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 6 of 38.
“I thank the Member for giving way. There is deep concern in the community that the police, we understand, have indicated that they will be swift to take action against Tandragee Baptist Church for its alleged breach of the coronavirus restrictions. However, they have yet to interview the leader of the party opposite, Michelle O'Neill, about the disgraceful scenes that we witnessed at the Bobby Storey funeral.”
“We do not carry it out in Northern Ireland, but we cannot ban the import of that horrendously cruel product because we are bound to EU regulations.”
“The Minister makes a point about animal welfare standards. As a long-term vegetarian of 37 years and someone who has a keen interest in animal welfare, I support him on that. It is interesting, however, that he is binding us to a set of animal welfare standards that does not give us in the Northern Ireland Assembly the power, for instance, to ban foie gras, which involves one of the most cruel forms of animal food production in the world. If we, as the United Kingdom and as Northern Ireland, bind ourselves to those rules, we will not be able to go further and enhance our animal welfare standards, because we are bound to EU diktat. Several times, Members have brought up that very cruel form of food production.”
“The United Kingdom Government will be able to set standards that are even higher than those at present stipulated by the European Union. Therefore our product, as Mr Irwin says, will be able to be sold on the world market as having the highest possible standards in respect of inputs, the treatment of animals, the use of hormones and many other issues that are of concern to consumers throughout the world. Our products will be based on quality, rather than the lowest common denominator, and people will be able to buy food, particularly from Northern Ireland, with the confidence that the standards are some of the highest in the world.”
“I have grave concerns about this, but I am going to bow to the much greater knowledge of EU issues of Mr Jim Allister QC, who had the privilege of representing Northern Ireland in the European Parliament and who is across these issues. I share his concerns about what is happening here today. <BR /> <BR />What we are doing has significant implications. It begs the question of why we are doing it, given that, hopefully, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will be out of the European Union on 31 December, when many of us will be rejoicing that we will no longer be under its bondage and control. The United Kingdom will become a free and independent state that will be able to make its own decisions on plant health, the importation of seeds, and animal welfare.”
“He is not going beyond the point of no return this evening. The same applies to Ms Sugden. If they wish to achieve the changes that they require, it is in their hands, because it is clear that Sinn Féin will not even vote for the colour of the cover of this legislation. They are not going to have it. Therefore, it rests with Ms Sugden, Mr O'Toole and Mr Muir whether they can obtain the changes that they want; they will not be held to it at the Further Consideration Stage. We are not going to say that, because you support it tonight, you are duty-bound to support it at Further Consideration Stage if you do not get the changes that you require.”
“Mr O'Toole seems to be trying to meet us halfway. I can do the maths here this evening. He could adopt the purist position of voting against the Bill and the amendments tonight, but, the de facto situation is that the clause that he wishes to amend will, therefore, fall. If it falls, he has no opportunity to meet Mr Allister to obtain the amendments and changes that he requires. That is the difficulty that we face if he takes a purist stance. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir is in a much more difficult situation. He is, basically, in the Sinn Féin camp of opposing the entire Bill. From what I can see, he did not seem to support any of it. Equally, if he has concerns, he can abstain tonight to enable the Bill to go through, although he would be perfectly within his rights to vote against clauses at Further Consideration Stage.”
“The danger is that the concerns that are being raised by those three individuals could lead to their parties voting against the amendments and there being no opportunity to improve them at a later stage.”
“The honourable Member for East Londonderry Ms Sugden has raised legitimate concerns that she has with various amendments and clauses, as have Mr Muir and Mr O'Toole. Surely the best way forward is for those individuals to allow the amendments to pass at this stage and then table amendments for Further Consideration Stage to meet their concerns, rather than vote against the amendments tonight. If they vote against them, the amendments will fall completely and there will be no opportunity whatever to amend them. Voting for them can be done tonight without prejudice, and they can make it clear that they are voting for them but reserving the right to amend or oppose them at a later stage.”
“The Minister makes a valid point. If Mr Allister were to come up with a form of wording that would deal with that, would he support that amendment?”
