Jim Wells
South Down · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In November 1982, I made my maiden speech in the Chamber, and, here we are, 40 years later, and I am making my last speech in the Chamber as a DUP MLA. I was the last person in the Public Gallery when the Assembly collapsed in 1976.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and for your patience with me over many years. Unfortunately, Mr McGlone has just left the Chamber; I was about to thank him. I have enjoyed my 27 and a half years in this Building.”
“I wish that I could, but I have only five minutes. <BR /> <BR />That was so that a very small number of Irish language zealots could go in and register their marriage or civil partnership in Irish or in dual language: £261,000. Did anybody stop to think about whether there was a more cost-effective way of doing that?”
“We are all perfectly happy with a genuine expression of people's culture. That is fine. However, when the language is so cynically used by militant republicanism, unionism has difficulties. Why, for instance, is there no translation into Irish of the words, "United Kingdom", "Londonderry", "Northern Ireland" or "Her Majesty The Queen"?”
“The Member has made the point for me. The official who came to the Committee made it absolutely clear that £261,000 had been spent already. It was farcical to bring that before either the Finance Committee or the Assembly, because the money had been spent and the processes had been set up.”
“If they want the unionist community to accept the Irish language as a genuine cultural expression, they should get rid of the political baggage and extremism, and stop using the Irish language as a political weapon to try to subjugate unionism.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,869 lines we hold for Jim Wells, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 38.
“As a member of the Committee, I will endorse any action that gets this legislation through as quickly as possible but still gives us the opportunity to investigate some of the difficulties that we have with it. <BR /> <BR />Mr McHugh and Mr Murphy said that other parts of the United Kingdom have similar legislation. Yes, they have, but not by accelerated passage. A Bill is going through Committee Stage at Westminster as we speak. It was not felt necessary to take these extraordinary steps of making the legislation retrospective or pushing it through within a short period. That point should have been made by those Members. They should have been honest and said that they were adopting a different strategy from everybody else. <BR /> <BR />I said that it was unfortunate that Mr Murphy, the Minister, could not appear on 17 November.”
“We can go through the proper consultation procedure and Committee Stage, and, at the end of the day, if the Minister persuades us of the merits of the Bill, it will be applied retrospectively, and there is no issue with the delay. <BR /> <BR />Had Mr Muir had the common sense and manners to allow me my interventions, I would have made my points. It looks like the motion on accelerated passage will be defeated. If that happens, the commitment given by the Chair, and it is a commitment that most Committee members would give, is that we understand the Minister's dilemma, and, if we have to meet on a Thursday or Friday and have special sessions to get this through within the 30 days, we will do that.”
“It goes back well over a year and is applied to appeals that were lodged way back in April 2020. Westminster, the Dáil and every democratic institution in the world will apply retrospective legislation only in the most extreme circumstances. Indeed, in Westminster, there had not been any retrospective legislation for over a century until the Nazi War Crimes Bill was introduced. That is how serious the introduction of retrospective legislation is considered to be. As far as the Minister is concerned, however, that is a double-edged sword. If this legislation is retrospective, it does not have to be rushed through, and there is no reason for accelerated passage.”
“Mr Snowden, in perhaps the most honest contribution that I have ever heard in Committee during my 27 years here, said that there was no consultation because they were not going to change their mind anyhow and it would be "meaningless". It is very dangerous to set a precedent that we will not consult because it is meaningless and because we are not going to change our mind. That is manna from heaven to Executive Ministers, because they think, "Well, we are not going to change our mind. Therefore, we will not bother with consultation". Well, look where that has got us in the past in the House. Look at the major mistakes. Look at the egg on the faces of Ministers and the Executive as a result of that precedent. That worries me. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this is that the legislation is retrospective.”
“It falls because those stakeholders were not even informed that it was going to happen. It is an awful pity, but I understand why the Minister was not at the Committee meeting last Wednesday, and I accept that he had important things to do, but I would have asked him some questions. Yes, I can understand it to some extent, although I do not agree with his logic of saying that there was no time for consultation. However, could his officials not have at least written to the major stakeholders and said, "Look, folks, this is coming your way"? That would have at least given them an understanding of where we are going with this legislation. <BR /> <BR />It also falls on another criterion.”
