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 69 of 95.
“It is a fact that, although only 17% of manufacturing businesses in Northern Ireland export to the EU, every manufacturing business is subject to the same market restraints, regulations and Brussels restraints as apply across the market, as if they were all exporting when they are not. One of the consequences of leaving the EU would be to liberate instantly those businesses that have been subject to unnecessary EU regulation for 40 years, even though they never exported to the EU. <BR /> <BR />One of the follies of membership of the EU is that all businesses are subject to the regulations as if they exported, even though they do not. The greater bulk of our produce is sold either locally or to GB.”
“I am not putting the manufacturing sector down in any way, but I have to be mindful, representing North Antrim, of the context in my constituency of two dire blows in the devastating losses at JTI and Michelin. It would be nice if the Minister had something positive to tell us today about the replacement of those jobs in North Antrim. It would be a timely occasion in the House, not outside it, to do that. We live in hope in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I will address a couple of the major shackles on our manufacturing. It is my hope that, come 23 June, some of those shackles will be cut because we will be liberated from the restraints of being in the European Union.”
“Mr Speaker, I trust that you will rebuke the Member for North Belfast, the Chief Whip of Sinn Féin, for her flagrant breach of the protocols and courtesies of the House when she walked in front of the previous Member to speak and between you and him when he was speaking. <BR /> <BR />No economy can hope to succeed and grow without the engine house that is the manufacturing industry. The service industry and everything else have their place, but, without manufacturing providing the strong backbone that grows an economy, no economy will reach its potential. Manufacturing, therefore, is central to the growth of our economy or any economy. <BR /> <BR />It is good to hear sound bites about prosperity in the manufacturing sector.”
“Interestingly, the statement makes no mention of the use of the private sector in the health service. Is that because its use has been abandoned under the Minister or is it because the Minister has abandoned her ideological opposition to the use of the private sector?”
“Yet today, for the sake of office, she is willing to become the patsy of the jokers. That says a lot about this position — seduced into office by the jokers. Less than two weeks ago, Ms Sugden boasted in the House that she was an independent. No longer, I am afraid. Today, she has become the placewoman of Marlene. Whether or not she finds making up the numbers on the dark side as fulfilling as she thinks, time alone will tell.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Claire Sugden is an able, likeable, affable person; no one could think otherwise, but she has to know, as indeed we all know, that this is a nomination of desperation — the desperation of Sinn Féin and the DUP to extricate themselves from the cul-de-sac of their own construction: when policing and justice were devolved prematurely, when several political lifetimes turned into the several days of the Hillsborough talks, and, in consequence, they had this impasse. <BR /> <BR />I like Claire Sugden as a person. Indeed, I like some of the things that she has said politically. In one of those thoughtful, measured speeches that Mr Hamilton referred to her making, she famously and accurately described the leaders of the Administration as "jokers". How right she was.”
“Lest there is any doubt, my position will continue to be one of opposition to the dysfunctional Government.”
“Of course, that is to save that embarrassment. Although, I do have to say that it is very difficult now to bring embarrassment to the DUP Benches. Last September, the First Minister told us that Sinn Féin was inextricably linked to the IRA. This week, the Chief Constable told us that nothing has changed: the IRA still exists and still has its structures. As far as Sinn Féin is concerned, nothing has changed: it still denies the reality of the IRA. However, for the DUP, it does not matter; office matters more than any of that. The lure of office overcomes any principle and any talk about inextricable linkage. In the words of the First Minister, she is now partnering a party in government that is inextricably linked to the IRA, which the Chief Constable says still exists. That says it all for me.”
“might be forgiven for thinking there would have to be a vote on such a matter, as there was yesterday in the Welsh Assembly on the appointment of the First Minister. Any new Member of this House who came expecting to be allowed to vote on this issue, well, welcome to Stormont. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the reason there is not a vote is that the rules were changed to save the blushes of the DUP, which, for the past six weeks, has spent the time with the deceptive message that it was in the business of stopping Sinn Féin. Then, today, when it comes to the appointment to the equal office of First and deputy First Minister, to save its blushes from walking through the Lobbies to put its partner Martin McGuinness in as equal to that office, the situation is contrived where there is no vote.”
