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 78 of 95.
“As I said, as a consequence of Sinn Féin's position, that means tens of thousands of pounds going into its coffers every year. <BR /> <BR />The DUP is, of course, in the business of protecting the useful vehicle that special advisers are for reward within the party and for maintaining that golden circle of special advisers who, given the quality of some Ministers, I suppose are indispensable in running Departments. They are very much in the business of self-interest.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, it is in the vested interest of both parties to protect the very special unwarranted treatment that the current arrangements provide for their parties. Take Sinn Féin, for example. They tell us that their special advisers do not benefit from the full salary. The full salary is taken, but the balance above whatever is the current threshold for Sinn Féin members is donated, it is claimed, to the party. So, it is in the interests of Sinn Féin to continue to take from the taxpayer the tens of thousands of pounds that come to the coffers of that party through having a surplus of special advisers and overpaying them up to the level that they are paid. When Sinn Féin joins with the DUP, it is joining in that same vested interest. Between them, those two parties now have entitlement to 16 of the 19 special advisers.”
“I think he was suggesting that there might have been a petition of concern, but they did not need it because it seems that Sinn Féin has ridden to the rescue and done a deal with the DUP on this. <BR /> <BR />Significantly, Mr Ó Muilleoir was not here today, perhaps out of embarrassment at the U-turn that has been done, but it was clear from what he said in Committee that the Bill was likely to meet with his and their support. Be that as it may, that deal has no doubt become part of the sticking plaster that has been utilised to stick together that which is necessary to cause these institutions to limp along a little bit further until the next crisis. It would appear that some arrangement of vested interest has been made in that regard.”
“I say "Sinn Féin U-turn" because, at the Finance Committee last Wednesday, it was abundantly clear from the contributions made by Mr Ó Muilleoir that he and his party appeared to be in support of the principles of the Bill. He did caution that he expected that my former colleagues might halt the progress of the Bill.”
“I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate. Some significant and constructive points were made, and I want to acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />My starting point with the Bill is not to suggest for one minute that it has all the answers or that it is not capable of improvement. No Bill is ever in that category. The Members who raised issues about the need to widen the Bill to include matters such as the qualifications of a special adviser made useful points, and there were some others in the same vein. <BR /> <BR />It is clear, however, because of a Sinn Féin U-turn and an obvious deal that it has done with the DUP, that the cabal that controls the House has determined today to kill the Bill.”
“In three recent written replies, the Minister advised me that no record had been kept of the ministerial meeting in March 2014 with Cerberus, that there were no records in the Department of the alleged briefings of Executive colleagues on the NAMA loan book and that she was unable to give any information about departmental ministerial meetings with Ian Coulter, Frank Cushnahan and Gareth Robinson because it would be too difficult to collect the information. Why is there that culture of not keeping records? Is it so the Department can cover its tracks when it comes to NAMA?”
“Special advisers cannot expect to gain from all the benefits that come from being a civil servant, such as the pension scheme and all that, but dodge and evade the disciplinary possibilities that come as to their conduct. The Bill, on that third limb, would make it abundantly clear that the normal disciplinary processes of the Civil Service would also apply to these civil servants who are special advisers and would expressly prohibit any ministerial meddling in that. That, I think, is right. <BR /> <BR />I respectfully suggest to the House that, because of the failure to self-restrain in all these matters, legislation is now necessary on this matter and that what the Bill contains is not a punitive but a measured response to the situation. I trust, on that basis, that it will find favour with the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The third thing that the Bill does — since special advisers are civil servants — is to address the problem that arose on foot of the Red Sky affair, where an independent, fact-finding investigation by the Department of Finance and Personnel into a DSD special adviser Mr Brimstone recommended that there should be a disciplinary process in respect of him. What happened? His Minister, who appointed him, quashed it. He stepped in and said that it was not needed and that there would be no investigation. It is not the purpose of a Minister to determine when there should or should not be a Civil Service disciplinary process. Civil servants are civil servants and it is for the processes of the Civil Service to apply to him and to them all.”
