Nuala McAllister
North Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“I have submitted quite a number of questions for written answer on autism services, and the answers, sometimes on the same day from the Department, contradict themselves. The Minister often refers to the emotional health and well-being framework as the idea that will frame all of the uniform services.”
“Absolutely. Everyone is taking my speech; I was going to say that. Of course, it is complex and subjective to the individual person. If we are truly talking about keeping an individual safe and other prisoners safe, we would not do what the amendment proposes; we would carry on in the way that the system already operates, using a risk-bas…”
“I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission is progressing a programme of remedial works to address defects identified in the roof of Parliament Buildings and to protect the long-term integrity of this grade A listed building. The works have been structured in two phases.”
“More often than not, we have conversations in the Chamber or in public about trans women, but that would place a trans man who has been convicted of a violent crime against a woman in a prison with women. It does not make sense, and it is not coming from the perspective of safety; it is coming from ideology.”
“In providing catering services throughout Parliament Buildings, the Assembly Commission strives to meet the differing demands of the special dietary needs of our wide customer base.”
“I support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97. I do not plan to speak to amendment No 96, as there were a number of interventions last night, and I will leave many of the remarks to my party colleague the Minister of Justice. <BR /> <BR />We oppose Timothy Gaston's amendment.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,216 lines we hold for Nuala McAllister, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 25.
“You sit on the resources committee, and there have been many times over the past 12 months when there has been recognition, on both my part and on your part, that more work was needed in the PSNI, do you take back your comments that recognised that there was still more work to be done regarding the PSNI's finances and any business case coming forward to the Department?”
“How much time and resource is spent by the PSNI on dealing with drugs in a vacuum not of its own making? It is another example of how Health needs to work with the Department of Justice but has failed to do so. We support the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable in their ongoing work to work together to ensure that the PSNI and the entirety of the justice system are fully resourced.”
“However, when the Executive had more money to spend, they never sought to prioritise policing and justice. Do the DUP and the UUP regret that now? <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, as a member of the Health Committee for the Alliance Party, I say that the hypocrisy of the UUP on the issue permeates through not just its amendment today but the policy of the previous Minister and current Minister. How many police hours are wasted sitting in A&E with vulnerable patients because those patients cannot get access to mental health services? How many police calls are made by children's homes, parents or caregivers because social services have failed them? How many deaths due to alcohol or substance abuse do the police attend because the health service has let people down, because no UUP or DUP Minister has prioritised that area?”
“Thank you. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for his intervention. I recognise that the letter was a "reply all" in the instance in which the Chief Constable initially wrote. I highlight the fact that I do not believe that the media were on the "reply all" list, but I can clarify that later, or perhaps the Minister can. We know that the letter was leaked and the reasons why. It made the DUP, the UUP and, certainly, the SDLP open their eyes to see and put on their listening ears to hear about the resources that the PSNI needs. <BR /> <BR />In Alliance, we are fully aware of the financial context in which we find ourselves. We know that the block grant is inadequate; we know that the PSNI is not fully resourced, and our Minister has said that time and again.”
“We must also recognise that no Minister here would accept that bodies such as the Education Authority or the Housing Executive are funded separately from the Executive. They are funded through Departments, and that is why working together is so important. <BR /> <BR />We do not buy the faux outrage today as a result of the leak of the letter, because, if we were to buy —.”
“We need to ensure that the entirety of our justice system is adequately resourced. <BR /> <BR />Unlike the proposers of the motion and the amendments, we are aware of the legal obligations that are placed on the accounting officer of the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable and of the reality of devolution. Let us face it: we know that the letter was not the only correspondence from the only permanent secretary in the only Department to remind people of obligations. However, it is important to work collectively — let us face that — and the Minister has said many times, in response to motions before the House and at Question Time, that we are not adequately resourced.”
“Thanks to FactCheckNI, which has published a public profile of the Department of Justice budget, everyone can access it to see for themselves that, since 2011 and with inflation, the NI block grant has grown by 52·3% compared with growth of only 12·8% in the Department of Justice's budget. That means that, in real terms, it receives less funding than it did a decade ago. Despite that, as the Minister mentioned at Question Time, the PSNI continues to receive a large chunk of the DOJ grant. Whilst other Departments have seen an increase, the DOJ has faced limitations that directly impact the PSNI's ability to protect and serve. However, those limitations are not specific to the PSNI, and, at Question Time, the Minister outlined the fact that, if you give to one, you must cut from another. Policing is just one element of the justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a member of the Policing Board who sits on its resources committee alongside many colleagues in the Chamber today, including, in particular, the proposers of the motion, I have heard from the PSNI finance team that the finances are unsustainable and have been for some time, much like those of other public bodies. I respect the fact that all those meetings are held in private session, so it is not easy to hear everything that goes on behind those doors, but one thing that is said time and again is that it is not just the PSNI that faces difficulties but all public bodies. The PSNI team recognises that, but that does not mean that it should not fight for the appropriate resources. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice budget, however, as many Members mentioned, has not been adequately resourced for many years.”