“I urge those parties to take advantage of the Further Consideration Stage and to speak to Mr Allister to try to find whether there are ways to meet their concerns. That is the whole process and the procedure that is adopted. I think that it is that lack of dialogue with various Members that has been the problem here. What I am hearing is based on a lack of understanding of what the Bill's intent is, and, in some cases, there is a lack of understanding of the actual content of the Bill. That is very unfortunate at this late stage. <BR /> <BR />I had many notes prepared, but, as I said, I would like to get home before two in the morning, so I will not take this any further. I do leave this Building tonight with an intense sense of disappointment.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is still a last opportunity — the opportunity of Further Consideration Stage — and I say to the DUP and the Ulster Unionists that you have behaved entirely honourably. Strangely, I also say that Sinn Féin has too, because Sinn Féin made it absolutely clear at every stage of this Bill that it would oppose every line, jot and tittle of it. It would oppose the short title, the long title and even the colour of the cover of this Bill. It was not having any of it, so we knew exactly where we stood with Sinn Féin from the word go. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, we thought that we had other parties on board and that we had dealt with all the questions that they had, and now we find, at midnight, that concerns have suddenly been produced like a rabbit out of a hat.”
“I am concerned when I hear people such as Mr Muir say that we do not need the legislation and the amendments because we have codes. He is a new boy to the Assembly. He has been here for less than a year. He will know just how effective those codes have been since 1998. If those codes had worked, we would not need this debate tonight. We would not need Mr Allister's legislation. What the RHI report showed very clearly was that special advisers from all parties ran a coach and horses through the codes and totally ignored them. That is why we need the underpinning of legislation. Really, the meat of this Bill and its important aspects is the legislative underpinning. If we do not have that ultimate sanction, I am afraid that the Bill will be greatly weakened.”
“Orange socks. That is good. That is as close as the Alliance Party will ever come to anything orange. <BR /> <BR />It is frustrating that here we are, at this late hour, raising issues very late on in the day, particularly when Mr Allister has moved so far to try to accommodate the legitimate concerns that have been raised. How much further could he have gone to meet those concerns? Yet, still we are here at this unearthly hour of the night. <BR /> <BR />I was going to use this opportunity to dig deep into my experience of dealing with spads, but I am conscious of the fact that it is now nearly five minutes to 12. I could keep Members here until two in the morning giving my views on how the system of special advisers works in the Assembly.”
“The only thing that I agree with Andrew Muir on tonight is his wearing of an orange tie, and that is about the only redeeming factor to what he has said.”
“Mr Muir cannot then complain about being stuck here at almost midnight if he is raising issues —.”
“Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that there is a group of amendments before us. Members have expressed concerns about the amendments. What I am saying is that the best place to deal with those concerns was during the Committee Stage of the Bill when there were hours to tease out the concerns that are being expressed tonight. I do not appreciate that, having sat through every minute of scrutiny of the amendments at the Committee Stage and the formation of the Committee's report, out of nowhere, like rabbits out of a hat, concerns are being produced here, at a very late stage, when many of them could have been dealt with. Mr Muir was not on the Committee, but, equally, Mr Allister's door was always open, as it was for other members of the Committee, to discuss these issues.”
“Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I cannot accept what you are saying.”
“Mr Muir made the point about why we are still standing here at a quarter to twelve, still debating this. Part of the reason is that issues that could have been sorted out weeks ago, by the honourable Member and others, are now being raised at this very late hour. He has raised legitimate points —.”
“<BR />It is one thing for Mr Muir, who has a defence, as he was not on the Committee, to ask questions, and maybe it was a defect that no member of his party sat on the Committee. Mr Muir can argue that he did not have the opportunity to cross examine officials and to speak at length to the Bill's sponsor. However, the SDLP does not have that excuse.”
“I have found the last couple of hours extraordinarily disappointing. We have spoken at length about how the Committee has worked well together to amend and revise Mr Allister's legislation. Now we find that it has been ambushed with changes that could easily have been brought up at the Committee and dealt with. Some of the concerns are simply based on a lack of understanding of the Bill; some could have been brought up months ago. For example, I am very disappointed by what Mr O'Toole said. He asked what level of the Civil Service should be liable for the punishment if a civil servant steps out of line. Why, oh why, did he not raise that at the Committee? That could have been sorted out months ago.”
“I know that the Member is not going to like me for saying this, but I have to say it again: he sat on that Committee for many weeks and had ample opportunity to raise his concerns. This issue was discussed at length in the questioning of witnesses and in the preparation of the report. It really is disappointing that, having had that huge opportunity — we would have given him more — he now decides at this very late stage, having not taken up the opportunity to discuss it with the Bill's sponsor, to try to wreck one of the most important parts of this private Member's Bill.”