“We can forget about it, because the primary role of Back-Bench MLAs in the Assembly is to scrutinise the work of the Executive. Simply saying that the Executive have approved accelerated passage and it must therefore be granted totally undermines the purpose of having an Assembly in the first place. We might as well be nodding donkeys just saying, "Agreed. Agreed. Agreed". Time moves on, and we have Mr McBride's article and the allegations made by a whistle-blower. I do not know — the same as Mr O'Toole — whether those allegations are true or otherwise, but, if we grant accelerated passage, we will not get a chance to find out. <BR /> <BR />The request for the Bill to have accelerated passage falls on every criterion. It falls because there has been no consultation whatsoever with the stakeholders who will be affected by it.”
“Indeed, I was getting very suspicious as to how that could possibly be the case, but it is true. LPS has done Trojan work over the past 19 months, and it is unfortunate that it is a request from LPS that we are debating today, because we have such confidence in its ability and particularly that of its chief executive, Ian Snowden. However, any of you who read Sam McBride's article in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on Saturday will, I am sure, have been extremely worried about where we are going with this legislation. <BR /> <BR />Mr McHugh, during discussions in Committee, said that we must support accelerated passage because the Executive have ratified it. If that is the basis on which we, as MLAs, sit in the House, we can all go home.”
“The gentleman from North Down is a relatively new Member, but he will learn that there is not much sense in having "respectful debate", as he calls it, if Members who wish to make valid points about his contribution do not get a chance to do so. <BR /> <BR />None of what I am about to say is in any way to criticise the work of Land and Property Services. I have never found — it is unique in that sense — an organisation that is part of government so easy to work with than Land and Property Services has been over the past 19 months. I have found its staff to be responsive, hard-working and efficient. Indeed, I reached the most unusual situation about two months ago in that everybody whom I had referred to Land and Property Services was happy with the outcome of that body's decision and work.”
“The Member made the point that it is 40 or 45 years since some of those convictions happened. The victims who were left behind and their sons and daughters remember the death of their loved one as if it was yesterday. When Sinn Féin decided to poke the eye of the Travers family by appointing Mary McArdle, it raked up those awful memories and re-traumatised that family. Time does not count here. The pain is as raw as it was on the day of the awful event.”
“That is a valid point. It is the sort of point that could and will be teased out at Committee Stage. I am sure that Mr Allister did not intend that somebody who had committed an offence in Arkansas could not be appointed as a spad to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I get the drift that the Member will not even allow the Bill to get the opportunity for that type of nuanced amendment.”
“Does the Member accept that there is a vast chasm and a world of difference between appearing at a rally attended by many thousands of people, where there may have been a banner that could not be seen from the platform and that may have expressed a political opinion, and being directly involved in the murder of a High Court judge, concealing the weapon and then being appointed as a spad to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure? Does he not realise that there is no equivalence? There is a vast difference between the two. It is unfortunate that the Member has tried to give that equivalence to Mr Allister's case.”
“Mrs Dillon, you made it very clear that Mr Allister is not on your Christmas card list. You made it very clear by the look that you gave him. You were betraying, as others were betraying, that you are against this Bill because it is a Jim Allister Bill. Rather, it is a Bill with considerable merit that will do so much to undo the hurt and pain that has been caused by these appointments. <BR /> <BR />I am saying, particularly to the middle-ground, moderate parties, as they are so termed, that you may have your differences, but surely it is essential that you give this Bill the opportunity to get through to Committee Stage, where any difficulties that you may have can be teased out and there can be further deliberation upon it. I give this Bill my full and absolute support.”
“I noticed that, in the first two private Member's Bills that Mr Allister successfully pursued through this House, he was reasonable. He did meet genuine concerns, and he did indeed agree to amendments. I think of the example of his proposal to reduce the number of spads from eight to four. A compromise was reached, and we agreed that it would move from eight to six. He did not get much credit for it. <BR /> <BR />I notice that Mrs Dillon, in her reaction to him, makes it absolutely clear that she is not so much opposed to this Bill but to its creator because the look that she gave Mr Allister indicated that it was him that she objected to, more than the content of the Bill. The Bill should be judged on its content and its merit, not on the person who is proposing it, so do not shoot the messenger; look at the content.”
