Speaking during last night’s debate on changes to the welfare system which will see terrorists injured by their own hand treated more favourably than victims of a traffic accident – which was later voted through with the support of DUP MLAs – TUV MLA Jim Allister said:
“I will address the first regulation before the House, particularly Part 4, which introduces the most obnoxious and repulsive idea that, when it comes to topping up PIPs to guarantee the continuance of benefit, the perpetrator of a terrorist act who causes his disability by his own hand, is to be rewarded on a par with the innocent victim on whom he may have inflicted injury. That is amoral. It offends basic concepts of decency that someone who sets out to injure or kill others and, in the process, disables himself or herself should and will automatically, under these regulations, be treated in the same way as the innocent victim of that or any other terrorist incident.
“I am astounded that a Minister from the DUP Benches is bringing forward such an obscene proposal. The DUP, like many other unionists, since 2006 has rightly raised objections to the equating of perpetrator with innocent victim. I do not think it has fought an election since 2006 when it has not proclaimed its opposition to that equating of perpetrator and victim. I will quote but one of the DUP’s manifestos — the 2009 European manifesto:
“The DUP has been clear and consistent that the perpetrator of an act of terrorism should not and must not be equated with the innocent victims of terrorism.”
“Yet that is precisely what this DUP-written regulation does. Regulation 15 is very clear that the perpetrator of a violent incident gets the same uplift as the innocent victim of that or any other violent incident. It did not have to be that way. All the Minister had to add were a few words to the end of regulation 15(1) to the following effect: “provided that that person was not convicted of or involved in an offence arising from the violent incident”. That would have protected the integrity of the situation.
“I heard a Member raise concerns about integrity. Where is the integrity in saying, time without number, to the electorate that a clear and consistent stand will be taken against equating the perpetrator of the act of terrorism with the innocent victims of terrorism and then bringing to the House a regulation that does precisely that? I am sure that many on those Benches who will tonight vote for this obscenity have met innocent victims from time to time. I have been present when groups have been met by multiple parties, including the DUP, and I have heard the avowal — the solemn pledge — that they would never equate perpetrator with victim. Yet tonight, that is precisely what they stand ready to do. Why? Because getting their precious Fresh Start and keeping Sinn Féin happy were more important than keeping their word to innocent victims. That is the sad, chilling reality. That is what has brought the DUP to this position, where it is prepared to hole below the waterline all its pledges about never equating innocent victims with perpetrators. In doing that, of course, they undercut entirely the laudable argument for amendment of the poisonous definition of victim in the 2006 Order. If you can live with it to the point of implementing it in welfare reform, many will conclude that you are happy to live with it in every other dimension of its definition. It is a sorry pass indeed.
“When I challenged the Communities Minister about this at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, his pitiful answer was “In welfare we are blind to how you got your injury”. Not so, Mr Deputy Speaker; the regulations are not blind to how people got their injury. There is no special treatment for the person who got their disability in a road traffic accident, but there is for the person who got their injury at their own hand through their self-inflicted perpetration of terror. There is special treatment for him. Away with the nonsense that, in welfare, the regulations are blind to how you came by your disability. They are not. They make a special case for those including the perpetrator.
“It is no answer to say, “Ah, but most people covered by this will be innocent victims”. Maybe, but there is a principle here. It is a principle that could have been preserved by the simple addition of a few words to regulation 15(1) to exclude the perpetrator. Sadly, it is not possible to amend the regulation at this stage in the House, or I would have sought to do so, but it is possible, in the name of integrity, to rediscover your conscience on the matter and not to press the obnoxious proposal in Part 4 at this time. I make that plea. I know that it will fall on deaf ears, as doing the deal that was done was more important than taking the stand of integrity on these issues.”