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 77 of 95.
“This has been a catastrophic blow for Ballymena on the back of the equally devastating loss of JTI. What my constituents and I want to know is whether the Department, the Executive and Invest NI did all they could and should have done to avert this situation. We note that many of the jobs are going on foot of a £52 million investment in the Dundee plant: what did Scotland offer that Invest NI did not offer? Has the contact been towards increasing the productivity and capacity in Ballymena? On the critical issue of energy —”
“It states that it would be wholly inappropriate to reduce it to a minimum. That is not language that we are used to hearing from the Minister. However, he asked the reviewer to consider models to deliver publicly funded legal services through mechanisms other than legal aid. What mechanisms of that nature have been recommended? Is he still flirting with the idea of a public defender office?”
“The report seems to refer to our present legal aid scheme as "world class" and:”
“Under the previous programme, it turns out that several million pounds were siphoned off to sporting bodies, most particularly and most generously to the GAA, with Tyrone GAA, said to be one of richest, getting almost £1 million. Given the crisis in front-line farming, what assurances are there this time that rural funding will actually go to meet those front-line and essential needs, rather than being squandered, as happened previously?”
“So, for the fifth time in the House, I will, robustly and with conviction, whatever the popularism might be, defend with my vote the right of traditional marriage, believing that that is a bedrock for the success of society, and believing that the more we tinker, tamper, demean and diminish that, the more we will take this society spiralling downwards. I think that we have done enough of that already.”
“So this is an issue that tries to equate two irreconcilable concepts: that of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and that of the phoney suggestion that, for no purpose other than to pander to what has been built up as a right when it is not a right, you give to others some equivalence to something that there is no equivalence within; namely, same-sex marriage.”
“That is what the motion comes down to. It comes down to saying that the normative, natural environment of raising children with a father and a mother and their biological link is of no intrinsic value whatsoever and that you just equate the "unequatable" and simply roll together same-sex marriage, where procreation is impossible, with the traditional concept of regular marriage, where procreation is often but not on every occasion the natural process and the natural God-given environment in which to raise children to the best possible effect.”
“This is not a rights issue. As has been pointed out, there is no human right recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights or the European Court of Human Rights to same-sex marriage. It therefore cannot be and is not a rights issue, nor is it an issue of equality. Rather, there is a worked-up, phoney demand for rights where none does or should exist. There is no equality issue here. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the demand is based on the fatuous suggestion that same-sex marriage is really the same as regular man-to-woman marriage and that there is no difference between the two. I would like to quote a source that I am maybe not given to quoting, but it is very apt on this occasion. I quote from a letter from the Catholic bishops to Members of the House. The letter dealt appropriately with that point when it stated:”
“Thank you. For me, this is not a matter of popularism but a matter of principle. It is not about being on the right or wrong side of history. For me, it is unapologetically about being on the side of that which is right, informed by my conscience and my religious belief, which quite properly can and should inform these matters. <BR /> <BR />This is the fifth attempt in the House to redefine marriage, and that is what it is, despite what some have said. It is an attempt to redefine marriage, to replace the time-honoured, purposeful definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman with the perverse definition that demeans traditional marriage by equating it to same-sex marriage, to which there is no procreational purpose. There is only the purpose of pandering to the pretence that there is some right that is being denied.”
“I just want to test whether the Member puts up any barriers to what he calls admission to the institution of marriage. He said earlier in his speech that, if two people love each other, why should they not be admitted to the institution of marriage. How far does he take that? If some man says, "I love two women. Therefore, I want to marry two women.", does the Member's embracing of equality and their rights cause him to say, "Well, then, let's have polygamy"? That is the same logic that involves this redefinition of marriage. Why not have a further redefinition of marriage? Is that not the road that the Member is taking us down? If it is not, is that because he is drawing some moral line somewhere? If he is drawing a moral line somewhere, why not draw it here?”
“Is it not clear that that is the Minister's position?”