“Maybe some people feel that setting a prison sentence at five years is too extreme. Some people think that that is too lenient. Some people think that Mr Allister's redundancy clause is not generous enough, although I have to say that he has really stretched himself on that aspect of the Bill. Let us discuss this and tease it out. The one thing that we do know is that Bills that go through Committee Stage come back as very different Bills at Consideration Stage. There will be opportunities to amend and tease out changes.”
“However, it would never be considered or contemplated by unionism for one second, because we would be sensitive to the ordinary, decent Roman Catholics caught up in that situation. Again, Mr O'Dowd and his colleagues are very quick to intervene, but they are not quick to intervene here, because they have no answer to that point. You are causing the maximum offence. Again, just because you can do something does not mean that you have to do it. <BR /> <BR />I am pleading with the Assembly. Members have suggested various amendments to the Bill, and no doubt those can be considered at Committee Stage. However, I think that there is a fundamental principle that a private Member's Bill deserves at least to get to Committee Stage, where those nuances can be teased out.”
“I have no doubt that there are people with university degrees etc who would have been more than capable of filling that position, but Sinn Féin thought, "Oh no, no. We couldn't do that. Let's cause the maximum offence to his victims by appointing him to that position". What is going on here? What is going on is that you are poking in the eye the ordinary, decent Protestant community and causing the maximum offence. <BR /> <BR />What would happen if a unionist party decided to nominate Michael Stone to the Community Relations Council? That is an absolutely preposterous suggestion. Why? Because that would cause the maximum offence to the innocent members of the nationalist community who were murdered in Castlederg and Milltown. There would be uproar. It would never happen.”
“I have to be honest and congratulate Mr Allister for his perseverance and diligence in that field. When others have been horrified, he has gone out there and worked away to get legislation through to stop this. I am 110% behind what he is doing this evening, and I really hope that the Bill goes through. <BR /> <BR />Then we have Mr Kavanagh. I do not know Mr Kavanagh, and I do not want to know him. What I do know, however, is that he has a very grisly prison record of terrorism to his name. A vacancy arises in the Education Authority, so Sinn Féin sits down in some bunker in Connolly House and in its wisdom says, "Who is the most suitable person whom we can appoint to represent Sinn Féin on the Education Authority?". I have no doubt that there are retired teachers and academics who are Sinn Féin supporters.”
“Please ask me to give way. You must have known when you did that that you were going to cause the maximum amount of offence to that ordinary, decent family, whose father was only trying to serve the community by being a judge, but no, even when it was pointed out to you, you still persisted in appointing Mary McArdle. Indeed, I was hauled before the Standards and Privileges Committee because I dared to criticise Carál Ní Chuilín for that appointment. I am glad to say that the House had the sense to reprieve me from my sentence. On many other occasions, the same thing has happened and will no doubt happen in the future. I make absolutely no apology for criticising Carál Ní Chuilín for that decision. It was only as a result of Mr Allister's private Member's Bill that we were able to stop that happening.”
“When Sinn Féin is appointing people for those important positions, it can either poke the unionist people in the eye and cause the largest amount of offence or appoint someone equally capable who does not do that. <BR /> <BR />When Carál Ní Chuilín was the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister, I am sure that there were scores of able Sinn Féin supporters who could have easily been appointed as her spad. I am sure that there were plenty out there. I do not know them, but I am sure that, given the education system in west Belfast, there is bound to have been someone who was suitable. What did it do, however? It appointed Mary McArdle, knowing full well that that would rake up the embers of that dreadful attack on Judge Travers and cause the maximum offence to Ann, Mary's sister, and to the entire Travers family. It must have known.”
“I could not agree more with the honourable Member. Indeed, in my constituency of South Down, in various community and GAA halls, he had a roadshow called, "The Great Escape". Each time an anniversary of the Maze escape comes up, there he is as the great hero — the Steve McQueen-like figure. All he needed was a motorcycle to fly over the barbed wire, and he had the full set. That is what he is doing with others who escaped from the Maze. Never once in that roadshow did he mention the grieving family of the member of the Northern Ireland Prison Service who died as a direct result of that incident. Never mentioned. Yet what does Sinn Féin do?”
