that he had insider status in the Department and the opportunity to influence decisions in it. Has the Minister been able to investigate whether the integrity of the Department was breached in that respect and, if so, whether there was any staff complicity?”
“In answer to Mr Aiken, the Minister said that she did not feel constrained by political influences inhibiting the investigation of financial crime and corruption. As Justice Minister in this jurisdiction, what steps has she taken since last Tuesday night's BBC 'Spotlight' exposé of precisely such corruption and financial crime? What steps has she taken to ensure that such matters are not swept under the carpet and that those culpable, whoever they might be, are brought to justice?”
“Does the First Minister accept that, to have a positive impact on the national negotiations on Brexit — I stress that they are national negotiations — it is a prerequisite that the Executive are all pulling in the one direction on the issue and that this voice at the table cannot serve Northern Ireland if one part of it is saying out of one side of the mouth, "We agree with Brexit", and the other part is saying, "We do not accept Brexit", such as we had yesterday from the Finance Minister and in the equivocation of the deputy First Minister this morning? Will the effort to get a positive outcome for Northern Ireland not be impeded unless the Executive are all pulling in the same direction and accepting the reality that we are leaving the EU?”
“Since the essential burden of the meeting related to Brexit, may I ask for clarity on a central issue? Do the deputy First Minister and his half of the Executive accept the reality that the United Kingdom, including all of its parts, is leaving the EU? Without that unequivocal acceptance, the supposed agreed approach in the joint letter to the Prime Minister is an empty sham. Can the deputy First Minister, without evasion, answer that simple question: do he and his Ministers, whether they like it or not, accept that we are leaving the EU?”
“In his previous role, the Minister rightly observed that, under the last mandate, there had been disproportionate funding on capital of Irish-medium schools. He pointed out that the Irish-medium sector had only 1·3% of the school population but over 12% of the capital projects. Now that he has control of the purse strings, will we see reversal of that bias?”
“Thanks. Does the Member agree that one of the problems with obtaining a just outcome in cases of harassment and stalking is that, for example, in our local harassment legislation, there is a defence effectively of good faith in that, if you did not know that what you were doing was harassment, you have a bona fide defence? Likewise, in the stalking provisions in England, there is the good faith defence. Does the Member agree that, to have effective legislation, that line of defence needs to be removed from the legislation?”
“Instead of being a serial "re-moaner", will the Minister not have to come to terms with the fact that this nation is leaving the EU? When that happens, instead of British taxpayers' money being diverted through Brussels, it will become a matter for direct negotiation with the Treasury. Is the Minister even preparing for that, and does he welcome the fact that when that happens, we can cull one more quango, namely the SEUPB?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that, despite the most astounding revelations last week on BBC 'Spotlight', the Assembly will today bury its head in the sand and proceed as if none of those revelations were made? Is that really so? Are we not even to have the opportunity by question, Matter of the Day or anything else to debate those shocking issues?”
“I would like an answer. You know that you could have changed the definition.”
“Sadly, it is not possible to amend the regulation at this stage in the House, or I would have sought to do so, but it is possible, in the name of integrity, to rediscover your conscience on the matter and not to press the obnoxious proposal in Part 4 at this time. I make that plea. I know that it will fall on deaf ears, as doing the deal that was done was more important than taking the stand of integrity on these issues.”
“There is no special treatment for the person who got their disability in a road traffic accident, but there is for the person who got their injury at their own hand through their self-inflicted perpetration of terror. There is special treatment for him. Away with the nonsense that, in welfare, the regulations are blind to how you came by your disability. They are not. They make a special case for those including the perpetrator. <BR /> <BR />It is no answer to say, "Ah, but most people covered by this will be innocent victims". Maybe, but there is a principle here. It is a principle that could have been preserved by the simple addition of a few words to regulation 15(1) to exclude the perpetrator.”
“That is what has brought the DUP to this position, where it is prepared to hole below the waterline all its pledges about never equating innocent victims with perpetrators. In doing that, of course, they undercut entirely the laudable argument for amendment of the poisonous definition of victim in the 2006 Order. If you can live with it to the point of implementing it in welfare reform, many will conclude that you are happy to live with it in every other dimension of its definition. It is a sorry pass indeed. <BR /> <BR />When I challenged the Communities Minister about this at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, his pitiful answer was "In welfare we are blind to how you got your injury". Not so, Mr Deputy Speaker; the regulations are not blind to how people got their injury.”