“It is not a matter of being mean to the Northern Ireland special advisers. This legislation is still generous to them, but in a way that restores some element of accountability in pay structures. It removes the potential for political meddling such as we saw in 2011 in the massaging of those pay structures and it puts us on something of a par with what you would expect elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />The Bill tackles the number of special advisers and, if there is a reformulation of Departments, those numbers will, naturally, fall in consequence of a reduction in the number of Departments. However, that does not address the primary irritant, when it comes to a common-sense approach to the issue, of OFMDFM being oversubscribed with special advisers. The Bill seeks to address that and seeks to bring some reasonable measure to the pay issues.”
“Currently it starts at £65,422 and maxes out at £78,275, so it ranges from £65,000 to £78,000. I am not saying, and the Bill does not say, that that should be the pay of every special adviser. I anticipate retaining bands A and B. I remind you that band A starts at £37,000. What this legislation will do is say that, in every case, special advisers' pay is capped at the grade 5 Senior Civil Service pay rank. In other words, no one could earn more than £78,000 as a special adviser, which still keeps them handsomely ahead of what their counterparts in Wales or Scotland are paid.”
“Since it has got there by deliberate political meddling in the setting of the bands to push them ever higher and to decouple them from the natural progression of any increases that come within the Senior Civil Service pay bands, and since it has been that political meddling that has ignited the increase, I am saying to this House that it should get a grip on this thing and should itself legislate to put a ceiling on the runaway costs of special advisers. <BR /> <BR />I suggest that we link them properly and permanently to the pay scale of a relevant senior civil servant. I suggest that that would more than adequately be met by attaching special advisers' pay to the pay scale that is applicable to assistant secretaries — grade 5s — in the Civil Service. What is that pay scale?”
“Even in the whole United Kingdom Government, which is one that deals with the full range of governmental issues and international issues, the average cost of a special adviser in Westminster is more than £20,000 less than the average cost in Northern Ireland. On the latest figures, the package for a special adviser in Westminster costs £83,500. In Northern Ireland, a special adviser's package costs £106,000. <BR /> <BR />Whether you make the comparison, which I think is the relevant comparison, with the other devolved institutions, or whether you make it even with the national Government — and take upon yourself all the pretensions of such a comparison — it is totally out of kilter.”
“Whether that is done, as the Bill stands, by reducing the number for the First Minister, deputy First Minister and junior Ministers to one each or by reducing the number to two each for the First Minister and deputy First Minister and taking away the provision for the junior Ministers to have a special adviser each, which apparently was not needed before 2007 — I do not really have a strong view. I think that it can be done either way. <BR />It is preposterous that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister needs the same number of special advisers as the entire Welsh Government and pays them something like 50% more than they are paid in Wales.”
“The formula that is suggested — and I am not wedded to this formula whatsoever — is that the three special advisers that the First Minister and deputy First Minister each have presently should be reduced to one and that the junior Ministers have one each. The junior Ministers historically did not have special advisers. That was a creation of 2007, when it was decided to add to the number of special advisers and to give the junior Ministers in OFMDFM a special adviser each. Before that, there were three for the First Minister and three for the deputy First Minister; a total of six. By that method, it became eight. My ambition and suggestion in this Bill is to reduce the number to four.”
“So it is clear, and should be clear to the House, that the idea that this matter can be left to self-restraint and self-control is a myth. Every opportunity has been taken by some to exploit the situation and cream off from the taxpayer the maximum special advisers' remuneration. <BR /> <BR />What of the number of special advisers? We have 19, compared with eight in Wales and 14 in Scotland. Indeed, the office of the joint First Ministers has the same number of special advisers — eight — as the whole of the Welsh Government. That is how preposterous and out of hand this matter has got. The Bill proposes that, there being no self-restraint, we should restrict the number of special advisers in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.”
