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 75 of 95.
“Therefore, I think that the motion deserves only the rejection that I hope it will receive.”
“That is a small object lesson in the deterrent effect of holding nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not nice weapons but they are essential in a world where there are rogue states like North Korea and the Russian Federation with malevolent intent towards others. They have been a bulwark in maintaining the peace of western Europe. Therefore, it is absolute folly for some in the House to don their unilateralist cap, seek to join the comrade who leads the Labour Party and line up and parade themselves as those opposed to these evil weapons, with no regard to the fact that they are safe today because of those evil weapons. It is those evil weapons that keep the United Kingdom and western Europe safe. All of us, I am sure, hope that they will never have to be used, but it is by having them that we maintain the peace.”
“It did so in return for a solemn pledge that its territorial integrity would be respected. What happened to Ukraine? It was invaded, partially annexed and is now partitioned by the very power that took unto itself Ukraine's nuclear weapons. Ukraine, being outside of NATO, was powerless.”
“We hold them because NATO is the bulwark that has preserved peace in western Europe and the western world since the Second World War. We hold them as a deterrent with a proven record of doing that. <BR /> <BR />I was thinking of Ukraine. When it was part of the USSR, it had nuclear weapons. When it became independent, it declared itself nuclear-free. In fact, it returned its nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation.”
“It is being held in this House to cover up the fact that those who abstain from real debate where the matter really matters want to create the aura and impression that they are concerned about the matter and are doing something about it. They want to pass, as someone described it, something akin to a school debating society motion. It has no more weight or credibility than that. <BR /> <BR />It is a serious issue about the defence of our nation. It is not just that the United Kingdom has independent nuclear deterrents. It holds those deterrents as part of the NATO defence of the western world. Our contribution to NATO — a very significant part of it — is our nuclear contribution. We do not hold those things in isolation.”
“It is a commentary in itself that, in this new era of a fresh start, the only business that the House can find to debate today is something we can do absolutely nothing about, either now or, happily, at any time in the future. Quite properly, it is an issue for the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. The irony has not gone unnoticed by many that the proposer of the motion had the opportunity for I do not know how many years — it was 10 years and more — to articulate the case that he brought to the House in a place where it would actually count. Of course, he opted not to do so. <BR /> <BR />This debate is a fictional nonsense.”
“Is the Member saying that this world would be a safer place if we were to leave nuclear weapons to the likes of North Korea, and the rest of us were to give up the nuclear deterrent? Does she really think that that would make this world a safer place?”
“Minister, what lessons were learned from the Lisburn scheme, which was notorious in its delays etc? My reason for asking is that, judging by the volume of complaints that I am now receiving about the scheme in Ballymena, there seems to have been a dearth of lessons learned, in that delays and huge inconvenience seem to be the order of the day.”
“I join in wishing the First Minister a long and healthy retirement. <BR /> <BR />The UN rapporteur is very clear, it seems, on the need for the truth. Does the junior Minister think that she and the First Minister are getting the truth from their partner, Sinn Féin, given its continuing denial of even the existence of the IRA and its controlling army council? Does not that situation — if Sinn Féin persists in saying that, as far as the republican movement is concerned, there is nothing to disband — make a nonsense of the suggestion that there is going to be a process to disband paramilitary organisations?”
“Does the Minister nonetheless perceive any credibility problem, given her reputation as a serial protester in her constituency at manifestations of Orange culture, or are we going to see a fresh start, with her desisting from such activity?”
“The statement contains many fine words, such as:”
“I am glad that, in six months' time, we will all face the verdict of our electorate, and I will be quite happy when some are asked about the climbdown on welfare and some are asked about the climbdown that involved sweeping murder under the carpet.”
“In my book, these are obviously politically convenient for some because the overriding desperation was to have a deal — any deal, as it turns out. That seems to have been the motivation of both parties: any deal will do, and this is it. To protect their blushes, they came up with a wheeze: "We will get Westminster to do it. That will keep our fingerprints off it. When public memory fades a little, we will be able to say that the British Government did it; we did not vote that through". Today, not only will you vote that through but you will vote it through in ignorance of what it is that you are being asked to vote on. You will then go back to your constituencies and say, "Elect us again. Don't we do well representing your interests?".”