“Does the Member accept that, in business and in local government, minute-keeping is absolutely essential? If so, why, then, is he trying to torpedo an amendment that would make that compulsory at the highest level of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland?”
“The Member knows fully that it was not just one party. His party's super-spad, Mr Aidan McAteer, in Connolly House, had total control over the properly appointed spads from his party. It is clear that Justice Coghlin produced evidence that the Member's party was not lily-white in this matter. How does he explain and justify what Mr McAteer was up to?”
“Therefore, that is a balanced argument. <BR /> <BR />Mr Murphy and Mr O'Dowd, two of the big beasts in the Sinn Féin jungle, are here this evening. What is their view on what seems an eminently reasonable suggestion from Mr Allister? It is no good doing what their three Committee members did. They sat for day after day and said, "Not an inch. No surrender. We are not having any of the Bill." In fact, Mr McHugh voted and led his team to vote against the short title of the Bill, something that I have never seen in 26 years in this Building. You just do not do that. Are they going to accept the olive branch offered by Mr Allister?”
“Mr Allister, being his very reasonable self, was throwing out an olive branch to the Members on the opposite Benches. However, what I did not hear from them was their response to that offer. It would help the House enormously if they could inform us whether that is sufficient to get them on board with amendment No 15, which is new clause 8A, and that suggestion that not every pothole —. I think that that is a balanced argument. We all walk through Tesco — other supermarkets are available — and we are lobbied constantly on minor issues. That happens all the time. Like Mr Frew, if it was not for me having the oldest mobile phone in Northern Ireland with a little Dictaphone in it — it will be 21 years old this week — and, say, Mrs Smith or Mrs Jones wanted their pothole fixed, it would be in one ear and out the other.”
“Mr Allister was very generous in his contribution on amendment No 15, because he offered the Members from Sinn Féin a compromise and said that he was minded to drop new clause 8A(2)(d), which states:”
“We need to understand what projects have been withheld or held up and why that was the case. <BR /> <BR />I will not speak long on this group — I emphasise "this group"— of amendments. I would like to think that I would not be called to be a Teller for the votes on them.”
“<BR /> <BR />If MLAs are to be protected from frivolous and vexatious complaints, so should Ministers. That has an awful lot of merit, and I would hope that that would go through without any dissension. <BR /> <BR />The other proposals make eminent sense. Mostly, monitoring rounds involve the Minister divvying out goodies to Departments. However, it is important that Members can scrutinise monitoring rounds because they indicate that some Departments do not have sufficient control of their budgets to spend all that they were allocated. It is important that Members, particularly those who serve on the Finance Committee, find out why that happened. It should not occur. If Ministers have good control of their budgets, they should go right to the wire, as it were, with their expenditure.”
“If we are to have a system through which the commissioner can deal with complaints against Ministers, we have to have a filtering mechanism that stops that happening, or else the system will become unworkable. <BR /> <BR />I can think of other examples. For instance, school closures are emotive issues. A small rural primary school is down to 30 or 40 pupils, the Minister has to decide to close it and, inevitably, that causes great concern. However, if he goes through the proper procedures, he will make the right decision, albeit a controversial one, and he cannot be subject to a huge number of complaints. Another example was the recent decision by the Infrastructure Minister on the North/South interconnector. That is a hot potato in border areas.”
“I remember that one of the most difficult decisions that I had to look at was in respect of Dalriada Hospital in north Antrim; indeed, I was lobbied intensely by people in this very Chamber. Some 14,500 residents of Moyle lobbied me, which was about 95% of the adult population of the district. That is how many signed the petition saying, "Save Dalriada Hospital". As I said earlier, as it turned out, I decided not to close Dalriada Hospital. However, had I done so — it was a 50:50 decision — I am confident that there would have been about 14,500 people making a formal complaint to the Commissioner for Standards against that decision as malpractice. That is how controversial it was. I have never in my life seen a community as engaged as the Ballycastle and Glens community was about Dalriada Hospital.”
