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 74 of 95.
“and then it lists 10 items. What surprises me there is the obvious omission of a catch-all clause. It seems that the person who makes the record is being directed to tick one of the boxes, but there are incidents of bullying outside of those boxes. One of the most distressing incidents of bullying that I have come across was where a young child was picked on by other children and bullied because he did not have the material things in life that the other kids had. He was picked on because he did not go on holiday or have this or that, and that child was demeaned and diminished and bullied on a have/have-not basis.”
“— that is the one that proposes the obligation to state the reason —”
“Since the statutory framework existed in the 1998 Order, as amended in 2003, to compel adherence to guidance on bullying, among other things, why is that path not being trod rather than the path of the Bill? I am sure that the Minister will have an explanation for that. <BR /> <BR />There are other things in the Bill that I would like to comment on. Clause 3 sets out a requirement to keep records; I will come back to that in a moment. One of the things that must be recorded is the motivation that, from all the circumstances, appears to have lain behind the incident of bullying. Clause 3(3) says:”
“As someone has observed in the debate, boards of governors by their very nature are not present on anything like a daily basis in the school; they have an oversight management role. The daily supervision and hands-on activity in the school rests with the principal and the teachers. I ask whether it is a step forward to remove the statutory duty on the principal to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils and to put that within the measures and framework that the governors must devise and oversee. I am sure that, within that framework, they can devolve functions to the principal, but it strikes me as a little odd that that course has been taken.”
“It creates a rather strange situation where the principal still has the surviving statutory duty to encourage good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils but no longer has the duty to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. Of course, good practice suggests that a principal would still seek to do that, but the Bill seems to take the bullying dimension of that obligation and, effectively, superimpose it on the board of governors. It is they who, then, must determine the measures to be taken at the school, according to clause 2. It is they who must prepare a written statement of such measures, ensure that that is available to all parents etc and deal with the implementation of the anti-bullying policy.”
“The law as it stands requires a scheme of management that places a statutory duty on the principal, in particular, to prevent all forms of bullying. This Bill will create a sort of dichotomy where responsibility in respect of bullying shifts from the principal to the board of governors. Clause 2(3) abrogates and removes the statutory duty on the principal with regard to:”
“Here is a statutory duty being put on a principal. It then lists a number of things, one of which is:”
“The vehicle exists in the 1998 Order, as amended, for the Department to issue guidance on matters such as bullying. That scheme of management, the order states:”
“I declare, again, that I am chairman of the board of governors of Moorfields Primary School. Bullying is, of course, something that every reasonable effort must be made to stamp out in our schools. It is a pernicious and cruel thing that can leave lasting damage to many children. Therefore, we need to and should do all that we can. <BR /> <BR />I have a number of issues with the Bill that I would like to give voice to. First, I want to address the very idea of the Bill itself in the context of what the Education Order 1998, as amended, already provides. It already imposes on a board of governors a statutory duty to work up, have and live by a scheme of management within a school. Under article 3 of the 1998 Order, that scheme of management requires regard to be had to all guidance issued by the Department.”
“Will the Minister confirm whether it is the case that the current level of logjam in criminal cases is something of the order of 1,000 cases that have been piled up and unattended to in our Crown Courts? If he is saying that there will be no meaningful engagement until the outcome of the appeal is known, will that situation not spiral even further out of control?”
“So, the situation is that, in the four years, 2011-15, £199 million of extra national security money came. This year, something of the order of £31 million has come, and, for the next five years, £32 million a year is to come. Is it not quite clear, therefore, that bundling that together to claim £160 million as a result of 'A Fresh Start' was a piece of window dressing and pretence because that money was coming our way in any event?”
“I explained my predicament to the Chair, but there we go. As you please.”
“On a point of order, I understood that my name was down to speak in the debate.”
“Surely, part of the fallout from accelerated passage is that there is not the normal Committee Stage whereby there could be an informed debate about whether nine Departments is the right number. Maybe there is an argument for six or seven; we used to be governed with six. However, once we adopt accelerated passage, we have de facto concluded the argument about whether or not it is nine, with no options.”
“As I say, nine months ago, we had the great breakthrough of nine Departments and then nothing until today when we are told that with superhaste we must do this to make up for the abysmal, dysfunctional failure of the Executive. I do not think that is an appeal that I want to respond to, because it only confirms to that Executive that failure is acceptable and they can go on failing as, undoubtedly, they will.”
“Those nine months have been lost and wasted, and now the guilt of that is to be put on us all. We are all meant to feel responsible for that dysfunctional failure of this failing Executive and to rescue them by abrogating the normal processes and proceeding to accelerated passage. That is what is being asked of us. <BR /> <BR />I must say that I feel no guilt for the failure of the Executive, nor do I feel inclined to share it. It is a failure of their own making. Of course, with the same Executive — What was it? Three or four years ago? — we had the pantomime of DEL going to be abolished, but that all just melted away.”