“We are being invited to rubber stamp blindly in advance whatever it turns out to be or whatever is adopted as the Executive's proposals, even though those proposals will affect every one of our constituents. How could anyone say that they are representing their constituents in the House and engage in the absurd exercise of voting blind for something of which you have no idea what the contents will be? Although I am not at all ideologically opposed to legislative consent motions, I will certainly not vote for one that asks me to vote blindly for something that I have not seen and, I imagine, no one will see for weeks if not months. <BR /> <BR />The proposition really takes us to a level that is so surreal that it is unbelievable.”
“No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong — indeed, he might even correct me if I am right — but those have to be the proposals that will emanate from Professor Eileen Evason. They are certainly not in the agreement. The agreement manages in a page and a third to deal with welfare and tax credit top-ups. It does not tell us what the Executive's proposals are to enhance payments flowing from the agreement, so it can be only what the professor tells us are her proposals. <BR /> <BR />It is a matter for every Member, but I, for one, will not vote for something that I have not seen, for something of which I have no idea what the content will be or for something that I have no idea how it will affect my constituents.”
“The expediency was there, in one place or the other, and that is how they will vote tonight. <BR /> <BR />We then have the approval of the motion and”
“<BR /> <BR />The one document that we had adequate notice of was the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and its welfare clauses. Those welfare clauses, as Mr Attwood articulated, encompass some very strategic issues. They encompass the £20,000 benefit cap. The amazing thing is that some of the people who will vote tonight, in the words of the motion, to approve those welfare clauses come from parties that, in Westminster, went through the Lobbies against those clauses. Take the Democratic Unionist Party. At Second Reading and Third Reading, its MPs voted against the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Some of them, like Mr Wilson, spoke against it, but tonight their MLAs will vote to approve the very clauses that their MPs voted against. There was expediency somewhere, whether in Westminster or Stormont.”
“How many people who will dutifully troop through the "Yes" Lobby tonight will have read even six of the 126 pages of that draft Order? Not very many, I suggest. That will not trouble the fodder that populates many of these Benches — they will do what they are told — but I, for one, will certainly not lend my assent. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it plain: I have no issue in principle with legislative consent motions or with inviting the Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom to legislate. I have no difficulty whatever with that, just as some others, from rather surprising sources, now seem to have no difficulty with that, but I do have difficulty with signing blank cheques. I am not prepared to consent to that which I have not been able to read, study and reach a view on. That is why we should not have even been asked to do it today.”
“The great benefit warriors turned turtle and ran pretty fast when the threat was made that there might be no Assembly. Their jobs mattered much more than anything else. <BR /> <BR />Today, we have the inappropriately named legislative consent motion. I spoke this morning about the fact that three of the four issues in it were not adequately before the House. It seems that, after the House met, there appeared on the NIO website — on prompting or not, I do not know — a copy of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill. Fair enough, I can cope with it; it is three pages. Even I can assimilate that in the time available. However, there also appeared the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which runs to 126 pages.”
“What happens then? Is it back to — who knows what crisis number it will by then? — another round of crisis talks? That seems to be the limitation of the thinking of those who brought us here. <BR /> <BR />What about the great benefit warriors who were going to deliver and die in the ditch over benefits? Yesterday, they crashed, conceded and climbed down in the spectacular manner that they did. We heard why. We heard it from Mr McGuinness, when he told us rather plaintively, "If we had not done this, I would not have a job. There would be no deputy First Minister because there would be no institutions". There it is: saving the institutions is much more important than benefits and those dependent on them. We heard it from Mr Maskey again today.”
“We are going to have GB benefits flatlining or worse. We are going to have Northern Ireland benefits artificially sustained at a higher and widening level, and then we reach the end of the precipice when the money runs out, and what happens then? We are creating and storing up a huge crisis — far bigger than the one that is said to face us in recent times — because there are only four years of purchase on this subsidy.”
“It is coming off our constituents who rely for many basic services on the block grant, and the largesse of the two dominant parties is that, in order to placate and keep the benefit level artificially high, they are going to cut the cutters. They are going to cut the block grant in key areas, be it education, environment, agriculture, whatever. It is secondary to sustaining and obtaining the £585 million for benefits and tax credits. So, the loser in much of this will be the non-benefit claiming constituent who will find that services that he already thinks he pays richly for will be diminished to the tune of £585 million. According to those who claim to know, or think they know, that is a good deal. <BR /> <BR />The other question that immediately arises is this: what happens at the end of the four years?”
