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 68 of 95.
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister, as I understand him, is a great enthusiast for the Belfast Agreement. That agreement is implemented by the 1998 Act, and schedule 2 to that Act is very clear that taxation is an excepted matter. It is beyond the reach, happily, of the Minister. Only in special-permission circumstances can an Executive raise any taxes. It is in the financial guidance that the Department operates under that the presumption is that any taxes raised go to the Treasury. How the Minister thinks that he is going to unstitch the very clear, established constitutional devolution arrangements on taxation is really beyond me. Instead of a lot of the flannel and pretence, we really need some straight answers to all those things.”
“Of course, we are already the most borrowed part of the United Kingdom. This small Administration have borrowings of £2·1 billion, yet we have a Minister at the helm who wants to borrow more. <BR /> <BR />We really have a lot of doublethink here. We have a Minister who brings a Budget Bill with £600 million of cuts in it, which include some self-imposed cuts — the approximate £100 million this year that has been shaved off the block grant to pay for welfare mitigations. It is not all Westminster's fault in that sense. Then, as it were, to cover the cuts, he talks blandly about borrowing. Borrowing what from whom when? I think that this House is entitled to know. Then, when the steam runs out of borrowing, he will say that we need more fiscal powers.”
“The very first utterance that one can discern he made publicly after becoming Minister was that he was in the business of wanting to stretch the flexibilities on borrowing. Who is he going to borrow from? The arrangements are quite clear. You can borrow only from the National Loans Fund, and that then increases the national debt. There is no other mechanism open to this Executive to borrow. Is that what he wants to do? He already has an inflated ceiling for borrowing of £3 billion. Is he wanting to increase that, and, if so, to how much? I think that we are entitled to know from a Minister who is bringing a Budget what his borrowing ambitions are. If he has a borrowing ceiling of £3 billion, and he thinks that that is not enough, are we not entitled to know what he thinks will be enough?”
“Can the Minister tell us where the discussions about that are? Are they impacting on this Bill? Will legislation yet to be passed by the UK Government impact on the spending plans articulated in the Bill? If not, when is the expectation that that will happen? <BR /> <BR />I turn to the subject of borrowing. Mr Wells very effectively dealt with the issue and raised the alarm as to the folly of simply thinking that we can spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow, with no thought for tomorrow or for whoever has to pay it back. The starting point in reality is that every penny borrowed has to be paid back, and out of our DEL. Therefore, the interest charges diminish that which we have available to us. <BR /> <BR />The Minister seems to be so attracted to this random, cavalier attitude to borrowing.”
“Is it going to do a report on the sustainability of public finances? All of those are informed by issues in this Budget debate. The point that I was getting to before I was taken back to corporation tax was that Fresh Start says:”
“I do. The critical point that the Member made no reference to was that that predated the Azores judgement, which changed everything as far as corporation tax is concerned. It introduced the imperative that you must deduct from the block grant that which is lost in corporation tax. It was an entirely different animal at an entirely different time. However, in this debate, although it is a matter of record that I think that it is folly in these circumstances to go for fiscal distinction from the rest of the United Kingdom, I have not discussed the merits of corporation tax. I accept that it is a flagship policy of the Executive, and I have been asking questions around that. <BR /> <BR />Returning to the independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland, has it been set up? When is it going to be set up? Are its terms of reference agreed?”
“Under the cycle of this Budget, will there be prepared by the independent fiscal council a report on the sustainability of the Executive's public finances? Will that part of Fresh Start be implemented up to and including April 2017, or when is that going to kick in? We are entitled to know when that is going to happen. <BR /> <BR />Could the Minister also shed light —”
“Of course, Fresh Start did not tell us when the independent fiscal council was going to be set up. I am enquiring whether it has been set up. If it has, it would govern the Bill. Fresh Start simply says:”
“Who has the veto on the terms of reference of the independent fiscal council? What, under its terms of reference, is it going to do?”