“I have sat in the Chamber and watched Mr Kelly for the past 23 years. I have never heard him express the slightest degree of apology, annoyance or concern about what he has caused in the community — not once.”
“That is a true admission of wrong, and I admire him for it. He is a very rare example of that happening. That, to me, is an example of someone who is genuinely apologetic and contrite for what he has done. Mr Allister's Bill is extremely generous in that it allows for that situation. There are republican terrorists out there, I have to say, who most reasonable people believe have turned over a new leaf and are genuinely pursuing peaceful paths. Some of them, of course, now write articles in a newspaper. <BR /> <BR />Compare them with Mr Gerry Kelly. I am one of the few people who has been in the House and served with Mr Kelly since 1998. Very few of us are here this afternoon, though Mr Beggs is one, of course. I think that only seven of us are left. I will call us the "Magnificent Seven". Sorry, Mr Kelly is there; the "Magnificent Six".”
“He asked to see the duty sergeant, and, when he came along, said, "This is a full and accurate record of everything that I have done to my community over the last 30 or 40 years." The duty sergeant read it and said, "We did not have a clue who committed half of those crimes. We had no idea what happened". <BR /> <BR />What did that gentleman do by doing that? He told his victims the reason why it had happened and who had done it, and he apologised for the impact that it had had on their lives. He did his two years under the Good Friday Agreement, and he made some form of restitution for the horrible acts that he had committed on his own community; not on the nationalist community, not on the Short Strand, but on his own community. <BR /> <BR />That is true contrition. That is a true admission of fault.”
“About six years ago, I attended a church service in Moira, where I heard a remarkable tale that encapsulates some of what Mrs Dodds, Mr Allister and others have said. It was the story of a gentleman who had been a loyalist terrorist. He had wreaked havoc in the Woodstock area of east Belfast. Later in life, he became convinced of his sin. He became extremely anxious about the pain that he had inflicted on his community, and he became a Christian. What did he do? He sat down at his word processor, and he wrote out every crime that he had committed from the age of 18 until his mid-50s. <BR /> <BR />He outlined what he had done, whom he had done it to, why he had done it and when he had done it. He typed it up and had it bound in a folder. He walked into Strandtown police station.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Speaker confirm that an intervention does not have to include a question? It is not Question Time, and the honourable Member is not a Minister.”
“It is useful that the Member for North Down has read out the Pledge of Office. One Gerry Kelly, of this particular institution, has indeed signed that. However, it has not stopped him going around the country having celebrations of the Maze escape, where although they have celebrated the escape of many republican prisoners, they have done absolutely nothing for the family of the prison officer who died as a result of that escape. He has never apologised — not for one second — for his previous actions as a terrorist and has never apologised for his actions that night at the Maze. Whilst that piece of paper may have been signed, there is not a shred of evidence that he believes or is implementing it.”
“I hope that you will give way to Mr Stalford as well, because I am sure that it will be a very valuable intervention.”
“I am a bit surprised by this particular amendment. My understanding is that the Department for Communities already publishes a full list of licensed premises. Why the need for further bureaucracy when that is done already?”
“Does the Member accept that Hospitality Ulster, which represents a large proportion of the small pubs in Northern Ireland, is totally opposed to his amendment and has lobbied many Members and asked us to vote against it? How am I, as a teetotaller who does not go to pubs, meant to know better as far as the industry is concerned than the official body that represents so many of its members?”
“If only the Member's amendment did only that. The reality is that there are many pubs in South Down and throughout Northern Ireland whose main asset is their licence. Many have borrowed money on the basis of that asset. The grave danger of his proposed review is that banks will stop lending on the basis of that asset, given the uncertainty that his amendment will create. That will do nothing to protect small rural pubs in Northern Ireland.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. What on earth was the Business Committee thinking when it decided to put the Budget Bill and this legislation on the agenda for the one sitting of the Assembly? It must have been obvious to all concerned that we would not start this debate till very late. According to my calculations, we have dealt with only 18 or 19 clauses so far. We are now moving to Mr O'Toole's controversial amendment on sale-of-liquor licensing — licences. The fact that I cannot even say it indicates how tired I am. Can you relay to the Business Committee, of which I am not a member and on which I am not technically represented, that it must be more careful in future? We are not doing our duty of scrutinising legislation at five to one in the morning, simply because of bad timetabling.”