“Whilst I believe that I speak English properly, she could not understand a word of what I was saying, and I could not understand a word of what she was saying. I said, "I am sorry, but we cannot make ourselves understood. You will have to slow down". She took great exception to that comment and reported me to the Commissioner for Standards. That is what I call a vexatious complaint. It is not what the rules were set up to achieve; they are meant to deal with issues of real concern that would cause concern to the public. That is why I think that that is important. <BR /> <BR />The former Ministers in the Chamber will know that you have to take some difficult decisions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, far be it from me to question your ruling — that, of course, would be heresy — but it is related to the amendments, because the Commissioner for Standards is being given the power to weed out vexatious complaints. I believe that that was a vexatious complaint. Of course, under the rules that applied then, the commissioner had no choice but to look at it. Obviously, he quickly ruled in my favour because I am perfectly entitled not to answer any question put to me at a panel discussion. <BR /> <BR />More recently, I had cause to ring an office in Essex, of all places, on behalf of a constituent. I think that it was about a speeding problem. Amusingly, the lady who answered the call had the broadest Essex accent.”
“I am a regular customer of the standards commissioner; indeed, there were times when he or she would have had little to do if it had not been for me and the former Member for North Antrim, who is now the MP for the constituency. Between the two of us, we kept up a steady flow of complaints to the commissioner. <BR /> <BR />I will give two recent examples. There was one from my attendance at a four-party panel discussion in Belfast, where someone asked me my view on gay marriage. I looked round the audience and thought, "If I give my views on gay marriage to this audience, first, I will not be home until about 2.00 am and, secondly, it will cause an awful lot of dissent", so I said, "I would prefer not to answer that question". A member of the LGBT community reported me to the Commissioner for Standards for not answering the question.”
“It is well after 9.00 pm, and, of course, this is only a warm-up session for the real battle, which is to come after these amendments. In the debate on this group, there will be no revelations from me about the misdemeanours of spads, so this will be rather dull. Maybe part 2 will occur in the debate on the next group. <BR /> <BR />This group of amendments is rather uncontentious. I would like to think that they will go through without the need for a Division, because they make eminent sense. Every sensible MLA will give Mr Frew's amendment their full support. I agree entirely with the clause that gives the Commissioner for Standards the power to weed out vexatious complaints.”
“Does the Member accept that, if the codes are so wonderful and so enforceable, they have nothing to worry about, because the legislation will never have to be invoked?”
“He knows that that is not true. He has not answered the point — none of his colleagues has answered it — about the role of Mr Aidan McAteer, a super-spad who was not subject to any form of appointment and was not responsible to any form of Civil Service code. He was appointed by his party as a super-spad to control the activities of all the other spads, who were answerable to their Minister. In fact, Mr McAteer was answerable to Mr Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, not to the relevant Minister. How does the Minister explain that activity by Mr McAteer and how does a code stop that happening again?”
“I suggest to the Member for Newry and Armagh, the Minister, that, yes, the Executive may well have given him an undertaking that they would oppose this Bill but that, when the relevant Ministers went back to their parties, they received a very clear message from the Back-Benchers that they were going to support Mr Allister's Bill. The party leaders realised that they could not win the argument.”
“Does the Member accept that, with the salary ranging from £65,000 to £92,000, she did not have any problems attracting suitably qualified candidates?”
“I am going to stick it out, and I will be here to vote for Mr Allister on every aspect of his Bill.”
“I congratulate the Chair of the Committee and the Committee staff, in particular Jim McManus for all his efforts, and other members of the Committee — some of them, anyhow. <BR /> <BR />There were three members of the Committee who were, obviously, given scripts in Connolly House and told to oppose everything. I have been in this Building for 26 years, and I have never come across members opposing the short and long title of a Bill. You just do not do that. That is like saying that you oppose the fact that this is Tuesday. It just never happened. <BR /> <BR />I see that Mr McHugh is saying that they are going to vote against every clause and every amendment from Mr Allister. Dear help the Members who miss tonight's sitting, because their voting records are going to be absolutely destroyed if they do not go through the Lobbies.”
“<BR /> <BR />To take up Mr O'Toole's issue, I do not think that there is going to be much of a problem with severance payments, whether they happen at the end of March 2021 or 2022. As far as I know, there are only six spads in position at the moment. If we remove the right to have a junior Minister spad, I presume that the parties will simply move the person affected to become a permanent deputy First Minister or First Minister spad, so I do not see there being any real effect on public expenditure. I think that four is enough, but I can live with six. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I reserve the right to come back at the next two stages. I think that we are in for a very long night on the Bill. I congratulate the honourable Member for North Antrim for his tenacity and hard work.”