“<BR /> <BR />Who is fooling whom on this central flagship policy? Of course, we have heard nothing from the DUP on this subject because it does not want to rock the boat. The Minister has been given a bit of a leash to talk as he talks. Eventually, some day, perhaps the issue will have to be faced. <BR /> <BR />There are other interesting issues that we have heard very little about. Mr Philip Smith made reference to them in the early parts of this debate. Fresh Start sets up an independent fiscal council. Will the Minister tell us whether its terms of reference, which have to be agreed with the Treasury, have been agreed? Are there any appointments to the independent fiscal council? Will he expound its relationship with the Office for Budget Responsibility and HM Treasury?”
“The very sort of topic that the Minister would have us believe is not settled is settled. It is settled in the Fresh Start Agreement that he signed up to, in which the British Government could not be clearer that, even in the review in four years' time, second-round effects are out of consideration. So there needs to be a lot more clarity and honesty with the watching public as to the position on corporation tax. We have a First Minister and a deputy First Minister jetting round the world and selling corporation tax as if it were a done deal, yet back here we have the Finance Minister telling us, "Not at all. No done deal. Negotiations haven't even started on the affordability issue." As several of the Sinn Féin Back-Benchers have pointed out, only if it is demonstrably affordable will it ever happen.”
“At paragraph 6.2, the UK Government make it clear that, even when it comes to the ex-post review of the costs of the devolution of corporation tax, four years after the implementation of a devolved rate, which, on present reckoning, will be about 2022 if it does not move yet again:”
“It is pretty clear, despite all the sticking plasters, that that key flagship policy is fraying at the edges, pulled in one way by one partner and interpreted and pulled in the other way by the other partner. Indeed, there is nothing but absolute confusion reigning as to whether there is a memorandum of understanding. The Minister told the Committee last week that there was not, then his official said, "Well, there is a sort of one, but it's not really one." So whether there is or there is not is a bit of a mystery. <BR /> <BR />What are the mechanics for working out the ups and downs of corporation tax? As Mr Attwood pointed out, the Stormont House Agreement has some things to say about the British Government's position, and they are reiterated in the Fresh Start Agreement.”
“The flagship economic policy of this Executive is the reduction in corporation tax. Mr Attwood very effectively set out the dichotomy between the approaches of the two parties. One embraces the language that says, "Date, rate, set, deal done, job done, it's over," and one, in the words of the Minister yesterday, asks itself rhetorically:”
“Many's a time. <BR /> <BR />We are in this wonderful place tonight, where to cloak the reality of what he is doing, the Finance Minister draws on this mantra of attacking austerity, while all the time he is carrying the water of austerity. Those who used to think he and his colleagues unfit now sing dumb when it comes to criticism on all these matters. Yet, there are some things that are irrepressible.”
“Yes. Many's a time in the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill did we hear Mr Sammy Wilson talk about the economic illiteracy of Sinn Féin.”
“He then forgot that you are not meant any longer to attack Sinn Féin and that you are meant to cover up for them and excuse them — "We are all in this together". As Mrs Pengelly says, "It is our Budget too." Gone are the days of Sammy Wilson when he used to —”
“That did not bring much light, because that is pretty obvious. The point is that that which was unacceptable, anathema and beyond the pale is now, as the price of the joint office, more than acceptable. Suddenly, those for whom gatekeepers were required and who could not be trusted can now be bestowed with that wonderful office of looking after the purse strings. Of course, all the past rhetoric from the DUP Benches has been closed down, except that someone forgot to tell Mr Wells. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wells made two pretty catastrophic mistakes in the rule book of nua DUP today. He forgot to show due deference to his dear leader because he forgot that she ever was Finance Minister, never mind that she was so important that she was the gatekeeper.”
“That was the statement of convenience at the moment it was required, but it is quite clear that all this talk saying, "We can't trust Sinn Féin with the Finance Department" has evaporated as the price of office.”