“Anyone looking at the Order Paper today and seeing the item:”
“<BR /> <BR />It will be interesting to see in the House whether those who spent the last six weeks telling us that they were in the business of stopping Sinn Féin will in fact, today, be the facilitators of Sinn Féin to this high office of Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“This is an office created as part of the demonstration of the trappings of office and control freakery of Sinn Féin and the DUP. The person proposed for it has to be the most unsuitable person; a totally divisive figure in this House, a disaster when she was Education Minister and someone who continues to bring division to everyone and everything she touches. She is someone whose own claim to fame is probably most infamously that of matron of the Colombia three. To suggest that such a person should be elevated to the post of Principal Deputy Speaker is an insult to the many victims of the IRA, an organisation whose volunteers she still defends to this day.”
“Mr Speaker, first of all, I congratulate you on your election. I trust that it means that the national anthem will be restored to its proper place within the remembrance event and that my staff member can cancel his singing lessons. <BR /> <BR />The position of Principal Deputy Speaker is a fictional post. It has no powers above that of Deputy Speaker. It was created, of course in 2011, as a sop to those with a penchant for titles. Those who, in a previous life, enjoyed various commanding titles felt the need to be appointed as Principal Deputy Speaker even though it is a post without substance. Of course, we had the deputy First Minister once rejoicing in the title of Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead and more infamous and commanding titles besides.”
“It is quite clear, after the shenanigans of this time last year, with fantasy Budgets and all that nonsense, that the Treasury decided that it was time to rein-in Stormont in regard to future budgetary arrangements, and rightly so. Therefore, in this Bill, there are restraints, requirements and expectations to be met in budgetary terms. I think that that is necessary, and I certainly consent to that. But, as for the first: not in my name, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“It is so that they, who are inextricably linked, according to the First Minister, to one of the paramilitary organisations supposedly going to be monitored, have the luxury of appointing a placeman to the monitoring body. <BR /> <BR />That is how ludicrous and absurd this proposition from Fresh Start is. Yet, no doubt, this House, as it swept murder under the carpet, will sweep the absurdity of that under the carpet today and nod through that ludicrous, absurd situation. I, for one, do not consent to such appointments. I regard them as an insult to the many innocent victims of that and other paramilitary organisations. <BR /> <BR />The other proposition that we are asked to consent to, I do concur with.”
“And so we have this remarkable situation where supposedly credible bodies are to be established to monitor the activities of paramilitary organisations, of which the Provisional IRA has always been chief, yet one of the sponsors of that situation and one of the appointers — one of those making the appointments — is someone who not only is affiliated with such an organisation, according to the First Minister, but cannot even honestly admit the existence of that organisation. What a farce. Of course, two of the four appointments are to be made by OFMDFM. Points have been made that they would be more appropriately made by the Department of Justice, but we all know why they are being made by OFMDFM. It is very simple. It is one for the DUP, and one for Sinn Féin.”
“The First Minister, back in September, correctly advised us that Sinn Féin is inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA. Yet what we are being asked to consent to today is that the deputy First Minister should be inextricably linked to the appointment of commissioners who are supposedly going to independently review paramilitary behaviour. I do not consent to that. I do not think it at all appropriate that one of that ilk, identified as the leadership of a party that his partner, the First Minister, says is inextricably linked to the IRA, should have any hand in any such appointments. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the situation is more ludicrous when that same individual and that same party deny, in face of all the evidence and in face of death on our streets, that the IRA even exists.”
“Following on from Mr Attwood's contribution before Question Time, I join in wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a long and happy retirement. The relief that comes, I am sure, from escaping this place will be most enjoyable. I want to record my appreciation for your courtesy to me, even when I have stretched your patience. I think that you have performed your role in a very credible and suitable way. So, best wishes in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the subject in hand: the Provisional IRA indisputably is a paramilitary organisation. It is one that the Chief Constable advised us, just over six months ago, had murdered again. It is one that a government panel, after studying all relevant data, advised us still exists, still has access to arms and still has an army council.”
“Is it not time that those staff were relieved of the pressure that has been put on them by the austere approach taken in this matter?”
“Is it not wholly shameful that a Commission that turns a blind eye to ripping off hundreds of thousands of pounds by a bogus research company then seeks to make an example of easy targets like security staff who apparently retweet some comments by political journalists? Is that not wholly disproportionate?”