“Where is the integrity in saying, time without number, to the electorate that a clear and consistent stand will be taken against equating the perpetrator of the act of terrorism with the innocent victims of terrorism and then bringing to the House a regulation that does precisely that? I am sure that many on those Benches who will tonight vote for this obscenity have met innocent victims from time to time. I have been present when groups have been met by multiple parties, including the DUP, and I have heard the avowal — the solemn pledge — that they would never equate perpetrator with victim. Yet tonight, that is precisely what they stand ready to do. Why? Because getting their precious Fresh Start and keeping Sinn Féin happy were more important than keeping their word to innocent victims. That is the sad, chilling reality.”
“Yet that is precisely what this DUP-written regulation does. Regulation 15 is very clear that the perpetrator of a violent incident gets the same uplift as the innocent victim of that or any other violent incident. It did not have to be that way. All the Minister had to add were a few words to the end of regulation 15(1) to the following effect: "provided that that person was not convicted of or involved in an offence arising from the violent incident". That would have protected the integrity of the situation. <BR /> <BR />I heard a Member raise concerns about integrity.”
“I am astounded that a Minister from the DUP Benches is bringing forward such an obscene proposal. The DUP, like many other unionists, since 2006 has rightly raised objections to the equating of perpetrator with innocent victim. I do not think it has fought an election since 2006 when it has not proclaimed its opposition to that equating of perpetrator and victim. I will quote but one of the DUP's manifestos — the 2009 European manifesto:”
“I will address the first regulation before the House, particularly Part 4, which introduces the most obnoxious and repulsive idea, which was referred to, quite properly, by Mr Allen, that, when it comes to topping up PIPs to guarantee the continuance of benefit, the perpetrator of a terrorist act who causes his disability by his own hand, is to be rewarded on a par with the innocent victim on whom he may have inflicted injury. That is amoral. It offends basic concepts of decency that someone who sets out to injure or kill others and, in the process, disables himself or herself should and will automatically, under these regulations, be treated in the same way as the innocent victim of that or any other terrorist incident.”
“Yes, the First Minister has a job to do, and it is to identify how we exercise these powers and make a bonfire of hideous regulations.”
“Is it not ironic that some who, week in and week out, bleat for more powers for the House are now amazed and disturbed that, in consequence of leaving the EU, we will have more powers for the devolved Assembly, powers over fishing, agriculture, the environment —”
“Some were never so attached to the entity of Northern Ireland, never so respectful of the views of the people of Northern Ireland. However, it is the people of the United Kingdom who have made this decision. We joined the EU as one nation, and we leave the EU as one nation. That is how it must be. <BR /> <BR />There are many challenges for the First Minister and many things to do, among them identifying the opportunities. We now need a programme across Departments identifying what regulations and directives imposed upon us by the dead hand of Brussels can now safely, properly and swiftly be repealed. There also needs to be a programme to identify how we will cope with new powers.”
“The worst point of that came from the leader of the SDLP, a party that lectures us all on the purity of its commitment to democracy, but who told us today that he does not accept the result. The result is emphatically clear. The question was emphatically clear. It was not, "Does Northern Ireland want to stay in Europe?", but, "Does the United Kingdom want to stay in Europe?" Yes, it is interesting to know what the component parts of the United Kingdom thought about the question; but that is not the definitive outcome. The definitive, autonomous vote was that of the entire United Kingdom. It is that which those who refuse to accept the outcome of the referendum are rejecting — the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They cling, in their little minds, to some little part of the United Kingdom.”
“The 23 June 2016 will go down in our wonderful history as the day that the United Kingdom shook off the shackles of the decomposing EU and began its rebirth as an independent nation, outward-looking to the rest of the world, taking our trade where the growth is, deciding to spend our own money on our own people, and deciding to control our own borders. The 23 June was the day when this country turned itself around to face in the right direction. <BR /> <BR />It is sad today that the bad losers of the "Remain" campaign could not face the future. All they could do was re-fight the battle that they have lost and try to tear down our country even more in the doing of that.”
“What a broad and appealing church the "Leave" campaign was.”
“Does the First Minister continue to share the view to which her predecessor was brought in August 2013 that there is no prevailing basis on which the peace centre can proceed at the Maze? Is that still her position?”
“The Member says that he is not going to be dragged out of the European Union. I do not know what the question was on the ballot paper that he used, but on the ballot paper that I used the question was clear: do I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay? The question was never "Do you want Northern Ireland to stay?". The only autonomous answer is the answer that came from the entirety of the people of the United Kingdom. Is he going to accept that, or is he not?”