“There is one reason and one reason only why the motion is before us today: it is because of the dysfunctional failure of the Executive to progress their programme. As it has been pointed out, it was nine months ago, on 2 March, when the First Minister trumpeted the fact that there was agreement to reduce the number of Departments to nine.”
“Where is the 2016 business plan? When was it approved? Why is it not mentioned in the statement? What is the budget, and what efficiencies does it embrace?”
“Why have the 2014 annual accounts and reports disappeared off the radar? When the Minister made a statement six months ago, she advised of the advanced state of preparedness of those accounts. Yet, in this statement, there is not a single mention of them. So, where have they gone? As for the 2016 business plan, has that yet been approved?”
“It may well be that our licensing laws need to be addressed in various dimensions, but I do not think it is desirable that they are addressed on an ad hoc basis. I think it is desirable that they are addressed in a holistic manner rather than on that ad hoc basis. So, I want some reassurance from the Member, from the advice that she has had from the Bill Office, on whether the Bill, with its long title etc, would be capable of being a vehicle for the ad hoc reform, if you want to call it that, of our licensing laws, when I think that what we need is departmental-driven, holistic reform, if there is the desire to move in that direction. <BR /> <BR />With those three questions or observations, I look forward to hearing what the Member has to say.”
“We have already, in another context, seen the furore about the development of Casement and the fact that it sits cheek by jowl with a densely populated residential area. I am not sure that we would be serving the interests of those people or anyone who is equally living adjacent to a stadium by facilitating, in the manner that clause 6 would facilitate, the extension of licences to one o'clock in the morning. So, given that it is about sporting events, and given that sporting events, habitually, are well over before the end of licensing hours at 11.00 pm, why is it necessary to have clause 6? I would like the Member to explain that. <BR /> <BR />My third area of concern relates to whether the Bill, through amendment, could become the vehicle for wider change to our licensing laws.”
“Therefore, I ask the Member to consider whether it would be worth having in the Bill an exemption in the licence for such events. <BR /> <BR />The second issue I have for the Member is whether she needs clause 6 at all, because clause 6 allows an occasional licence application to extend the hours to 1.00 am. Under the Bill, if and when it goes through, all these stadia will have the normal licensing hours of 11.00 pm. All sporting events, I think, with, perhaps, the exception of occasional boxing events, are well and truly over before 11.00 pm. So, I wonder why it is necessary to have the facility to apply for an extension to 1.00 am. I do not think it is desirable that sporting stadia become a mere cover or vehicle for a social club, given that a lot of them are in quite densely populated areas.”
“If people think, as I might think, that it is inappropriate at an obvious school event to have the sale of alcohol as a component, an alternative to relying on clause 4 would be to include in the Bill a requirement to exclude events such as school rugby finals or other events where the essential focus and participants are minors. <BR /> <BR />The problem that I see with clause 4 is that only a district commander of the police can apply for a restriction. One might expect that a district commander of the police would act on foot of public order concerns, rather than anything else, and it might, in fact, be ultra vires of a district commander of the police to make what essentially is a moral point that it is thought not to be appropriate to have alcohol on sale at a minors' event, such as the Schools' Cup rugby final.”
“I understand entirely the logic, thrust and purpose of the Bill. I have three questions or issues for the proposer to address. The first relates to the use of a stadium outside its normal use. For example, the rugby Schools' Cup final is habitually held at Ravenhill. It is my understanding that, whereas Ravenhill regularly applies for an occasional licence, and therefore the sale of alcohol is not uncommon at it, it has not been the practice to apply for such a licence for the Schools' Cup final. Under this Bill, there would be the availability that the licence would apply to the Schools' Cup final as much as to anything else. The Member might say that, under clause 4, it would be possible for a condition to be put on the licence by a court, and that is correct.”
“Is one of the problems not that, in the past, we saw chief executives of some of the redundant local councils collecting handouts of £250,000? One of them collected on a Friday and on a Monday walked into a public post as chairman of the Education Authority. Does that not raise the question of why, if this was to be done, it was not done sooner? Can the Minister explain that?”
“I think I welcome the fiscal council, particularly if it is a brake on profligacy, fantasy Budgets and such matters. The fact that its membership and terms of reference have to be approved by the Treasury, presumably, is good. Can the Minister amplify a little by comparing and contrasting it with the Office for Budget Responsibility? Is it to be a devolved structure of that sort by another name, or is it to be something different?”