“Of course, once the salary band had been increased to £90,000, events took their natural course, and, lo and behold, we discovered that, until Ms Pengelly resigned as a special adviser, all three of the First Minister's special advisers were on the £92,000 top line of band B. <BR /> <BR />The evolution from 2011 to 2015 is most interesting. In the first days of this Assembly — the 2007 Assembly and the 2011 Assembly — there was, as you would expect, a spread of special advisers across band A, the lower band, and band B, the higher band. However, by last year, every one of the 19 special advisers — surprise, surprise — was on band B. There was no one left on band A. Indeed, it was not until the Minister of the Environment changed his special adviser — in July 2014, I think — that a special adviser, again, fell within band A.”
“That is a senior civil servant advising the Minister that what they were being asked to sign off for special advisers potentially conflicted with their Civil Service code of ethics and urging the Minister to reconsider. Did he? No, he did not. In July 2011, at the height of the holiday season, the Minister slipped through a top-line increase for special advisers from over £80,000 to £90,000 a year. It breached the attachment of increases to those in the Senior Civil Service. <BR /> <BR />One of the purposes of the Bill is to protect against further flagrant breaches of that nature and to bring a very defined legislative attachment between the pay of this brand of civil servant — special advisers — and other senior civil servants.”
“So, the situation was that, back in 2007, the Executive agreed that any pay increase for special advisers would be in line with the arrangements applicable to senior civil servants. However, come May 2011, the First Minister intervenes to see, with the Finance Minister, how, despite that, pay increases could be obtained. The documentation on the FOI goes on to record the fact that on 14 July that year, another civil servant — having been told that the Minister was minded to give the phenomenal increase, to break the pay freeze as far as these civil servants were concerned — wrote in a memo:”
“That document from the director of corporate human resources advised that pay rates for special advisers (SpAds) were linked to changes in Civil Service pay bands and were based on the average pay increase agreed for civil servants. <BR /> <BR />The civil servant who wrote this document went on to say:”
“Also, at the very time when senior civil servants were subject to a pay freeze, a political decision was taken by the Finance Minister to break that freeze as far as this brand of civil servants was concerned, to give them a 10% increase and take them to the dizzy heights where they are today. <BR /> <BR />The freedom of information (FOI) information is very interesting, because it reveals that it was indeed the First Minister. A memorandum written by the Department's director of corporate human resources at the time indicates that, in May 2011, there was concern. The Minister had been asked by the First Minister how the maximum for the upper pay band for civil servants could be increased.”
“Special advisers in Northern Ireland, supposedly in financial terms, fall under two bands — band A and band B. Band A embraces a salary range of between £37,000 and £53,000 a year. Band B embraces a salary range of between £59,000 and £92,000 a year. It evolved to £92,000 a year because of a political decision by the First Minister and the Finance Minister at the start of this mandate, in July 2011, when it rocketed from just over £80,000 to £90,000. That, at a time when senior civil servants, and special advisers are civil servants, were subject to a pay freeze.”
“What is it about special advisers in Northern Ireland that makes them so special that they have to cost the taxpayer in excess of £100,000 — currently £106,000 — a year, in contrast to £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 in the other devolved regions? <BR /> <BR />Yes, there is a role for special advisers, and the more specialist they are — some are and some are not — the more that role perhaps is to be valued, but there is something seriously wrong when, within this jurisdiction, we are overpaying in terms of the benchmark that exists elsewhere. That has been contributed to by deliberate political action in Northern Ireland. A freedom of information request, finally answered after two years, indicated that, in 2011, at the start of the mandate, there was a deliberate political decision to raise phenomenally the top line of special advisers.”
“In Northern Ireland, the latest figures show that, last year, our 19 special advisers cost the taxpayer £2,016,362. That is an average cost of £106,000 per special adviser. That is what the average package per special adviser costs. <BR /> <BR />The figures for 2013-14 in Scotland and Wales paint a very different picture. They show that, in Wales, the average cost, in contrast to our £100,000-plus, was £58,500 each. That rose the following year because of an increase in number, which seemed to have been temporary, to £69,000, which is still well shy of the £100,000-plus cost in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, with its 14 special advisers, the average cost is £73,000.”