“Is the Minister not attempting but failing to be too smart by half in suggesting that he was talking about those who might, because of early release, be subject to these provisions of weekend release etc, when the reality is that people are going to be in that position only on foot of being convicted and subject to the 1998 arrangements through which they get early release? Therefore, it is a matter of the Justice Minister effectively saying that he expects only one or two convictions that would put people in that position. Does that not suggest that the HIU is window dressing, meant to placate victims, but that, in fact, it will ultimately deliver very little, at huge expense, and create further frustration for innocent victims?”
“I want to balance up that territory and say, if a memorandum of understanding is required for one, why not the other? Within both, there may need to be the protections that a memorandum of understanding would provide against unwarranted recourse to preventing disclosure by adopting the language that is easy to adopt, namely that this would be prejudicial to the interests or safety of Northern Ireland. Just as you would expect it for the Secretary of State, I would expect for any of the Ministers given that power the same memorandum of understanding or a parallel one to cover them. That is the logic and reason for those two amendments.”
“There have been a number of pretty dissatisfactory outcomes in respect of staff and visitor arrangements, so I think that there is nothing to lose by that. <BR /> <BR />On amendment Nos 58 and 59 I simply make the point that if local Ministers are to have the power under clause 41 to serve a notice preventing disclosure of documents prejudiced to the safety of Northern Ireland and therefore contrary to the public interest, it strikes me as rather incongruous that, if the Secretary of State is to exercise that function, she exercises it within the ambit of a memorandum of understanding with the ombudsman, but, if the local Minister is to exercise that function of preventing disclosure of documentation, he can do it at large with no restraint of any memorandum of understanding.”
“That is what this legislation presently makes as its starting point: concealment of the outcome of reports. I do not think that that is in the public interest. For the reasons that I have given, I recommend that amendment to the House. <BR /> <BR />The point on amendment Nos 22 and 23 is very simple. Within the education system, there are provisions for staff etc who feel wronged in how they have been treated. However, it is in-house supervision, where the visitors are appointed by the university. It lacks the transparency of a proper public scrutiny. I think it is appropriate that, if we are bringing the universities into the ambit of this Bill, we should bring all of their administration within the ambit of this Bill; not just how they deal with students but how they deal with staff.”
“The further safety net is the giving to the ombudsperson the right to prevent publication if he thinks that that is in the public interest. <BR /> <BR />To me, this amendment turns the matter in the right direction by making the presumption and starting point publication subject to redaction, with the public interest recourse only used to prevent publication, rather than saying that there will be no publication unless, in the eyes of the ombudsman and no one else, in the public interest there can be publication. In what is supposed to be an open, transparent society where government and agencies are subject to scrutiny, I have to say that, logically and properly, the onus and the starting point should be a presumption of publication rather than a presumption of concealment.”
“It is precisely because of there being some validity attaching to those concerns that the amendment is worded as it is, with the proviso that personal details are redacted upon the request of the person affected. So, yes, someone making a complaint but not wanting to be named across the media as the complainant, or have their details generally publicised, is protected in this amendment to, upon request, have their details redacted, so that no one need, or would, know who they are. Likewise, the person within the establishment who is being complained against, or whoever the individual is, could make that request. <BR /> <BR />The concern about disincentive is removed by the protection built into the amendment of allowing personal details to be redacted.”
“It is the commonsense, sensible approach to end the nonsense situation in which affected Departments may not even know about reports or that they should be monitoring the implementation of steps taken on the foot of those reports. At present, they are kept in the dark. That is in no one's interests. This is the logic that lies behind amendment No 54. I heard some people comment on it adversely. I trust that they will reconsider and take these points on board. <BR /> <BR />I was very surprised to hear that the ombudsman raised an objection on resource implications. This amendment calls for the report to be put on the website. Where are the resource implications in putting a report on the ombudsman's website so that anyone can view it, learn from it and avoid the mistakes that were made? There cannot be serious resource implications.”