“The T-shirt that he wore at Saville was to take refuge in the republican code of honour. Does the republican code of honour still trump for the deputy First Minister, who demands wholesale disclosure from Government, the telling of the truth? How does that play with lesser participants in the IRA terrorist campaign if someone of the deputy First Minister's leadership and status in that campaign takes refuge in not telling the truth under the so-called code of honour?”
“At paragraph 19, the Minister speaks of the Loughs Agency having applied the required efficiency savings to its 2016 budget. Could she therefore explain why, in the 2015 business plan, the indicative budget for 2016 was €4·8 million but, in fact, the budget now approved in the 2016 business plan is €5·5 million, which is an increase of 14%? How does that fit with the protestation of meeting the required efficiency savings?”
“How many of the 14- to 20-year-olds who, sadly, lost their life would have been saved by virtue of this legislation, in that it would have been illegal for them to be in a car had the law been applied? Can you tell us that?”
“I find the Minister's complacency about the decline in our manufacturing quite astounding. He talks about ongoing discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning that are going to produce the skills needed if his exaggerated claim about 30,000 jobs on the back of corporation tax is ever to be met. The same Minister for Employment and Learning has time without number in recent months complained vigorously and publicly about the lack of commitment to skills, skilling up and training to meet that challenge. How is it that the Minister thinks that he is making progress on delivering these things when the Minister in charge, the Minister for Employment and Learning, does not seem to know anything about it?”
“We need a reality check, and this motion is taking us in the opposite direction.”
“Who are we in the West to say to them, "You shall not have the opportunity that we had to build an industrial society by using the fossil fuels that you have. It's all right for us, but it's not all right for you. You just live in your poverty."? That is the grandiose message of some of this motion. <BR /> <BR />Then, of course, we think, "Ah well, we will have all sorts of wonderful targets, and we'll feel so much the better for it." Never mind the fact that, in setting those targets, we inflict upon our population unnecessary and huge energy costs. We go for the most expensive form of energy possible, namely wind energy, subsidise it to the hilt, expect the consumer to pay and then we say we are serving the interests of the community.”
“No, I am sorry, I have not been given any extra time, so I will not. <BR /> <BR />Yet, puny man thinks that we will somehow, with our tiny little teaspoon, stop the inevitable cycle of climate change. It is vanity to have a motion like this, talking about the mighty things that we are going to do. Yes, you should not add to it, but the truth is that most of it is beyond your control. That is something that the climate change alarmists fail to face up to. That should be the starting point. <BR /> <BR />Then, we should recognise that some of the things that this motion would have us do, and what its supporters would like to see come out of Paris, would inflict immense damage on some of the poorest countries in the world, which are dependent on fossil fuels to try to pick themselves off the floor — the Indias and the Chinas.”
“Was it due to the emissions that were belching out from the Industrial Revolution? I do not think so. In the 1st century, we are told, there were grapes grown in Britain at the time of the Romans. So, I hear talk about climate change deniers, but what about the history deniers who deny the fact that, cyclically, the climate has changed over the centuries and is doing the same again?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate could do with a bit of climate change itself. We are missing Mr Sammy Wilson to raise the temperature a bit, but there we are. <BR /> <BR />I have no issue with the fact that there is climate change. I have no issue with the fact that, as its custodians, we should seek not to damage the planet and pass it on in as good shape as we possibly can. However, I have a major issue with the cause of climate change. I do not swallow all this climate alarmism that it is all man-made. I believe the truth to be that climate change is cyclical. In the 16th and 17th centuries, there were winter ice-skating fairs on the River Thames. Before that, in the 11th century, we had the medieval warming period, when they grew gapes in Britain. Who are we going to blame for that?”
“Tell us why the PACE investigation was shelved.”
“Just tell us why the PACE investigation was shelved.”
“I look forward perhaps to the receipt, through this debate, of some answers tonight. <BR /> <BR />This was not just the squander of €4 million. Because there was inactivity and a fear to address and deal with the situation, the opportunity to spend European money on a deserving project was lost. So even that opportunity was blown in pursuit of doing nothing, in pursuit, apparently, of covering the tracks of the Department. How could the Department, as the joint implementing agent, oversee such squander and then, apparently, ensure that no one found out about it by not even telling the SEUPB until five years later? There is much explaining to be done, and I look forward to the explanations.”
“It was decided, "No, no, we needn't bother with that." <BR /> <BR />Who decided that? Where was the ministerial control? Maybe we are fortunate tonight that the Minister in the House in her new portfolio was, for a large part of that period, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, from 2008 until I cannot remember when, but certainly through a lot of that time. So what were the officials under the Minister's control doing? Where was the ministerial control? Who decided that there would not be a PACE investigation? Why has there still not been a PACE investigation? Who came up with the nonsense that this was collective responsibility in order to absolve individuals of their involvement in the project? <BR /> <BR />The Committee has raised many legitimate questions but has not had answers.”