“In other circumstances, a Bill such as this would not be necessary, but the absence of self-restraint, self-control and self-regulation makes this Bill essential. Over recent times, the provision for and the remuneration of special advisers has got wholly out of control. I say that in the context of the benchmarks created by the provision for special advisers in the other devolved regions of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />We are the smallest of the devolved regions, yet we have 19 special advisers. Wales, with its greater population, has eight, sometimes nine, but essentially eight special advisers. Scotland has 14. Not only that, but we pay them sums of money that are excessively out of kilter with those which are applicable elsewhere in the devolved regions.”
“Are you blocking it going to the Executive?”
“Why can it not be paid through the Financial Assistance Act?”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I think it would be shameful if those deserving people were to become some sort of pawn in a tug of war with the British Government in any negotiations about money. There is a wrong to be righted. Let it be righted forthwith.”
“Again, I am sure that the Minister can correct me, but surely the obligation — moral, legal or quasi-both — falls on the fact that these were civil servants seconded from within devolved institutions to the PSNI etc, and therefore the obligation does not lie with the British Government; the obligation surely lies with those from whom they were seconded with the assurance that they would not be prejudiced in making the move. If those were civil servants who came from Northern Ireland Departments to go and work in NIO posts, the body that was underwriting the assurance that they would not be prejudiced was surely the devolved Department. Therefore, is it not the case that the primary obligation rests on this occasion not with the British Government but with the devolved Departments, and that is who should find the money for it?”
“One is not talking about a ministerial direction decision; one is talking about an Executive decision. Whatever is in the Minister's paper, it obviously requires Executive approval, and it is frozen until it gets before the Executive and gets approval. I am clarifying with the Minister whether the reason why it has not got to the Executive is because of Sinn Féin's obstruction of it. I think that we need to hear that. <BR /> <BR />Then we hear from Sinn Féin all this talk about the British Government meeting their responsibilities.”
“Is that its real difficulty in regard to this? Let us have some clarity on that issue. I look forward to the Minister making the situation very, very clear. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister also clarify, for those long-waiting civil servants who have wanted to retire but have been fearful of retiring lest they lose out, and give a guarantee that they will not lose out, that that which has been accorded to them will continue and that they will be assured of payment?”
“However, if I have followed the saga correctly — from the questions that I have asked the Finance Minister from time to time, I believe that I have, but I stand to be corrected — my understanding is that the Minister's predecessor, Mr Hamilton, drafted a paper of proposal to resolve this matter, for discussion by the Executive, 18 months ago. To this very day, that paper has never got before the Executive, because any paper to get to the Executive needs the imprimatur of both the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and the deputy First Minister has refused to allow it onto the agenda. Can the Minister be emphatically clear: is that correct? If that is correct, then the finger is pointing back at Sinn Féin on the issue. Is its real problem the fact that many of those people dared to work in police stations?”
“The unedifying failure to resolve this long-standing grievance does not speak well of government. These were public servants who thought that they were doing the right thing, were assured that they were doing the right thing, were assured that they would be recompensed and took upon themselves the dangers, very often, that came with working in police stations, and now find themselves disadvantaged. That is a wrong that needs to be righted, and it should have been righted long since. The delay is quite unforgivable in many ways. <BR /> <BR />I would like the Minister to clarify a number of things for us, because I have listened to Sinn Féin in the debate suggesting that, really, it is no one's real fault what happened here.”
“You make it sound as though it is no one's fault. Is it not the situation — certainly, answers that I have suggest that it is — that a paper from the Finance Minister has been waiting in the in-tray of the Executive for 18 months and that Sinn Féin has blocked discussion of the issue at the Executive? Is that not the truth of the matter, and is it not why this matter has been blocked and there has been failure to reach a settlement on it?”