“Yet, that is what has been happening and could continue to happen unless we take the initiative, reverse the onus and make presumption in favour of publication and cause non-publication to be demonstrated to be in the public interest. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 54 is couched in the way it is to reverse that presumption and cause all reports to be publicised on the website, with personal details redacted where that is the request of the individual, organisation or staff within the organisation, unless the ombudsman thinks it would not be in the public interest to publicise the report at all. <BR /> <BR />What is there to lose with this approach?”
“I understand that, but, at the moment, there has been no recourse to publication in the public interest. This is about the starting point. What is the starting point? Surely, the starting point should be a presumption in favour of publication, and that is what my amendment says. In circumstances when it is not in the public interest to publicise, you do not do so, but the presumption should be in favour of publication. I find it astounding, in the examples I have given, that there has been no publication of those reports and no assurance under this legislation that there would be publication. <BR /> <BR />What is the purpose, and where is the public interest, in concealing from the Department of Health findings against some of its arm's-length bodies?”
“Here we have a situation under the current regime, which the Bill seeks to preserve, whereby a complaint — to the Northern Trust in this case — finds failures from which others can learn, yet that report is not even within the knowledge of the Department. That is appalling.”
“I will pause there to suggest that I would have thought that most members of the public would expect that, if there is an adverse finding in respect of how something is being done in the health service, the Minister of Health and the Department of Health would be in a position to monitor how matters have improved and to act upon, and ensure that the trust acts upon, the matters on which they were found wanting. However, the amazing answer from the Minister was:”
“I tabled that question, and it was answered on 17 October 2013. The question was:”
“The issue came to my attention particularly in the aftermath of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) saga, when a complainant made a very legitimate complaint, which was upheld, about how the Department had handled matters touching upon the PMS, yet he got a report in his favour with a severe warning not to publicise the report. Why? Because of the statutory presumption against publication. Was that in the public interest? I think not. I think that there were issues there that required and could have benefited from public knowledge and ventilation. <BR /> <BR />Then, when a constituent made a very serious and proper complaint against the Northern Trust and had the findings upheld, I asked the Department what action it takes on foot of reports from the ombudsman on health issues.”
“The presumption at the moment, contrary to the situation that prevails in some other jurisdictions, is that when a complaint is investigated by the ombudsman, the ombudsman's report effectively remains secret. It is not publicised. Indeed, those who bring complaints receive, along with the report, what to them, being unfamiliar with the territory, appears quite an intimidatory letter warning them that they must not disclose the content of the report. I do not think that that is in the public interest.”
“There are three groups of amendments to the Bill, and I am going to speak primarily to amendment No 54 initially, because I think it raises a very important issue, touching upon the publication and outcome of complaints.”
“Of course, what does that matter in the world of political expediency, where the expedient is to avoid an election, cling to office and get back into full cohabitation with Sinn Féin? That, sadly, is the DUP approach in this matter.”
“If you kill, we will huff and puff, but we will not really do anything about it, and, when a decent interval of time has passed, we will carry on as if it never happened. By that very approach, a licence to kill again is created.”
“The very thing that could not happen because of that murder, now, it seems, under the fig leaf that they hope is going to fall into their hands, can be done, despite that murder. In other words, sweep it under the carpet. That is the spectacle that we are going to see, I believe, this week. It is a spectacle that is wholly lacking in principle and sincerity because it effectively creates the licence to kill again. <BR /> <BR />If a paramilitary organisation can kill in those circumstances and there are political consequences, and then the political consequences are ameliorated and withdrawn, what does that say to that paramilitary organisation or any other paramilitary organisation?”
“If the panel report can sanitise, present and suggest that there might have been a little recreational murder but the bigger picture is that the paramilitary organisations have the best of motives and really want to help the peace process, and, in fact, it is a great idea that we have them, as Mr Powell tried to tell us last week, and if the panel report does its business and provides the fig leaf, rest assured that the DUP will be back in office, begging the question that it could not have done business as usual because of an IRA murder. If the panel, despite all the massaging, has to confirm that it was a murder by members of the IRA, why oh why are they standing ready, brush in hand, to brush that murder under the carpet? That will be the consequence of the resumption of business as usual.”