“Amongst that plethora of figures, I will focus on the welfare cap. I think that the Minister is saying that he is protecting the benefits of at least 10 families at a level above £40,000 a year, because the average protection is £14,000 on top of the benefit cap. Is it correct that there are multiple families of that order still receiving benefits in excess of £40,000? Is the Minister comfortable with that? Does he think that it is a good spend of public money?”
“The Minister speaks about collision remedial measures, which sounds very good, but the only thing that she then spoke about was extra street lighting, extra road markings and a ban on right turns at a couple of junctions. Surely, Minister, it will take much more structural change than that to bring safety to those deathtrap junctions, particularly at Woodgreen. I trust that the Minister is prepared to do more than what has been suggested.”
“Speaking to the need for a more radical approach, how does this come anywhere close to meeting the needs of an opposition, which is opposition to a Government with, presently, 19 special advisers, each costing an average of £106,000 a year, and an army of civil servants to their back? What we have is the suggestion of a few pounds thrown at an opposition to provide opposition to that. Where is the equality of arms that would be necessary to provide for a real and effective opposition if all we are suggesting is £60,000 to fund two researchers at £30,000 each, when there are 19 special advisers who are paid £106,000 each? Where is the equality of arms?”
“— because they defy the basic dynamics of democracy and deny the people the right to change their Government and have a proper opposition will need a lot more than a fresh start.”
“I trust that that, too, will not be forgotten; that the price of that fresh start was indeed that ignoble start of sweeping murder under the carpet.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those, of course, who created the dysfunctional mess tell us that they have made a fresh start — a commentary in itself that that which they have presided over needed a fresh start. They had run it into such chaos that that is what it required. There is no doubt that they hope now to con many people that they who created the mess will in fact create a fresh start. <BR /> <BR />That fresh start, of course, was possible only by the DUP's sweeping murder under the carpet. A Government panel reported that the IRA still existed and was still armed, that it had murdered again, and that it still had an army council that had control over party and paramilitary organisation. All that was swept under the carpet for the purpose and sake of keeping the limos and the Government positions and carrying on as normal.”
“Self-praise is a poor recommendation. I say that in the context of the contributions of the DUP/Sinn Féin cabal that controls this House. To many, this House and these institutions are a byword for failure and squander. The primary responsibility for that rests on those who control the House; those who heap self-praise upon themselves today. <BR /> <BR />When I was elected to the Assembly in 2011, the then First Minister, Mr Peter Robinson, boasted that the Assembly should be judged on delivery. I do indeed hope that the people will judge it on delivery because that delivery has been so abysmal that it deserves the judgement of the people on it. If that is to be the benchmark, bring on the delivery of the verdict.”
“— has been given to it and will be given to it by Royal Assent. For those reasons, I think that that draft Standing Order is flawed and deficient.”
“<BR /> <BR />Who thinks that it is inappropriate to have a Standing Order that reflects what will be the law of the land based on John McCallister's Bill? If no one thinks that, why are we not doing it tonight? Why are we not coming back to a new Assembly with Standing Orders in place that reflect the law of the land? I have heard no answer, and it really does beg the question why some people think it appropriate to stall on the issue. The House should consider tonight why it is doing this and why it thinks it necessary to put up an obstacle to something that it could do tonight but chose not to do. Choosing not to do it suggests that it is not minded to allow John McCallister's Bill the full rein that —”
“The law of the land says that a party in that position has the entitlement to the status of opposition, but if the Assembly fails to implement Standing Orders to that effect, it will be in breach of the law of the land, and someone else will have to tell it that and ensure that it comes into line. <BR /> <BR />I really do not understand why it would have been blocked tonight if, on foot of what the Chairman said, there will be no blocking of a Standing Order of that nature. Unless it is the Deputy Chairman's party that will block it. When the matter first arose, the Deputy Chairman was supportive of embracing Mr McCallister's Bill in the Standing Order but, by the next meeting, had changed his mind.”
“If there is no intent, it could have gone through tonight. If no one is saying that they will block a Standing Order that reflects the content of John McCallister's Bill, why is it not before us tonight? It was suggested to us in the Procedures Committee that it is not before us tonight because it would not obtain cross-community support. So, who was going to block it? Once it becomes the law of the land, if the Assembly does seek to block a Standing Order to implement it, and if there is a party in the position of having 8%, the Assembly will find itself in the High Court, where the matter will be resolved.”