“So, the pot for meeting the shortfalls in benefits, far from being increased — and we were once told that it would take another £300 million, I think it was — has been radically diminished. Yet, we are told through contributions like that from Mr Maskey that this is a great deal for those he represents. Patently, it is a less good deal than what was available at the start of this year. <BR /> <BR />A question that has not really been addressed in this debate is this: where is that £585 million for welfare and tax credits coming from? One thing is clear: there is not a penny of it coming from Westminster; oh no.”
“The nature of that climbdown on welfare is illustrated in a number of ways, not least by the diminished pot of money that, last March, we were told was not anywhere near enough, but now it is diminished from £564 million for welfare to £345 million — the other £240 million being for the yet uncosted, undefined tax credit consequences. So, what was unacceptable in March — £564 million — is now, when it is reduced to £345 million, a good deal, according to Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />The £564 million was to be spread over six years, and that was giving something like £94 million a year. The £345 million is now to be split over four years, giving something like £83 million a year.”
“I am not sure the last Member who spoke was so much addressing the House as seeking to address and mend fences with his electorate, who, of course, were so grossly misled by Sinn Féin as to the die-in-the-ditch response that they would forever make to welfare reform. Of course, the truth is that, today, we are debating the most colossal climbdown by Sinn Féin on the welfare issue. Indeed, this agreement, which brings us here today, is typical of the trade-offs whereby the Government operate for what passes as working in this Province, in that there is again in this agreement a massive trade-off; a trade-off of climbdowns. Sinn Féin spectacularly climbed down on welfare reform, and the DUP even more spectacularly climbed down on paramilitarism, and so we get the product which is this agreement.”
“We have set aside huge hurdles, and, having agreed to do that, the least that we can do is now consent to delay the debate until the documents that we are being asked to agree are in our hands, because today they are not. That is unconscionable and wrong, and I very much regret the fact that the clique that dominates the House is nonetheless going to force through the House a suggestion that we pass that which we have not seen and cannot see.”
“— to Members of the House. <BR /> <BR />Why the rush, in breach of the very timeline in the agreement itself? Why the rush? Is Mr Durkan right? Is that the reason for the rush? Really, the House does itself no favours for its standing if it simply nods through something that it has not even seen. As others said, there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by taking the six days to allow the Bill to be put into the hands of everyone and published, and to allow the Order to be published so that the House properly — by due process — can consent in an informed way to what it is being asked to consent to. <BR /> <BR />Anyone who is wondering about the degree to which we are departing from the norms should read Standing Order 42A, which we have agreed to set aside.”
“— nor is the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, nor the proposals. We are asked to approve four things in the motion, and three of them are unavailable —”
“— but it is not available to Members of the House —”
“Well, it is not in the Bill Office, so it is not available to a Member of the House. How are we to consent to something that is not available?”
“The Minister claimed that the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015 is published.”
“I reiterate: this is on the very simple but elementary premise that you should not consent to something that you cannot see and that you have not got.”
“Even the agreement anticipates running it to next week. So what is the rush? Why are we foolishly putting ourselves in a position of ridicule by approving something that we have not seen?”
“Where are the Executive's proposals? They have not been published. Nobody has seen them. Therefore, the House is being asked today, with undue haste, to consent to and approve that which it has not seen and cannot see. That seems to me to be absurd. That seems to me to reach new depths of what can only be described as a surreal situation. We are going to approve something, but we have not seen it and cannot read it. It is just not there. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I suggest that, since those things are bound to be produced shortly, we adjourn the debate until next Tuesday. In making that proposal, I call in the aid of a paragraph of the agreement. Paragraph 2.2 on page 22 states:”
“Where is it? No one has seen it. It does not exist as far as the House is concerned. The motion goes on to state that the Assembly approves:”
“Yes, we can read those. I have read them and understand them, I think. It then states that the Assembly approves:”
“The rather elementary problem is that there is not, as published, a Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015. No one has seen it. Therefore, we are being asked to consent, blind, to a Bill that we have not seen. That begs the question of how far the House is prepared to bend the rules to accommodate such a preposterous proposal. <BR /> <BR />The motion goes on to state that the Assembly:”
“We are to be asked today, according to the agenda, to approve a legislative consent motion. I suppose that the clue should be in the title — legislative consent. The motion states "That this Assembly", which is all of us:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 16, I wish to have the opportunity to move that the debate be adjourned to 24 November, next Tuesday and, given the opportunity, I will expound the reasons why.”