“Indeed, two months ago, Arlene Foster was telling us of the great divergence between her vision and the vision of her partner Martin McGuinness and how he would take us in the wrong direction. Now, of course, when the election is safely over and the gullible for whom that sort of language was designed have swallowed it, it is back to business.”
“He tries to kick up a whole storm of dust to try to cover the fact that this is exactly what he does, so he finds nice, flowery, effective language about fighting austerity, finding resources elsewhere and making sure that no one loses out, but he still brings a Bill to this House that has cuts in it of £600 million. <BR /> <BR />So, away with this nonsense that this Sinn Féin Minister is not in the business of cuts. Of course he is. The Bill speaks loud and clear to that. <BR /> <BR />I said that a year had made a big difference. Also, it has made a big difference for the DUP. Indeed, two months has made a big difference, because for years we were told that you could not trust Sinn Féin with the Finance portfolio.”
“If you then go to schedule 2 to the Bill and look what it does in respect of resources, the amounts of resources authorised for use and amounts of accruing resources that may be used in the year ending 31 March 2017, it tells us that the cumulative figure is £8,693,000,000. What was it last year? It was £9,004,000,000 — another cut, this time of £311 million. <BR /> <BR />So, the Minister deceives himself and, perhaps, hopes that others will likewise be deceived with this pretence that he is not here to carry water for English Ministers and is here to fight, not implement, austerity. It is patently obvious that this legislation is doing the very thing that he avows not to do.”
“What a difference a year makes, because that is precisely what the Finance Minister is doing today. He is carrying the water of austerity through this House. He does not want to face that or admit to that, but the very Bill that we are discussing tells us that. If you pick up this Bill, and pick up last year's Bill, which became the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, and compare them, you will soon discover just how much water of austerity is oozing from this Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1(1) sets out the figure for the Consolidated Fund. It tells us it is just shy of £8 billion. What was it last year in the Act that was passed? It was £350 million more, so this Bill cuts, courtesy of this Sinn Féin Minister, £350 million out of the Consolidated Fund.”
“There was another interesting intervention when we were debating these financial matters this time last year. That intervention came from the current Finance Minister, who was then, I suppose, a mere Back-Bencher. Uninhibited by the burden of office, he was able to speak freely, and he declared to the House:”
“The debate was at risk of becoming predictable and a little boring, and then Mr McCann spoke. I am sure that it was a timely reminder to Sinn Féin of their oft-forgotten socialist credentials. I do not know whether it was a reminder to the Minister — I am not sure just how much he ever espoused the socialist credentials — but I am sure that it was a reminder to the Back Benches of the socialist credentials that they once espoused, or seemed to, before they joined, or became, the establishment. It was, not least from that point of view, an interesting intervention.”
“We are not really meant to use graphics, but would the Member like to look at the website of the EIB and see the graphic that I quoted, which shows €8 billion of EIB expenditure outside the EU? Mr Lunn's point was that there is no expenditure outside the EU and that, if you leave the EU, you forfeit any right to claim any money from the EIB. Wrong. He was wrong then, and he is still wrong. The Member is now perpetuating that inaccuracy.”
“If the Member had prepared his remarks a little better, he might have looked up the EIB website. If he had, he would have found a graphic illustrating the points that I made: £8 billion went outside the EU.”
“Is it not a fact that, currently, the European Investment Bank has £8 billion of loans outside the EU and something of the order of £60 billion inside? Is it not a patent nonsense to suggest that the EIB does not service debt outside the EU?”
“Will the Minister agree that unrestrained immigration, to which we are subjected by virtue of our membership of the EU, has a downward pressure on wages and income and thus suppresses household incomes and thus is their opportunity on 23 June to do something radically positive about that?”
“On the secondary legislation that the Minister has yet to bring to the House on welfare issues, does he intend to persist with the obnoxious and amoral proposal that a terrorist who suffers a disability by his own hands, by his own terrorist act, should have his benefits protected on the same basis as an innocent victim of terrorism?”