“We only have to turn on a radio show from 9.00 am to 10.30 am — I will not name the individual concerned — to hear what the public are saying about us. We are held in the same high esteem as drug dealers and armed gangsters, and that is probably impugning the integrity of other decent armed gangsters in Northern Ireland. The reality is that people have an incredibly low view of us. When they see that we cannot keep our special advisers under control and that we are paying them a salary that none of the ordinary men on the street could ever attain, they think, "What on earth are they playing at?". Therefore, it cannot be in a code. It has to be in legislation, and the numbers have to be restricted. I would prefer four, but I understand why Mr Allister, having taken soundings, has gone for six.”
“It cannot be right that someone can do that, but the system here allows that to happen. We simply cannot allow those sorts of pay grades to continue. Therefore, I will support Mr Allister's proposal in its entirety. <BR /> <BR />To be honest, I think that the Member has been too generous. He must have got up one morning in a very good frame of mind when he decided to set that pay scale. Frankly, given the behaviour of spads in the past, I would like to see 10 years of very good behaviour before I would award them those sorts of pay grades. I accept that, in the interests of getting unanimity, we should, indeed, go along with what he is suggesting. I hope and pray that we can get the Bill through unscathed. <BR /> <BR />Someone said earlier today that there is a lack of public confidence in this institution. You can say that again.”
“I was worried by what Mr Frew said, because what he wants is flexibility. We cannot have anything too rigid, because Ministers must have the discretion to ensure that, if they get a star performer — their best mate — he or she is endowed with a fabulous pay rise. We have to bring that under control. Mr Allister's view that we peg it to a specific level in the Civil Service is a good one. That takes the decision as to what special advisers are paid out of ministerial control. Special advisers will therefore come in knowing exactly what they will get, and they will stay on that level throughout their career. Do remember that, when they do go, they get a very substantial redundancy payment. Indeed, we had a situation where a spad was made redundant because that person had become an MP, and walked out with fabulous severance pay.”
“Again, dealing with somewhere the size of the United Kingdom, along with the number of MPs and Ministers at Westminster, is rather different from dealing with what would constitute the size of a county council in most parts of England. <BR /> <BR />The point is that Mr Cummings has gone. Mr Cummings was earning less than our senior spads were getting in 2017. Mr Cummings, given the power that he exercised — he was the second-most influential spad in the United Kingdom — yet he was earning less than £92,000 a year. The fact that he has now gone tells you how volatile a position it is. Our spads do not have that problem. Our spads are around for a very, very long time. Therefore, the salary has to be capped.”
“Well, Mr Storey, there is a world of difference between serving a population the size of Leicestershire and serving the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which has a population of 60 million or 70 million.”
“<BR /> <BR />The only spad who I can remember who moved on because of pay — in fact, he was actually quite a nice individual, which is unusual for a spad — was a gentleman who was here between 2000 and 2002 and moved on to become a High Court judge. He has done very well. We have managed to retain all the rest of them. Therefore, on the point that there needs to be a stupendous salary to motivate and attract spads, it seems that that is not necessary.”
“They may be a spad for only two or three years, or they may have transgressed like Dominic Cummings and be a spad for all of eight months before being ordered out the door. That is what can happen in London. However, in Northern Ireland, of course, that does not happen. Spads continue on regardless of their Minister. I have nothing against Dr O'Hagan personally, but she certainly seems to have been around this Building for a very long time. Similarly, Mr Johnston seems to have been around this Building for an eternity. I certainly remember Mr Crawford moving quite happily from one Minister to another. Therefore, the fact is that the pay reflects a volatility that does not exist in this Building.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the Assembly fell in January 2017, each of those spads received a pay-off that was equal to half their salary. Therefore, Mr Bullick got £45,904; Timothy Johnston, £45,904; Dara O'Hagan, £44,700; Mark Mullan, £37,500; and Andrew Crawford, £34,373. The first £30,000 of that was tax-free. Am I wrong? Have I not seen Dr O'Hagan walking around the corridors of this particular institution as a spad? In other words, even though they lost their jobs, they were quickly resurrected. <BR /> <BR />The point that I made to Mr Frew is that the reason why spads in London, Leinster House, Cardiff and Edinburgh are so highly paid is that, inevitably, with the volatility of politics, Ministers will fall all the time and, therefore, the spad falls.”