“This is the time of year of falling leaves. Seldom can a First Minister have waited so anxiously beneath the fig tree in Stormont House to grasp the falling fig leaf to enable him to get back into government, and yet, patently, that is the ploy now afoot. <BR /> <BR />The DUP tell us — the Acting First Minister told us — that its partner in government is inextricably linked to the IRA. The Chief Constable told us that members of the IRA murdered Kevin McGuigan. The DUP said that, in consequence, it cannot be business as usual. Hence, we become "sometimes Ministers", in and out, but always careful to preserve our pension continuity and our positions. <BR /> <BR />The panel report is to issue. It may be tomorrow or it may not be — it was supposed to be last week, but maybe it took a little more massaging than anticipated.”
“Perhaps the Minister could try to answer. Let me say that I would have more than supported the First Minister if he had done the proper thing and resigned rather than taking the hokey-cokey option that kept Sinn Féin in the Government. If the IRA murdered Kevin McGuigan — dress it up as you like, massage it as this report may — the Minister has a choice to make: is she going to resume full political cohabitation with Sinn Féin, which she says is inextricably linked to that killing machine, the IRA?”
“Up until May 2013, the First Minister and the Finance Minister contended that NAMA was playing a positive role in Northern Ireland. Then the First Minister's friends — Messrs Cushnahan and Coulter — arranged a secret meeting for the First Minister and the Finance Minister with PIMCO, and suddenly the First Minister was advocating the liberating of the assets through the sale of the loan book. What induced the DUP Ministers to change their mind?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand his personal position about OTR letters, but I am talking about a case that comes before the courts now in respect of the prosecution etc and the investigation. Under this charter, as drafted by the Minister, whatever one thinks of OTR letters — and I am not asking the Minister to endorse them in any way — is a victim entitled to know whether there is an OTR letter? That is the question. I suspect that, as it is drafted, they are not, but I want to hear that from the Minister. Are they or are they not, because that is the litmus test for the charter for many people?”
“It is a simple question; let us have a straightforward answer.”
“If this charter does not afford that right to victims, and I suspect it does not, it is deficient. The Minister must know the depth of hurt that the entire shameless saga of OTR letters has caused to innocent victims. If he has brought a charter to this House that simply sweeps that matter under the carpet, it is a charter that is deficient. I am asking the Minister to put on record whether a victim is entitled to know, under the charter, if there is a relevant OTR letter in his or her case. The answer to that question will, for many, be the defining judgement on the worth of this charter. I trust that, as the Minister answers, he will not, as is his wont, duck or dive or try to dodge, but will answer the question. Under this charter, is a victim entitled to know whether or not there is an OTR letter?”
“When I look at the charter and find the corresponding article, which appears to be paragraph 73, I am not sure that it entirely meets that standard. My question to the Minister is whether what he has enacted in this charter gives the victim of crime the right to know if, in the case in which he or she has an interest, there was an on-the-run (OTR) letter. Is the victim of crime, in the context of the criminal proceedings covered by the EU directive, entitled to know the very simple but far-reaching consideration of whether, in his or her case, someone who was a suspect in those criminal proceedings and that criminal act holds an OTR letter?”
“There is no room there, thankfully, to include the victim-maker. The victim there identified is the innocent, actual victim. We could learn much from that. <BR /> <BR />I have a couple of questions for the Minister arising from other content of the EU directive, which states in article 6(2) that the victim is entitled to:”
“This charter arises from obligations articulated in an EU directive back in 2012. When one looks at the wording deployed in that directive, the first thing, given the Northern Ireland context, that one cannot fail to be struck by is the very proper definition that that directive contains in respect of "victim", because it emphatically states in article 2 that "victim" means:”
“Is that the best that you can come up with —”
“Why not cocoon them from basic disciplinary proceedings?" It is as barefaced and shameful a defence of self-interest as anyone will see when those who walk through the "No" Lobby do so, shortly.”