“I want to ask the Minister specifically about a matter in table four. Now that he is a custodian and not just a spender of public finance, is he satisfied that it is good value for money to have sold 621 acres at Shackleton for £1 million? Was that value for money for the taxpayer?”
“The Minister is anxious to impress with the speed with which he brought the statement to the House. It is certainly quicker than last year. We never had a June monitoring round, and we all know the reason for that: it was because Sinn Féin was involved in a sham fight for welfare before it rolled over —”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it compatible with the processes of this House for the Finance Minister to authorise his officials to give evidence tomorrow to the Finance Committee about the June monitoring round and, today, pre-empt and nullify that process by choosing to make the June monitoring statement in advance of that? What sort of way is that to do business?”
“Could I encourage the Minister to address that issue with some urgency? It is great to have good GCSE results but they must be relevant in that they must be portable. It is imperative for the Minister, given the disastrous decision by his predecessor, to reverse that decision at the earliest opportunity.”
“If the people of the United Kingdom have the wisdom to unshackle us from the disastrous EU, is there an assurance that the deputy First Minister and his party will not seek to stymie the opportunities to liberate business, including farming, from costly regulation, will not stand in the way of the resulting bonfire of regulation and will not stand in the way of the rebirth of our fishing industry?”
“<BR /> <BR />I join with those who have made an appeal to the authorities to make sure that there is speedy return of the body. We do not want this tragedy compounded by delays in that regard. The family in Ballymena who are so grieving today need to know that all possible is being done to help. Our thoughts also need to be with the football fraternity, over whom this dark cloud now rests in the rest of this campaign, because it will be a difficult time, while they seek to continue to enjoy themselves, to realise that one who was with them is no longer with them. Therefore, no matter what way you look at this, this is a profound tragedy in which we commit to our thoughts and prayers all who are affected by it.”
“I thank Mr Swann for bringing this matter to the House, and I join in expressing condolences to the family of this young constituent. It is a reminder of how quickly joy can turn to sorrow, and none of us anticipated that we would be standing here today speaking in these terms about the joyous visit of so many to France. The football fraternity are a very close fraternity, and their enthusiasm knows no bounds. No doubt they all set off to France with unbounded enthusiasm and joy, and, today, many are devastated. One of my colleagues, Alderman McDonald of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, is very much involved in the football fraternity and was with Darren yesterday. He was talking to him, and little did he or anyone think that today we would be mourning his passing.”
“I condemn that, and I think of and pray for those who have been so suddenly bereaved by that horror. Just as we in this Province have lived through the horrors of terrorism, be it Greysteel, La Mon, Kingsmills or anywhere else, so we know the vile cruelty of terrorism that comes without justification in any cause.”
“I join the condemnation of the horrendous attack. Yet again, the Western World has been demonstrated to be so vulnerable to Islamist terrorism. That is what it was, and those who seek to cloak it as otherwise do the Western World no service. It is quite clear that, in our society, there are those who have come to live amongst us who share no values, no common cause of interest and no respect for the sanctity of human life, and who are prepared, be it a perverted view or otherwise of their cause, to visit the most horrendous terror on society. It needs to be called out for what it is and condemned for what it is. <BR /> <BR />We in the West are particularly vulnerable now to these sleeper terrorists of Islamic persuasion who are visiting the horrors of their viewpoint on us.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raise the point yet again that contempt has been shown for the House by the fact that, while the House has been meeting this afternoon, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister have seen fit to introduce and make announcements about the paramilitary panel report outside the House rather than coming to the House. When will the House get respect from Executive Ministers by making this the place of announcement, not other places outside the House?”
“There is not much sign of that because this is a document of meaningless platitudes.”
“Just let them think about how they will square that circle on paramilitarism. When you begin to think about that, you begin to see just how facile and meaningless the document is. <BR /> <BR />Finally, it is my hope that, in two and a half weeks' time, the document will require a major rewrite because it will become the responsibility of the devolved Assembly to play its part in extracting this part of the United Kingdom from the EU. We will then need to think about the policies by which we will retake our fishing industry, we will have a Department that will set the arrangements for fishing — there is not much shadow or thought of that in the document — and Departments will have to prepare a bonfire of EU regulations.”