“Whatever the merits or demerits of this monitoring statement, is it not the truth that in order to make it and the agreement of which it is part, the Minister and her colleagues had to pay the shameful price of sweeping murder under the carpet?”
“On a day when the Minister and his party roll over and ask Westminster to legislate on welfare reform, is this not an irrational and political decision to bolster the Minister's anti-England credentials, wreaking havoc with the portability of qualifications and creating a conundrum for students, parents, employers and universities? Indeed, it is a conundrum that might well fit a transfer test question: if John gets a B in Belfast, what would it be in Bristol?”
“— and why has its bypass also been forgotten, if we now have a Minister who knows where North Antrim is?”
“I express my dismay at the Minister's answer. It is two years since this was announced, with headlines in the local paper about a park-and-ride facility at Cullybackey. In March of this year, the Department announced that it was going to provide 110 spaces. The Minister now comes to the House and tells us that Translink has not even completed the land purchase and that it must revisit the level crossing and that it is going to be another three years before we have that basic provision.”
“The Minister has not mentioned it, but a significant part of the report dealt with what could be classed as the disproportionate focus on the separated prisoners and the adverse effect that was having on the rest of the prison. What has been done to address that issue?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister and the Committee need to look with great sympathy at the idea of activating the Bill at the highest possible level, at the earliest possible opportunity, and with the greatest possible effect on rural dwellers. That can be done by making sure that bodies such as the Northern Ireland Environment Agency are, as they should be, subject to a statutory duty to consider and have due regard to rural needs rather than, as at the moment, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency belligerently sets itself up to suppress and override rural needs. I trust that that point will be taken on board.”
“That Minister would have an enabling power, by secondary legislation, to amend that list, to take from it or add to it, but they would be there from the outset rather than bringing in legislation that applies to Departments but not to their arm's-length bodies and councils, however that circumvents the application of the legislation for as long as we think appropriate for the bodies that really matter. <BR /> <BR />I appeal to the House to address that matter so that the promise that is possible by applying a statutory duty in respect to rural needs and rural proofing might actually be delivered. It will only be delivered if you include in the Bill the deliverers of services to the rural community.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would very much like to see the Northern Ireland Environment Agency subject to a statutory duty to have regard to the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas. That would put a brake on the folly that it is pursuing in respect of many farmers in rural constituencies. It is a disappointment to me that, in the Bill, that statutory duty is not forthwith extended to bodies such as the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Education Authority. Other Members spoke of matters educational; why are they, too, not subject to that duty from the beginning? It would be very easily done. All you have to do is put in a schedule, as you see in much legislation, that is a list of the public bodies to which the legislation applies.”
“<BR /> <BR />In my constituency of North Antrim, we have a significant concentration of the poultry industry, which is connected with the historical existence of O'Kane and Moy Park. In recent months, many affected farmers have come to see me in despair because the planning applications that they have made to extend their poultry houses or to replace them with new up-to-date poultry houses are being blocked by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It has come up with a concern that, because of the prevailing wind direction, or some other contention, there is too much of an ammonia influence on a derelict bog in the middle of my constituency. For that reason, go-ahead farmers who are trying to provide for themselves and their families are being trumped by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's total disregard for rural needs.”
“No one will accuse the sponsor of this Bill of cluttering it with detail because there is a great dearth in that regard. Where that concerns me most is in respect of the reach of the Bill. As the Bill stands, it will apply only to Departments and councils and might never apply to anyone else. With so much policy delivered through arm's-length bodies, that is a fundamental flaw and mistake, as it is often through those bodies that the detrimental decisions of which rural dwellers complain are taken. Let me give some examples. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency is, in my experience, one of the most anti-rural and anti-rural dweller operatives in Northern Ireland. Yet, unless and until the Minister gets round to putting it on a list, it will be exempt from the statutory requirement to have regard to rural needs.”
“Is the Minister monitoring the impact of the exit scheme on the community background of the Civil Service composition? If so, has she any grounds for concern, and when will that be revealed to the public?”