“As a point of clarity, I highlight the fact that I am also a member of the Policing Board. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I do not think that it is ironic, given the day that is in it, because we should speak about our emergency services and applaud them for their work, so I welcome the opportunity to do so. This is the second time in recent days that we have had the chance to speak on the issue. Indeed, the Chief Constable, as Members pointed out, spoke at the Policing Board last Thursday about the importance of the issue and updated the board on the work that the police are undertaking in conjunction with the Department of Justice. As Members highlighted, he wishes for the false narrative around relationships to just be put to bed.”
“Minister, I do not understand how you can arbitrate something on which you are already saying no, before you enter that arbitration. You outlined the Department of Health's perspective, which is that there will be no discussions about pay unless you get discussions about contract. It is incumbent on you, as the Minister, to sit down, in a meaningful way, with only pay on the table, without saying no. What is there to negotiate if you are already saying no?”
“Following completion of that survey, Building Services will examine possible improvements and consult Members as necessary.”
“I thank the Member for his question. The Commission is very aware of the need to ensure that Parliament Buildings is accessible to people with disabilities, and a number of alterations and improvements have been carried out for that purpose in recent years, including the installation of external and internal access ramps, alterations to staircases and lifts, installation of the Changing Places facility, upgrading of hearing loop systems and the provision of automatic opening doors in the basement, ground floor and first floor corridors. <BR /> <BR />The head of facilities management has commenced discussions with the Department of Finance property division on the commissioning of a disabled access survey to determine whether further improvements should be made to enhance accessibility in Parliament Buildings.”
“That may include but is not limited to sign language or interpretation services.”
“Those allowances are capped at £7,000 per year for COOE and £4,000 over a mandate for establishment expenses. The provisions of the determination do not prescribe the nature of adjustments that may be claimed for but should be taken to cover any cost that is required but is not covered by the terms of the lease. <BR /> <BR />The financial assistance provided under the determination is to cover the costs that Members incur wholly and exclusively in carrying out their Assembly duties. While the determination makes specific reference to adjustments at the office, that should not be taken to be the only cost that may be claimed. Should a Member incur other costs associated with providing constituency services to people with disabilities, those costs may also be claimed from the annual COOE budget.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Financial assistance for Members is provided for by the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (NI) 2016, as amended by the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination (NI) 2020. The determination enables Members to recover costs incurred in carrying out their Assembly duties, including providing constituent services through the establishment of a constituency office. <BR /> <BR />Members may claim the cost of making adjustments to their constituency office for persons with a disability that were not covered in the terms of the lease. The cost may be claimed from the constituency office operating expenses (COOE) allowance and from establishment expenses provisions.”
“I thank the Member for his question. That issue arose before my time on the Assembly Commission. I understand that there will be and should be progress on it. I commit to ensuring that that issue is put on the agenda for the forthcoming Assembly Commission meeting.”
“One such example is working with the Department for the Economy in relation to the geothermal technology on the Stormont estate and the investigation of possible solutions for heating.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission sets ambitious targets to help to reduce our carbon footprint when it comes to energy use, the amount of waste generated and paper consumption, and is committed to achieving year-on-year reductions. For example, in the reporting year 2023-24, we managed a 17% reduction in gas usage and a 35% reduction in paper usage against the baseline year of 2019-2020. We work with the Stormont estate maintenance unit and the waste contractor, and we have a "zero waste to landfill" policy. The Assembly Commission's sustainable development office works closely with a number of partners to introduce energy-saving solutions and to ensure continuous improvement.”
“I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission strives to be an exemplar organisation when it comes to sustainable development. It has implemented a range of measures to reduce the carbon footprint and improve the environmental performance of Parliament Buildings. Over recent years, the Commission has introduced rainwater collection for flushing some toilets, as well as introducing photovoltaic panels and solar thermal tubes. The heating boilers were also replaced with energy-efficient gas boilers at that time, and, subsequently, the Commission made modifications and improvements to the Building's energy management system (BEMS). We have replaced light bulbs with more energy-efficient LED lamps and installed Hippos in the toilets to reduce the amount of water used to flush.”