“I fully support the Committee's view on that, but I am mindful of the comments that the Minister made. It appears that responsibility for minimum unit pricing rests entirely with the Department of Health. I am therefore somewhat bemused by the standing of the amendment that the Chair is proposing, as it is clearly outwith the bailiwick of the Minister for Communities to do anything about it. Although the amendment has considerable merit, what is its purpose? What does she hope to achieve by having it in the Bill?”
“Does the Member accept that, at the moment, craft brewers get a 50% reduction in alcohol duty and are eligible for industrial derating. Meanwhile, the licensed trade pays full duty and 100% rates? Indeed, its rates are based on turnover, which is twice as much as an equivalent business in any other field. Will she consider those facts before she starts to place the licensed trade at a further disadvantage by allowing taprooms to expand?”
“The Member's amendment has given us maybe the best one-liner in the House for many years from Mr Durkan, which will be widely publicised. She asks why it should be cinemas: it is because no other industry in Northern Ireland specialises more in providing entertainment for children and families. I have taken my grandchildren to 'Toy Story' and similar films. I would prefer to be guaranteed, when I do so, that they will not be exposed to the consumption of alcohol. They will not be exposed to it anywhere else. They will not be sitting in pubs or clubs. Why should they not have an alcohol-free environment? She makes the point that not every cinema will wish to avail itself of a licence, but the point is that cinemas will be forced to take one if their competitors offer the facility.”
“Does the Minister accept that, by their very nature, these premises produce high-strength alcohol? It is likely that those who avail themselves of the opportunity to drink in them will drink to a stage where they are quite happy. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will go on afterwards to licensed premises, because they probably will have had enough and spent a fair bit, and also they may well have reached a level that means that they would not be admitted to licensed premises. Therefore, the point made by Miss Woods, who I still do not believe is old enough to be availing herself of any of these premises, is invalid because there will be no benefit to licensed premises, which I once again emphasise are paying horrendous rates for the service that they provide.”
“Ms Armstrong, who represents Newtownards, not Antrim or anywhere else, made the point that taprooms are no threat to the licensed trade. Take the example of Bushmills, where you have the Bushmills distillery, which is, I accept, the oldest distillery in the world and a leading tourist attraction. There is also the Bushmills Inn. If tourists can go to the Bushmills distillery and avail themselves of the product and the taproom for the large number of days proposed by Ms Armstrong, inevitably, they will not go to the Bushmills Inn down the street. They will stay in the taproom. Meanwhile, the Bushmills Inn will be paying horrendous rates and costs, which the distillery will not have to do. Therefore, it is unfair to deprive the licensed trade by having taprooms open for 208 days a year.”
“Does the honourable Member accept that I, a strict teetotaller who does not allow intoxicating liquor ever to cross his lips, have learned more about the licensing trade in the past 15 minutes than in the past 64 years? Does that not show that when the Member departs from his prepared script and speaks with passion about something of which he has detailed knowledge, it is extremely easy on the ear?”
“Finally, given that she wishes to promote taprooms, why can that not be done on the lower 104 days a year rather than doubling it? If taprooms wish to exhibit their product, why can it not be done on the lower number of days?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She will be aware of the extensive lobby from Hospitality Ulster, which represents a large proportion of the licensed trade. The information given by Mr Colin Neill, the chief executive, was compelling. First, does the Member accept that it is possible to set up a local brewery for as little as £10,000, while many of our licensed traders pay that every quarter in rates, which is an incredible burden? Secondly, how will she police it? She says that only the products from the brewery can be sold in the taproom. Who will check that? Does she expect the PSNI to come round and say, "That's Bushmills" or — I am trying to think of drinks — "No. That's Jameson" etc? Who will prove that the product being sold is the product being produced by the brewery?”