“However, it shows some inventive thinking and is worthy of consideration. <BR /> <BR />All in all, it is clear that for the first Part of the Bill, namely that which can be done by Standing Orders, to have bite and effect with the other changes requires the schedule to be passed, and that would require defeating the ever-present obstacle: the petition of concern. The vested interests of the few may well deny the desire of the many and not for the first time. I commend the Member for some of the ingenuity in the Bill and for introducing it. I know that presenting the legislation has been a tortuous path, but he has persevered and brought the Bill to this point. Deficient as it is in terms of my long-term ambitions, it is a start in the right direction and deserves a fair wind.”
“It is right to address the fact that, in law and in practice, we have joint First Ministers. That is what we have, and that is what we should say. It is to save some blushes that we do not have them called "joint First Ministers", but that is what they are. Why should the legislation live in denial of that fact? I do not see that it should. <BR /> <BR />There were suggestions about the election of the Speaker. I like the idea of the Speaker being elected by secret ballot. I am not so sure about the idea that Mr Lunn was talking about of putting him out to graze after his four- or five-year term.”
“One exists in Dáil Éireann in Dublin, and they exist in many European parliamentary institutions. There is certainly a role for them. <BR /> <BR />In my role in this House, as a member of the Procedures Committee, I attempted, not once but twice, to advance the cause of a technical group in the Procedures Committee and brought a proposal to that effect, only to see it roundly voted down by everyone else. So, unless there has been a sea change in attitude to the existence of a technical group — I hope there has been — it may, in this Bill, be more theoretical than realisable. However, I trust that favourable consideration will be given to that because it provides the opportunity to strengthen the contribution that individual Members have to make in the House. <BR /> <BR />There are other things in the Bill that are interesting.”
“Yes, it does. It radically improves clause 2 and makes the possibility of the creation of an opposition more viable. It seems to me fundamentally right that any party outside the Executive should be entitled to form and be part of an opposition, when formed. Therefore, I welcome what the sponsor has said in that regard. That is very important. <BR /> <BR />In relation to technical groups, I think there is a place for them. I was a member of the European Parliament for five years, and I sat on a technical group. It varied in number, but usually around 30 Members of the House were members of a technical group. It was a group in name only. It was made up of disparate individuals, but it gave those individuals a say and a reflective input in speaking rights, times and all of that. I think that is appropriate.”
“I apologise that I was not here during Mr McCallister's speech; I am told that he gave some recognition to the need to revisit clause 2 on the definition of a qualifying party. I was going to point out in the debate that, as the Bill currently reads, if you read it across the election results that are represented in the House today, it could not deliver you an opposition. There would be no qualifying parties if that were the route to delivery. The SDLP has 14; it would need 18. The Ulster Unionists have 13; they would need 18. The Alliance Party has eight; it would need 18. None of them, under the terms of the Bill as drafted, would be qualifying parties under clause 2, because they have not been in a position where they have rejected their entitlement to an Executive position.”
“Unless and until we dispense with that nonsensical, stultifying, sectarian approach and embrace the fundamental elements that denote democracy anywhere, this Stormont will not work. Therefore, I am disappointed that Mr McCallister only tinkers with that issue and maintains the absurd notion of being entitled, as of right, to a place in government. As-of-right places in government have no place in democratic institutions where no party is capable of governing on its own. A coalition of the willing is the only legitimate democratic path to tread. The Bill, in underscoring that facet of the failure of the institutions, is disappointing. <BR /> <BR />I return now to the question of the formation of an opposition.”
“You cannot have a mandate, as of right, to be in government. That is why, in a democracy where no party is big enough to form a Government on its own, the proper path to being in government is the path of voluntary coalition, where those who can agree together what they are going to do about the key socio-economic issues and make the mathematics work — whoever they are — govern and those who cannot — whoever they are — form the opposition. <BR /> <BR />We must get away from the artificiality that has entrenched sectarianism in Northern Ireland. The one thing that the Belfast Agreement has done is entrench the idea of tribal politics — that you must have two large groups, one vetoing the other.”