“What will the First Minister and deputy First Minister do to enable the public inquiry to ensure that the remains are left in peace?”
“I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their statement. It will bring some relief for victims to hear that we are well on the road to truth and accountability. One of the core questions that the First Minister outlined is, "What happened?". Last week, at the Executive Office Committee, we heard about the infants who died in mother-and-baby homes and are buried at Milltown Cemetery, where their remains are, potentially, being destroyed —.”
“— and that all parties are willing to work together on the matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is cross-party agreement in the Chamber that the healthcare sector cannot continue with the current status quo, that waiting lists are rising unacceptably and that patients are experiencing complications and additional harm while waiting. Also, staff are choosing to work elsewhere. We all agree that it is not acceptable in the current circumstances to see an exodus of staff every single year from the health service up here in Northern Ireland to that in the Republic of Ireland. It is crucial now that the Minister shows leadership on the issues —”
“I understand using it in the short term to tackle waiting lists. The Committee has heard many times from stakeholders that those who are on some waiting list for longer than three months in the Republic of Ireland are seen in the independent sector, where Sláintecare provides the healthcare. However, they actually come up here to Northern Ireland and are seen in the independent sector, where their state provides the care, so something does not quite add up there. We cannot have a cross-border directive whereby we allow people to travel only to the Republic of Ireland. If it can be done here in Northern Ireland, we should allow that too. I hope that the Minister will speak on that. Officials said that the issue would be brought back to the Committee within a number of months, so I look forward to hearing about it.”
“The Good Friday Agreement was clear in recognising that cancer impacts everyone equally across these islands. Since then, there has been ongoing cooperation on cancer research. I hope that, in the coming months, the Minister will develop not only the policy links on that on an all-island basis but the delivery of services, because that is crucial here. <BR /> <BR />Whilst we speak of the delivery of those services, I want to touch on the cross-border directive. We need to reflect on the realities of that, because when it comes to the independent sector across these islands, we are cementing a two-tier health system. It is a two-tier health system for those who, ultimately, can put money towards their healthcare. That is not acceptable and is not something that we should rely on.”
“We have seen the success of that in the elective care and surgical hubs. People have been more than happy to move outside their city or rural area in order to get seen quicker. A further example of how transformation can work through all-island cooperation are the children's heart services. A number of Members mentioned that. I think about that service quite a lot. A child in my family has a heart condition and relies on it. A topic that comes to mind for all parents is that their child's health is a priority, and you would be willing to travel to wherever is needed so long as it is provided by the state — well, maybe not so long but as long as it is provided by the state. That is the crux of it. <BR /> <BR />Just yesterday, as Members who spoke previously mentioned, we spoke about cooperating on an all-island basis on cancer research.”
“They want the best healthcare possible, and if that means that they must travel for it, they are more than willing to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand that the Minister is new in the role and that it may take a number of weeks or months for his plans to be brought to the Assembly, but I hope that, in good time, some of those priorities will be progressed through the Assembly and the Health Committee. In particular, I note the reconfiguration blueprint. The Committee was told that that would come forward, possibly, in June. I wonder whether the Minister, in his response, will confirm whether we will see that within the next two weeks. <BR /> <BR />One thing is clear from the people who give evidence to the Health Committee, whether they are allied health professionals, doctors, nurses or anyone else in the health sector: their patients tell them that they are willing to travel for treatment. We, too, hear that from our constituents.”
“I thank the Member for tabling the motion, which the Alliance Party is happy to support. Since the Assembly was restored in February, we have had many discussions about the state of our health service. One thing has been clear in every one of those motions: the status quo is simply not working. That is why Alliance has been consistent and unwavering in its calls for the transformation and reform of the health service for many years. There must be a willingness to look at how services can be delivered in the most efficient way possible, with better outcomes, ultimately, for our constituents.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the revised FAPP scheme seeks to ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose, with funding levels protected against future economic uncertainty by the inclusion of the inflationary uplifts. It also aligns the definition of an official Opposition fully with that in the 2016 Act and incorporates the recommendations in NDNA and the AERC review to increase the level of funding available to support official Opposition parties. The revised scheme seeks to simplify the structure by removing the split between general party funding and funding for the administration of the Whip's office and removing the exclusion for Members who hold a ministerial or junior ministerial post, as well as other administrative changes. I commend the FAPP scheme 2024 to the House.”