“The honourable Member should realise that there are many families who want to take their children out to an event or situation in which they can be guaranteed that alcohol will not be present. I encouraged my children not to consume alcohol, and, I am glad to say, they generally agreed with that. We are trying to encourage our grandchildren not to take up the consumption of alcohol, simply because of the enormous social problems that it can sometimes engender. We must surely have one venue that we can take our children to where we are confident that we will not have to see the consumption of liquor.”
“The Member will be aware that we, as Members, have received a huge amount of correspondence from individuals who are in the licensed trade and in entertainment. Few, if any, of those have suggested that there is a demand for the sale of alcohol in cinemas. Indeed, the first time that I heard it mentioned was through her amendment. Where does she see the demand for this type of additional provision of alcohol?”
“As I said earlier, it is like trying to hit a moving target as the Member moves on to greater and higher things. He said that he did not have time to take an intervention, but there are a few seconds left. One point that he needs to deal with, and the House is, I think, unanimous on this today, is that he must not use taxpayers' money to promote the planting of exotic foreign species in Northern Ireland. By all means, if people want to plant Sitka spruce, they can, but not by using his money, the Department's money or taxpayers' money. That has to be the way forward.”
“We are aware of Glenwherry, but that is not what is going on in the Mournes and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. People are not using controlled burning, and they are not using controlled burning outside the nesting season. The first period of hot weather they get, they go out onto the moor and they deliberately set fire to the moor in order to produce the regrowth of grass that they desire. Then they walk away, and it burns all of their land and a lot of other land. That is what we need to control, not what the Minister is suggesting, which, of course, we all welcome.”
“First, I agree entirely with the Member. However, as we speak this afternoon, there are thousands of acres of this crucial habitat, which has the capacity to absorb vast amounts of carbon, being destroyed for horticulture, for fuel, for development or for drainage. Does she not accept that that is madness, given what we now know about peatlands?”
“Before the Minister moves on to much higher things, his Department needs to deal with the situation immediately.”
“The fire then spread to Castlewellan forest park, causing enormous damage. I provided the name of the culprit to the police, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the Department's Forest Service, but absolutely nothing was done. There was no interview, and nor was there any potential prosecution. Had an example been made of that individual, it would have sent out a massive signal to the community that we will not tolerate such actions. <BR /> <BR />As Ms Ennis said, those fires are not accidental. They are caused by landowners burning off vegetation in the spring to increase yields. Why do they occur in April and May and not in August? It is because there is no benefit in setting light to the mountainside in August; it is done in April and May.”
“"Great," I said, until I read the text, which said that half of the first tranche would be foreign alien species, which do nothing for biological conservation and do very little for the sequestration of carbon. That is question 2, Minister. <BR /> <BR />Question 3 is this: when will his Department take fires in the Mournes seriously? I will use parliamentary privilege here, Mr Deputy Speaker. In May 2019, there was a serious fire on the Leitrim Road adjacent to Castlewellan forest park. The landowner, a Mr King, deliberately lit that fire. I believe that I have privilege: he deliberately lit that fire. Forest Service staff approached Mr King and said that, if he did not put the fire out, it would spread to Castlewellan forest park and cause a lot of damage to public land. He ignored them, and what happened?”
“Question 2 is about afforestation, which is absolutely essential to the storage of carbon in Northern Ireland. Why, oh why is his Department giving grant aid and consent to using exotic coniferous species such as Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and Norway spruce? We all read 'Farming Life', which is the official journal of the honourable Member for Newry and Armagh Mr Irwin. He is in it every week, and I think that he has shares in 'Farming Life'. He is certainly one of its major contributors. I read it every week just to find out what Mr Irwin is saying to me, and it is all good stuff. I read this week's article, which talks about a wonderful new scheme to plant 50 hectares of woodland in north Antrim.”
“We still have not given protection to the habitats mentioned in the motion. That is question 1, Minister.”
“Can he explain why his Department still allows the destruction of peatlands when we know that they have such potential for carbon storage? Why are we giving planning permission for peat extraction and the development of peatlands when they have so much potential to store carbon? Why has the Department not completed the area of special scientific interest, special protection area and special area of conservation designations? The Act came in in 1985, and I am able to tell him how long ago that was because I was in the Chamber when it passed. Here we are, 36 years later, and we still have not completed our ASSI designation.”