“That will be the law of the land by the time we come back, and yet, by the will of the House tonight, courtesy of the agreement between Sinn Féin and the DUP, it will not be provided for in Standing Orders, with the veiled threat that it may never be provided for in Standing Orders, judging from what the Chairman said when he pointed out that Standing Orders require cross-community support. If the Chairman was suggesting that his party will ensure that Standing Orders to implement John McCallister's Bill are not to be permitted —”
“I will take you up on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I wish to address draft Standing Order 45A, which is wholly deficient, in that it closes its eyes to the fact that, whatever 'Fresh Start' said, it never obtained and does not have legislative authority, but John McCallister's Bill does. It is the reflective desire of the House, and, by the time the House comes back, it will be, in every form, the law of the land. Yet this Standing Order denies that reality for no logical reason but for the obvious political reason of wishing to stymie the provision in John McCallister's Bill, which would enable a party with 8% support to claim the rights of an opposition.”
“They know and I know that they are in ownership of it, because they have already committed themselves to the implementation of it. When this House returns, be it with a different Minister or whatever, there are those who hope that, because the election will be gone, it will be less controversial for them to be seen to be dirtying their hands with it, but their fingerprints are all over it.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is an obnoxious proposal, and one with which the Minister does not want to dirty his hands this side of the election. Therefore, that aspect of the proposals has been carefully and deliberately pushed to beyond the election, when the Minister knows he will be gone, and someone else can dirty their hands with that proposal. He will wash his hands of it today, by bringing forward only that which excludes it. It is perfectly clear to anyone what is going on. <BR /> <BR />So not only have we had an abdication in bringing us to this point, and a face-saving and a washing of hands, but we have had a very deliberate pushing down the track of that obnoxious part of the proposals which the Minister and his party do not want to be seen in ownership of on this side of the election.”
“<BR /> <BR />In these proposals, there is another element of face-saving, because even though Professor Evason produced a unified package of proposals, for the purposes of putting them through this House they have been divided up so that, today, we only have part of her package of proposals: those dealing predominantly with the welfare cap. Other aspects of her proposals have, significantly, been pushed down the road beyond the election. Of course, there is a reason for that, because one of the most obnoxious proposals is that there should be special points given to perpetrators of terrorism — to victim-makers, who, in order to protect their benefits, should be gifted an extra four points when they are transferred across to PIP to ensure that they do not suffer.”
“So what we are doing today is the remarkable outcome of a process where the Ministers in the Executive, before they knew what was in the mitigation package, had committed themselves to accepting whatever it was. The Social Development Minister is but a surrogate, bringing forward the proposals that he and his colleagues had committed themselves to accepting, whatever they might be. That does not speak of government to me. It certainly does not speak of good government, and it does not speak of due scrutiny by an Administration. Rather, it speaks of face-saving and passing the buck. That is what we are seeing.”
“Rather than have the courage of their convictions to see through into regulations and to define the details of the mitigations, they abdicated that responsibility to Professor Evason and her team, and they did so in a manner in which, not knowing what she would come up with, they nonetheless blindly committed themselves to accepting whatever she came up with, such was their desperation not to have their own fingerprints on, or the authorship of, whatever was produced. That, no doubt, was to save the blushes of some who had made rash, unsustainable promises about no one now or in the future suffering as a result of welfare cuts. Therefore, part of the political answer to that was to abdicate to the professor and her colleagues the responsibility for deciding how and where the axe would fall and how and where mitigation would arise.”
“It is worth reminding ourselves and the public that the regulations form part of a package that, far from putting new money into the pocket of NI plc, will in fact, over the next four years, take half a billion pounds out of our block grant — out of our expenditure on schools, health, roads and other vital services — for the exclusive purpose of siphoning that money into welfare mitigation measures. <BR /> <BR />The public need to be aware that that is what the Assembly is being invited to, and it undoubtedly will, vote through, or start a process of voting through, this afternoon. It is a raid on the block grant for that specific purpose, and it is done by a process from which there was very deliberate and calculated abdication by the proponents of the Fresh Start Agreement.”