“There is an indicator, if you want to take one, of whether any progress has been made on paramilitarism. <BR /> <BR />Try another. Try the indicator that Sinn Féin at last admits that there is an IRA. Would that be a good indicator to tell us whether this coming together to address issues such as paramilitarism is bearing any fruit, or is it just OK within the ambit of this woolly, meaningless document that, even in the face of a report on paramilitarism and the Chief Constable reaffirming his assessment of last autumn, Sinn Féin can be part of this Government, pull in whatever direction it is meant to be that the framework suggests and still say, "IRA? What IRA? There is no IRA". The First Minister can tell us that there has to be because her partner — Sinn Féin — is inextricably linked to the IRA, which her partner says does not exist.”
“This document has no vision or way forward on that. It has nothing to say about cuts or the austerity to which the last Member referred. Nowhere does it set out any sense of fiscal probity or direction. Why? They are pulling in opposite directions, so it just goes silent on those issues. <BR /> <BR />The document has nothing to say about paramilitaries to any degree that matters. There may be no surprise there. If they want indicators in this new world where we will judge things by indicators and match them against indicators, what about the indicator of Sinn Féin no longer being inextricably linked to the IRA? Would that be a good indicator of whether paramilitarism is being dealt with? It was the First Minister who told us that Sinn Féin — her partner — is inextricably linked to the IRA.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is a document with nothing on some of the key issues. We have the situation of education, where, for years, we have not even been able to regulate, within the ambit of government, the transfer of our children from primary to post-primary.”
“We know this through no better source than the First Minister, because she told us all, in her quest to be elected, that it was imperative that she be elected because Martin McGuinness, her partner, had a very different vision. She told her spring conference in Limavady that Sinn Féin would take Northern Ireland in the wrong direction. Now, the terrible twins, the DUP and Sinn Féin, are in the position of having to try to produce a Programme for Government, knowing as they do that they are pulling in opposite directions and that one wants to go socially, economically and in other ways in one direction while the other wants to go in the opposite direction. So, it is no surprise to me that we have this synthetic, shallow document which does not answer any of the questions.”
“This document can only be described, at best, as synthetic and shallow. It is not about producing a Programme for Government; it is a mere collection of platitudes. It is an all-things-to-all-men manifesto with no direction as to how it is going to deliver any of the platitudes. Of course, there is a very good reason for that, which is that this is a Government of irreconcilable differences. <BR /> <BR />It is no surprise then that they postpone the production of a Programme for Government. As has been pointed out, Fresh Start told us that this document was to be out in April 2016, and then there would be the draft Programme for Government. Of course, six months later, all of that is in reverse. The reason why it is in reverse is that this is a Government that are incapable of agreeing their vision.”
“— from that moribund part of the world — the EU — and to follow the growth that is outside. If we do that, our manufacturing has a prosperous future rather than one hindered by the present regulations of Brussels.”
“Far from the scare stories, the scaremongering and the ludicrous things that the Prime Minister and people from the Chancellor down have been saying, 23 June presents a marvellous opportunity for manufacturing, industry and this society to liberate themselves from the dead hand of Brussels to free ourselves —”
“In manufacturing export terms, only a quarter of our produce is exported to other EU countries, yet we are subject to the entirety of that burden and restraint. <BR /> <BR />For manufacturing, the second reason why I hope that the people of the United Kingdom have the good sense to leave the EU is that it will liberate us in terms of trade as a nation. The minority of our trade is with the EU. The growth in our trade is with the growth parts of the world outside the EU, yet, because we are in the EU, we are not permitted as a nation to make a single trade agreement with any of the countries with which our trade is growing. Our hands are tied behind our back as a consequence of growing our trade and because of our membership of the EU.”