“I wish that the Bill had gone much further. I wish that the Bill had addressed another central perversity of the Belfast Agreement: in some crazy way, you can have a mandate, as of right, to be in government. You cannot. We can all have a mandate to be in the House, but, short of a party commanding an overall majority in itself, which will not happen, no party in a democracy can have a mandate, as of right, to be in government. That, of course, is the fatal building block of this failed Executive. It is a building block that Mr McCallister's Bill chips at a bit but maintains as a cornerstone by saying that, provided you get 18 MLAs, you, as of right, are entitled to a place in government; you, as of right, cannot be voted out of government, whoever you are; you, as of right, have a mandate to be in government. That is nonsense.”
“Even someone as case-hardened as I am to the perversity of the institutions finds it staggering that we even have to debate whether we need an opposition. That, in itself, is commentary on the absurdity of what has been built in these institutions. Of course we need an opposition.”
“There are ongoing efforts yet again to produce another patch-up, until the next crisis. The reality needs to be faced at some point, and the penny needs to drop with some people, that the institutions created in the Belfast Agreement have had their day. They have not worked. They are not worth saving. <BR /> <BR />The only way to go forward is to embrace wholeheartedly the fundamental elements of democracy, which include acknowledging the right to have an opposition, the right to change your Government and the right to vote a party out of government.”
“<BR /> <BR />Then we hear from some contributors, like Mr Rogers, "Well, as long as it doesn't depart from the Belfast Agreement". Of course, it is the Belfast Agreement that spawned the denial of opposition and built the very structures that suppress that fundamental democratic right. To hear the SDLP talk in those terms, demonstrating that they are shackled so mindlessly to the Belfast Agreement and hope that an opposition would not upset any of that; I say, take a look around. The Belfast Agreement has failed; it is not working. The very state of this House this afternoon is proof positive of its perpetual failure. <BR /> <BR />How many times have these structures had to be sticky plastered back together, propped up until they lurch to the next crisis?”
“<BR /> <BR />The very fact that these institutions ban opposition, and that they have existed — if that is even the word — for the last 16 to 17 years by suppressing the very right to have an opposition, speaks volumes for them. It really should be a no-brainer for anyone as to whether you have an opposition within governmental structures. <BR /> <BR />If you want to take onto yourself the assignation of being democratic, then there really is nothing to debate. Of course there should be an opposition, and shame on these institutions that for years they have sought to suppress and deny that basic democratic component of democracy. So, any Bill that has the temerity to talk about creating an opposition has to be one that is moving in the right direction.”
“Is it not quite staggering, in a system that takes onto itself the title of "democratic" in seeking to describe these institutions, that we even have to have a debate about whether we should have one of the most elementary components of a democratic Chamber; namely, an opposition? <BR /> <BR />It does beggar belief, and, indeed, presents as a most telling commentary on these institutions, that we even have to have this debate, this novelty of the idea that you just might allow, in the right circumstances, within these institutions, that strange and dangerous thing called an opposition. An opposition is fundamental to anything that passes properly as a democratic institution.”
“Some of the farming press have indicated that the average payment to dairy farmers will be in the order of £2,000. Will the Minister comment on whether that is correct? If so, does she accept that that is but a relative drop in the ocean of the losses that are taking place? <BR /> <BR />In answer to Mr Byrne, the Minister seemed to say that there is no prospect of match funding. She has two possibilities: she can give match funding or she can give funding to all of the farming community under the de minimis rules. Is she saying no to both?”
“We wish them well. If the Irish Republic qualifies, and so much the better if they do, I look forward to Northern Ireland having the opportunity to prove which is the better soccer team on this island. I have no doubt that it is Northern Ireland.”
“A few miles up the road, in Rasharkin, is the family home of Chris Baird, who, equally, has been a stalwart of the success that is the Northern Ireland team.”
“He is a young man who went to Ballymena Academy where he was in the same class as my eldest son until he left at, I think, 16, to go off and play across the water. He has brought great credit to the team.”