“What does the Minister think it says to those staff that, for five years now probably, the issue has been talked about but not acted on and passed from one Department to another. Yes, the primary responsibility no doubt does lie with DFP, but can the Minister update us on whether the Executive, of which he is a member, have yet discussed and agreed a paper that the Finance Minister claims has been placed before them?”
“Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is a positive vision for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom to leave the EU?”
“Does the Minister agree that it would, in fact, be liberating for our trade and enterprise to be free of the shackles of the EU? Instantly, we would be liberated from EU regulation, which, as even the Commission has acknowledged, costs 4% of GDP. Of course, we would be freed to form our own trade deals with the growth parts of the world rather than being tied to the declining EU.”
“The depth of the problems is quite staggering. We are told that, in the next generation, £6·7 billion will be required to be spent on Housing Executive properties. That prompts this question: who has been in charge for the last five years, that we have got to this point? Maybe the Minister would tell us whether he thinks things might have been better and different had there been more ministerial focus on these issues rather than on false allegations about maintenance contractors and about Red Sky shenanigans and cover-ups. If Ministers had kept their eye on the ball, might things have been a bit better?”
“It does not require the court to do anything other than to rationally and reasonably consider whether, in the circumstances, such a condition on a licence is appropriate. It leaves it to the court to decide one way or the other, but it avoids the possibility of something slipping through without ever being thought about. That is the purpose of putting it in the Bill, and I respectfully suggest that it is necessary. Whatever might be in the explanatory and financial memorandum, it is not part of the legislation, so, if you want to be sure that those matters will be duly considered, it is necessary for it to go into the legislation. On that basis, I will move the amendment.”
“As has already been alluded to, the purpose of amendment No 3 is to put it beyond doubt that there is an obligation on any court granting a stadium licence to consider whether, in circumstances where the primary function involved at any occasion involves minors, any special conditions are necessary for that licence. The amendment does not compel the court to impose any conditions, it simply makes it clear that the court, in considering a licence, must give due consideration to whether it needs any extra conditions for occasions such as the Schools' Cup final or whatever other function there might be. It also alerts those who have the obligation to bring either applications or objections to the fact that those are matters that they should equally be considering. <BR /> <BR />It is modest in its terms. It is not prescriptive.”
“The Minister refers to a "second version". I take it that that is a second version of Minister Hamilton's paper, which dates back almost two years to June 2014. Will this paper, unlike its predecessor, ever get to the Executive, has it already been approved for discussion, and does it include a proposal that would recompense these individuals?”
“This Friday is European Day of Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism, an event that will be marked next Monday in the Senate Chamber. Does the First Minister accept that it is a badge of dishonour and shame on her Administration and these institutions that the definition of "victim" that shapes who can get funding continues to include victim-makers? Can she tell us, in consequence of that definition, how many victim-makers —”
“All of it points to the debauchery and the amoral situation of all those who espouse, take to and have benefited from terrorism. Be it past or be it present, they all are equally reprehensible.”
“<BR /> <BR />I must say that, given that the murderous intent was just the same as that of a Member of this House who shot a prison officer in the head, I found it nauseating to have to listen to the hypocrisy of that Member in our public media, lamenting supposedly about this attack, when it is an attack precisely on a par with the one that he was quite happy to participate in. <BR /> <BR />Make no mistake: what we saw on Friday was a repetition of the Provo template; maybe even a repetition of the use of the Provo Semtex that was used, supposedly decommissioned but applied to the same purpose as in the past by others, who have yet to admit and acknowledge that what they did in murdering 29 prison officers was ever wrong, was ever contemptible or was ever any of the things that, for the sake of it, they now say about this attempt.”
“Under the veneer, from time to time, of apparent normality, it is often forgotten that prison officers continue to be on the front line, because there continues to be a concerted, deliberate, driven campaign to try to retake control of the prisons. And, of course, it is modelled and built upon the Provo template of the past, when taking control of the prisons was a key component of strategy, and complementing it was the attempt outside the prisons to terrorise those who dared to work in them. What we saw in the murderous attempt on Friday morning was more of the same. It was just as vile, as wrong and as contemptible as every one of the past murderous attempts, which all too often did succeed and saw 30 prisons officers murdered over the years.”