“It is a pity he did not have the courage of his convictions. Of course, he will not have the courage of his convictions today, because he will meekly troop through the "No" Lobby to protect the vested interests that are dictating this debate. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Bill was addressing a serious subject in a serious and measured manner and in a way that it required to be addressed, because we cannot go on asking for public credibility if, within the confines of the House, we demonstrate such gross, appalling irresponsibility that we think that that which is preached to others should never apply here and that we should merely continue to squander. The DUP and Sinn Féin say, "Why not let us continue with all this surplus of special advisers paid for out of the public purse? Why not continue to overpay them?”
“In a moment of forgetfulness, one of their own MLAs — Gordon Dunne — retweeted it and favoured it, until the thought police got to him, and he deleted it. He retweeted:”
“That is apparently going to be the outcome of this debate. <BR /> <BR />I made mention of the DUP breaking its boycott and returning to business as usual to protect its own. That caused an interesting little exchange on social media. Someone tweeted:”
“Let the watching public remember that the plain truth is that when this House had the opportunity, in a time of austerity when other public servants are expected to tighten their belts, to take the axe to the squander of OFMDFM having the same number of SpAds as the whole Welsh Government; had the opportunity to take the axe to the indefensible position that a SpAd in Northern Ireland costs £106,000 a year but £60,000 in Wales, and even in a proper Government, the Westminster Government, they cost only £83,000 a year, but here they cost £106,000 a year; when the watching public asks the question, "Why was Stormont not prepared to do something about it?", let them get the very clear answer that the vested interests of the two parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, circled the wagons to protect their own.”
“Maybe that was a little down payment from the DUP to Sinn Féin for whatever else the pay-off is. Who knows? The machinations of all of that are all but imponderable.”
“This House can debate waiting lists, and the DUP sits silent. This House can debate cancer, and the DUP sits silent. Let this House debate daring — daring — to bring some financial restraint to the squander of special advisers, daring to curb the number of special advisers or daring to think that those civil servants should be subject to discipline, and it is business as usual for the DUP — back to protecting its own vested interest. That is what we saw today, when it sent in an MLA to oppose the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Maybe that was part of the sticking-plaster deal with Sinn Féin. Maybe Sinn Féin said, "Well, if we are going to help you out; if we are going to save your SpAds, then you are going to have to put a face on it, and we are going to make you break your boycott and make you speak in this debate".”
“It is that utterly unashamed defence of the indefensible in the protection of the vested interest that they have that the DUP will vote no, and Sinn Féin, as part of some deal with the DUP, will vote no today. Of course, Mr McCartney dressed it up in the most threadbare clothes imaginable. He said that Sinn Féin was going to vote against this Bill because it was an amendment to my last Bill, and it was against my last Bill, therefore it must be against this Bill. That is such absolutely illogical nonsense, but it is the point that its Members were driven to in their U-turn from Mr Ó Muilleoir's position of last week. <BR /> <BR />However, the debate did do one thing: it did provoke a DUP contribution, underscoring the vested-interest point. Oh yes, this House can debate health, and the DUP sits silent.”
“Well dare anyone, such as in this Bill, suggest that, though we pay them as civil servants, pension them as civil servants and cosset them as civil servants, we should subject them to the discipline of civil servants or remove that right from the Minister to protect his own, as he so shamelessly did in the case of Mr Brimstone.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is that vested self-interest of those two parties that appears, today, to be going to unite them to go through the "No" Lobby so that they can continue the squander at a level wholly out of kilter with expenditure on special advisers anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and continue with the squander of one Department having the same number of special advisers as the whole of the Welsh Government. It will also allow them to continue to make special advisers exempt from discipline, as we scandalously and shamelessly saw in respect of the Red Sky inquiry, when the appointing Minister was able to throw a human shield around the offending special adviser, who independent fact-finding had found should face disciplinary proceedings. The Minister was able to protect him from that.”