“Yes, it initially happened under the bad old days of direct rule when we were told that Ministers did not care, they let Departments run amok, and civil servants could do what they liked. But then there was a great fresh start, supposedly, in May 2007, and assiduous, focused, determined local Ministers took over, and all the bad old days would be over. <BR /> <BR />What do we discover about this case? Matters continue, whistle-blowers come along, and there is no proper investigation. We discover that it was not until 2011 that the Department even thought it appropriate to tell the SEUPB that there was a problem. We discover that in 2008-09, on a second whistle-blower, there was to be an investigation under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), with interviews under caution. It did not happen.”
“I want to begin by commending the PAC for its work and for the various reports. The one that I wish to address myself to is the one that the last Member who spoke referred to: the broadband Bytel project. I find it quite astounding that a project entitled to only €0·3 million support in fact got €4·3 million support on the basis of wiping the Department's eye or the Department turning a blind eye — it is not entirely clear to me which. There was supposed to be support of one third for a project supposed to cost €12 million. In fact, when the forensic assessment was ultimately done, all that it was entitled to was €300,000, even though it had pocketed €4·3 million under the INTERREG programme. <BR /> <BR />How could such a thing happen?”
“The Chairman refers to the protection of the code of conduct, but the whole point at the heart of this is that, yes, there were findings, it appears, by DFP of breach of the code of conduct by Mr Brimstone, but his Minister was able to supersede and override that and protect him from any consequences, leaving the individual affected by the oppressive bullying without a remedy. Surely, the Committee cannot take refuge in saying that the code of conduct is adequate if the track record is of the code of conduct being sidelined.”
“That would have made sure that there could not be a superseding of disciplinary proceedings and that special advisers would be subject to the same discipline as civil servants. I suspect that those with the same vested interest that closed that down will close this down. On that, they are again wrong and only expose their vested interest. I support the amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />When Mr Brimstone did what he did to Mrs Palmer, he was being paid out of the public purse as a civil servant. Therefore, his actions should be subject to such restraint as the ombudsman can bring. Thus, it seems to me that the amendment is a sensible extension to that protection. It would make it abundantly clear that civil servants are not above the law of the ombudsman but are caught by it, and, therefore, someone like Mrs Palmer could have complained about the oppressive and bullying behaviour to which she was subjected. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that that is anything that anyone should dissent from, apart from those with a vested interest. Of course, that is, sadly, the same vested interest that closed down the opportunity to deal with the issue in the Special Adviser's Bill a couple of months ago.”
“I want to speak in support of Mr Beggs's amendment, amendment No 31. It plugs an obvious gap in respect of a complainant. <BR /> <BR />I think that some people may have misunderstood the import of the amendment. It will give a remedy to someone like Jenny Palmer, who felt that she had been bullied and oppressed by a special adviser. That special adviser was protected internally from any discipline by his Minister, who superseded and overrode a recommendation to that effect. The individual who was affected, Mrs Palmer, was effectively left without remedy. The amendment would give her the potential of a remedy by making a complaint to the ombudsman about the bullying and oppressive behaviour to which she was subjected by a fully paid civil servant under the guise of being a special adviser.”
“Can the Minister please clarify whether he is reviewing the weekly tariff that is paid to the independent sector? If not, and if further closures follow, could he remind the House what, in comparison, it costs to keep somebody with nursing needs within the National Health Service? Could he give us that figure?”
“The Minister has been very dogmatic when it comes to the sport of boxing that, to benefit from funding, you must be affiliated to a specific and sole governing body, yet, when it comes to football, there is no requirement for affiliation to the IFA. Why is there that distinction and bias? Is it so that the Brandywell can qualify?”
“If the Speaker cannot be trusted to retain the national anthem as an integral part of the remembrance service, as evidenced by his disgraceful but, happily, failed attempt to obliterate the national anthem on 11 November, is it not time that the Assembly Commission considered taking over this event or exercising the necessary control to ensure that such attempts to obliterate the national anthem will not occur again?”
“Why does the Minister continue to punish clubs that, for very good reason, refuse to reaffiliate to an IABA in which they have suffered sectarian abuse?”
“Leaving aside the propaganda, is the fact not that current falling incomes are a devastating testimony to the abject failure of the EU to live up to its own promise in its own treaty — the Lisbon Treaty — to increase the income of those depending on agriculture? It has lamentably failed and its recent attitude to the milk crisis showed that it could not care less. Is that not so?”