“Those costs have been included in the Assembly Commission's 2024-25 budget, which was approved yesterday. While not included in the maximum allowances that can be claimed by each party, the proposed scheme now includes the provision of supplementary payments for parties, where they incur additional costs from employing temporary staff to cover periods of long-term sick absence or periods of absence associated with maternity, paternity, adoption leave or shared parental leave. When considering the quantum and structure of amounts payable under the FAPP scheme, a range of options was considered, and there were different views amongst Assembly Commission members. The majority agreement of the Assembly Commission was therefore to propose the amounts payable under the FAPP scheme, as set out today.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I can confirm to him that, having joined the Assembly Commission in the past few months, what is on the table today with regard to the FAPP scheme is what I agreed to. The proposals that the officials put forward included a lot of variations on what could take place if there was consensus or a vote was taken. I understand that the issue has been on the table for a number of years and that there has been a lot of talk and negotiation over it. <BR /> <BR />The FAPP scheme also clarifies that dissolution will not be considered when determining changes in party membership. It defines Assembly duties in the scheme rather than setting them out in associated guidance. <BR /> <BR />The proposed scheme will result in an increase in costs: from £708,000 in 2023-24 to approximately £1·028 million in 2024-25.”
“Therefore, the proposed scheme makes provision for the recovery of any amounts claimed or paid in error; makes provision for the claim submitted by a party each year to be audited by or on behalf of the Assembly Commission; and contains a condition that each party must return a declaration of compliance with the scheme to continue to enjoy funding under the FAPP scheme.”
“However, if a party would have received a higher amount under the 2016 scheme, it will continue to receive the amount payable under that scheme. <BR /> <BR />The exclusion on the allowance of holding a ministerial or junior ministerial post has been removed so that payments will be made on total party membership. To ensure that the level of funding available to parties remains relevant, the proposed scheme now indexes payments using CPI inflation. That will avoid having to review the scheme regularly to reflect economic changes. <BR /> <BR />In seeking to simplify the scheme, the proposed scheme no longer splits the funding between general party funding and the funding provided to assist with the administration of the Whip’s office. A number of other administrative changes have been introduced in the proposed scheme.”
“In doing so, the Assembly Commission reviewed how similar schemes operate in other jurisdictions and how they are structured. It became apparent that the structure of the current FAPP scheme was unnecessarily complex, and the Assembly Commission has therefore taken this opportunity to simplify it. <BR /> <BR />The proposed scheme provides for an additional base payment of £25,000 to an official Opposition party plus £7,500 per Member, which, in total, equates to the recommendations on quantum previously considered and agreed by the Assembly. Those payments are over and above the general level of FAPP funding. Under the proposed scheme, the general level of FAPP funding has increased so that payments of £10,000 will be paid per Member connected with a party.”
“One of the recommendations of the review was that a significant increase in resources should be made available to the official Opposition through the FAPP scheme to support the effectiveness of the official Opposition and that the increase should provide an Opposition party of 10 Members with an additional £100,000 over and above the general level of FAPP funding, with figures for smaller or larger official Opposition parties varying according to their size. <BR /> <BR />Since the current scheme has remained unaltered from 2016, in its structure and in the quantum payable to parties, and taking into account the new provision that needs to be made to the official Opposition, the Assembly Commission undertook a comprehensive review of FAPP funding.”
“While funding is available under the 2016 scheme, NDNA prescribed that a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition, as set out in the Fresh Start Agreement, should be undertaken. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly and Executive Review Committee completed a review in the last mandate. It published its report on the outcomes of its review, which was considered and agreed by the Assembly on 9 November 2021.”
“The 2016 scheme, however, does not include the second element of the definition of any Opposition party that is set out in the 2016 Act. Therefore, the Assembly Commission agreed that any subsequent scheme approved by the Assembly must provide for additional funding for a party that enters opposition, having been entitled to nominate a Minister following an Assembly election but deciding not to do so, or that has eight or more MLAs. That is the definition set out in the 2016 Act and replicated in Standing Order 45A. <BR /> <BR />Subsequently, New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) referred to additional funding being made available to a party or parties that form an official Opposition in the Assembly.”