“The Minister had no difficulty making adverse comments about the Brexit campaign, but she seems a little more reticent about an inquest that falls under her jurisdiction. Surely it would be legitimate and appropriate for her, as Minister, to seek explanation about how palm prints that have been in the possession of forensics for years and examined multiple times were identified only after the inquest started and with the consequence of the delay in the inquest. What does it say of the probity and thoroughness of previous investigations that this situation has evolved? Is she satisfied with that? What steps are being taken to rectify such situations in the future?”
“We have lost many big manufacturing firms, and we will now diminish the town further by losing the electoral office. I trust that the offer by the local council to facilitate the service will be taken and that this facility will be saved.”
“In the case of Ballymena, we have lost so much. We will lose the courthouse if the last Minister has his way.”
“It oversees elections not just to this House but to Westminster, and it would be an absurd proposition if oversight of those elections, as part of the functions of the Electoral Office, were transferred to this devolved House when it oversees elections to the sovereign Parliament as well. There is good reason why this is an excepted matter and that is how it must remain; but that is not good reason for diminishing the service and making it less efficient and less effective.”
“An accessible electoral office is an indispensable part of a workable democratic process because it is there to facilitate those who wish to enquire about registration, to facilitate registration and to return postal ballots etc. If you draw that out and centralise it to one point, you diminish the interface between the electorate and the functioning of the election, and that is a retrograde step. This, therefore, is a retrograde step, and it is one that the Northern Ireland Office should certainly not proceed with, because it is going to diminish the electoral experience in Northern Ireland, which is not in people's interests. So, I totally back the motion. <BR /> <BR />I think the amendment is wholly misguided, because the Electoral Office and its affairs are excepted matters.”
“Last week, the Minister's officials told the Finance Committee that the latest calculations showed that, in the first year, the reduction to the block grant could be £270 million: is that affordable?”
“In the discussion on the referendum, I am sure that it was not lost on the First Minister that three of the Governments at the table represent territories outside the EU, yet all the Governments at the table are members of the common travel area. Did she therefore draw attention to that fact in order to debunk the myth that, if we were outside the EU and liberated from its shackles, we would lose the common travel area, when patently there are countries already outside it that continue to enjoy it?”
“This is a tragedy beyond measure for Parliament and for family, and it should not be exploited beyond that.”
“Robert Bradford, while serving his constituents at a surgery, was brutally cut down by gunmen who have never been brought to justice. I trust that all who today empathise and express sympathy about Jo Cox have done all that they can to bring to justice the murderers of Robert Bradford. Some, in the past, have saluted and glorified in such terror. Last Thursday's events are a salient reminder of how wrong that road is. I trust that there will emerge from this a respect for human life that, hitherto, some have not had and that this will not be a brutal killing that is misused, as some journalists have misused it, for political purposes.”
“This was a chilling and a gruesome murder that has robbed our nation of what appears to have been a very able and blossoming parliamentarian, and our nation will be the poorer for that. It is an assault on the democratic process, and, as a component of that, here in this part of the kingdom, we feel that too. Above all, this is the loss of a loving mother to two small children aged five and three, the same ages as my own grandchildren, and I can well imagine the unspeakable devastation of the loss of their mother. Whatever else we think of, I am sure that each of us is thinking, first and foremost, of a grieving husband and bereft children at the hands of wickedness. <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt referred to the fact that we have empathy from our experience of having an MP from our own shores gunned down doing the same public service as Jo Cox.”
“"Whether you like it or not, this is how it is going to be. We will not even tell you what the bids were, because who are you? You are only MLAs, and why would you need to know that? We know, and that is enough." That, Mr Speaker, is not good enough.”
“2) Bill, establish the opening figures and then move to your monitoring announcements, gave advice — if they gave advice — that, in fact, you could reverse that order. That does surprise me. I am also somewhat surprised that the Business Office thought that that was an appropriate way to go. <BR /> <BR />The overriding message of that, from the fact that a Committee is due to meet tomorrow to get a briefing on what will happen in the monitoring round when it has already happened, is the contempt shown for the processes of the House. Therefore, I think that it starts off the whole budgetary arrangement on very much the wrong foot, in terms of any transparency and cooperation with the House, that we are told, in the arrogant words and manner in which we were told, that this, effectively, is joined-up government at work.”
“I will finish on a point that I first raised at the beginning of today's business: the procedures used in respect of this. In my naivety, I always assumed that monitoring rounds, which change the opening balance, as it were, on the books, could occur only after the opening balance had been established, and the tradition was that it was established by the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Once you had established the opening position, you could then legitimately change that through the monitoring round. Before we ever established the opening position, the House was told — not asked to agree; the House was told — that the opening position was being changed by the monitoring round. I really am surprised that departmental officials, who seemed to have, for years, followed the precedent that you pass the Budget (No.”