“That scheme has remained in place since then without alteration. While the 2016 FAPP scheme was approved in advance of the 2016 Act receiving Royal Assent, it included provision for additional payments to be made to political parties in opposition. <BR /> <BR />The payments made under the 2016 scheme to parties that were subsequently in opposition complied fully with the definition provided under the 2016 Act, which states:”
“Any scheme made under the FAPP Act must provide for additional payments to political parties that are in opposition, as defined by the Assembly and Executive Reform (Assembly Opposition) Act 2016, which I shall refer to as the 2016 Act. <BR /> <BR />Section 2 of the FAPP Act specifies that the Assembly Commission shall prepare and lay a scheme for making payments to political parities. Section 2(4) also provides that any scheme that is prepared and laid by the Assembly Commission must be approved by the Assembly before it can come into force. <BR /> <BR />Since 2000, a number of schemes to provide financial assistance to parties have been prepared by the Assembly Commission and approved by the Assembly. The most recent of those schemes was approved by the Assembly on 15 March 2016 and was effective from 1 April 2016.”
“<BR /> <BR />The current scheme was introduced in 2016 and provided additional funding to parties that formed an official Opposition. In order to facilitate the payments, and being cognisant of the wider public-sector budget constraints at the time, the Assembly Commission reduced the payments payable to non-Opposition parties by 5% in an effort to ensure that the changes were cost neutral. That was on top of a 3% reduction introduced in 2015 as part of wider measures implemented by the Assembly Commission in order to achieve a balanced budget for 2015-16. Therefore, the rates currently payable to non-Opposition parties under the 2016 scheme are 8% lower than the rates payable in 2013, when the rates were last increased.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members will be aware that the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 provides for payments to political parties for the express purpose of assisting Members to perform their duties. That authorised purpose is set out in section 1 of the 2000 Act. Under that legislation, the financial assistance for political parties (FAPP) scheme is drafted by the Assembly Commission and approved by the Assembly. The authorised purpose of the funding is replicated in article 2(3) of the proposed FAPP scheme 2024. The FAPP scheme does not provide payments to individual Members or to parties for any purpose other than assisting Members from that party to carry out Assembly duties.”
“Thank you, Minister. At the Finance Committee, it was suggested that there might not be an October monitoring round. Can the Minister set forward the rationale for that?”
“Your party's representative on the Policing Board is not in the Chamber today, but you have a member on the Policing Board who recognises that the issue is important and needs to be discussed at the Policing Board.”
“The Member will note that my colleague did not say that today's debate undermines the Policing Board. We welcome healthy debate on the matter, because it is important that the public's attention is drawn to the issue. However, you will recognise that there is a role for the Policing Board.”
“— on how best to deal with this. I thank the Members who raised the issue, and I look forward to engaging, as a Policing Board member, in future.”
“The Policing Board has existed since the very day that the PSNI was established so, any time after that date, it has been in situ when the police have used powers and taken operational decisions. I do not understand that issue, but I hope that the Member from the SDLP will get on board at the Policing Board meeting this week so that we can have consensus across the team of political and independent members —”
“We have to be careful, however, to remember that it is not a Policing Board review and that the Policing Board retains powers under sections 59 and 60 to call an inquiry or to ask the relevant Ministers or Secretary of State to do so if we think it advisable. <BR /> <BR />Alliance, through the Policing Board, has robustly challenged the PSNI and Chief Constable about dragging their feet on disclosing information to the IPT. I thank the Minister, who has said that nothing is off the table when it comes to her powers to call for an inquiry or to ask others to do so. <BR /> <BR />I will refer to comments that were made by others and to inaccurate comments made by Colin McGrath regarding the Northern Ireland Policing Board marking its own homework because the Policing Board was in situ at the time that the PSNI used its powers.”
“Today, however, it is important that we all get on the same page and use all our powers as necessary to ensure that we have confidence in the PSNI among journalists and the press overall. <BR /> <BR />As Policing Board members, we are in possession of the report from the PSNI. I confirm that, at Thursday's private Policing Board meeting, we will hear the human rights adviser's assessment of the report, and we will be able to ask questions of the PSNI. I will call, as I did at the board meetings in April and May, for that report and any subsequent report to be made public. Thankfully, the Chief Constable has said that, where the PSNI has capacity to do that, it will. I will propose at the board meeting that we seek regular updates from the KC.”
“I was aware that the announcement may come before the June Policing Board meeting, and I am glad that the Chief Constable made that public yesterday. <BR /> <BR />As I mentioned, I engaged with relevant groups about their confidence in the independent review commissioned by the PSNI, to be headed by Angus McCullough KC. That can and will be a precursor to anything that I or other Policing Board members do. The Policing Board, as others have said, has powers. The SDLP is aware of that, given that its member Mark Durkan sits on the Policing Board. I remind the SDLP that that member of the Policing Board constantly highlights the fact that there must be separation between the DOJ and the Policing Board when it comes to our powers and role.”