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 8 of 38.
“We have a series of monitoring rounds every year — three or four per annum — where the resources that have not been spent by particular Departments, for various legitimate reasons, are brought back into a central pot and redistributed amongst those Departments that are experiencing pressures. <BR /> <BR />Quite frankly, there are times when Departments could never have made ends meet had it not been for the monitoring rounds. Certainly, when the monitoring rounds are published, there is no shortage of safe havens for the unspent money. It is unfair to say that there is anything particularly wrong in Departments voluntarily giving up money to provide extra funding, rather than trying to keep it within their bailiwick, to meet pressures that are emerging elsewhere. I have been involved in that process.”
“However, touch a hair on the head of one hospital in Northern Ireland and you will have the entire adult population on the streets. How can we keep within a budget if that is the attitude that we have as a community? <BR /> <BR />Here we are 26 years on, 25 Budgets later, and still we cannot grasp that we are pouring a large amount of the very scarce resource contained in the Budget down a black hole, because the structure is fundamentally wrong. I do not believe that a democracy in Northern Ireland can deliver these changes, because the pressures on the individual representatives are so intense. <BR /> <BR />I listened with great interest to the comments made by many Members criticising Departments that have not spent the money allocated to them in their budget. They have failed to remember what are called the monitoring rounds.”
“They obviously outlined the concerns they had about the budgets for health service provision in Northern Ireland. All of those reports said that, if we were to try to bring the budget down to a sensible scale, a major realignment of hospital service provision in Northern Ireland was absolutely essential. Indeed, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister signed up to the Bengoa report and said that they wished to see it progressed. That is fine until you try to close one broom cupboard in one hospital in Northern Ireland. Watch the reaction of those who represent that area. Indeed, gone are the days when political dissension will bring 10,000 people onto the streets of Northern Ireland. Those days are over.”
“As you should know, the Bengoa report was one of many. We have had Compton, Donaldson and Bengoa. All three — and many others, such as Gerry Burns —.”
“However, if you suggest that to anybody in the Chamber, they will be on their feet immediately saying, "Yes, but don't you dare touch my facility".”
“I remember going up to see the hospital — it was an excellent provision — and there was a tractor cavalcade in the town. They said that, if I tried to close Dalriada Hospital, the tractor cavalcade would ensure that I would not be leaving Moyle for many months, and I think they meant it. <BR /> <BR />The difficulty is that important health decisions need to be made. Health can be delivered in a much better way. We are spreading a limited resource over far too many buildings. Others who look at the provision of health in Northern Ireland are aghast at how many structures and buildings we require to deliver the service. Leicestershire has the same population size as Northern Ireland: two hospitals. Yorkshire is the same size: half the number of hospitals.”
“What was the reaction? The MLAs representing Coleraine arrived up with a petition signed by 23,000 people, saying, "Do not lay a finger on our hospital." That was the level of buy-in from that community. When there was a proposal to close Dalriada Hospital, I received, as Minister, a petition signed by, I reckon, 97% of everyone in the Moyle District Council area who was aged over 11. In fact, we could not find anybody in the area who had not signed that petition.”
“There are so many examples of developments that cannot take place because of the lack of sewerage infrastructure and because many of the pipes supplying water to our community have long since passed their sell-by date. We need investment in our water, but it does not necessarily have to come from the public purse. In next year's Budget — it is important to keep mentioning the Budget, Mr Deputy Speaker — the Minister should consider a new way of funding our water service. <BR /> <BR />Several Members said that we need a radical change in how we provide hospital services. Every Member of the Assembly agrees with that statement, as long as it does not effect their local hospital. That is the problem that we face. When I was Health Minister, there was a proposal to change the configuration of the Northern Trust and the Western Trust.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the 26 years that I have been here, during every discussion on making the water service — Northern Ireland Water — a more effective model for the delivery of that essential service, there have been arguments about privatisation. It has been extremely unpopular. I am sure that even mentioning the word "privatisation" would have Mr Carroll jumping on me and threatening me with all sorts of sanctions because I had sworn. The halfway house is the Welsh model, Hyder, which was very successful in taking the funding of water out of the relevant Department. Here, of course, it is the Department for Infrastructure. The Welsh model funds water and enables adequate capital investment without being a burden on the economy. Today, several Members talked about the chronic underinvestment in water.”
“People can avoid paying that by bringing their own multiple-use bag. Why not consider increasing that to a more realistic level? <BR /> <BR />My point on MOT fees might be controversial. I am a regular visitor to the MOT centres in Newry, Downpatrick and Lisburn. You have only to see my car to know why. Just over £30 for an MOT is an absolute bargain compared with the rest of the UK. I can take a vehicle in — mine is normally worth about £250 — and, if I am fortunate and it passes, I walk out with a vehicle that could be worth treble that amount. All for a £30 fee. Maybe there is scope to address that figure. Of course, the Minister will say that this is all small stuff compared with what is needed to keep Northern Ireland going.”
“This is important because although Northern Ireland makes up only 4% of the population of the United Kingdom, it accounts for nearly 12% of the quarry aggregate industry. We are a great success in this particular field. I ask the Minister of Finance to find out where that money has gone and why none of it, not even 4%, has come back to Northern Ireland, where it could be spent on important projects. <BR /> <BR />We have had the success of the plastic bag levy, which has reduced the use of single-use plastic bags by 80%. There is certainly room for that to increase, because it is a voluntary tax. People like me go to the supermarket and do not want to pay a shilling. For the benefit of younger people, that is 5p, but only about three people in the Chamber know what I am talking about.”
“<BR /> <BR />All of those to whom I speak say that they have never been busier. Why is that? Some suggest that, because people have not been able to take holidays, they are carrying out improvements to their homes or, if they are farmers, to their land. Certainly, the quarry industry is very busy, which means that even more money is going to pour out of the economy through the aggregates levy. When the levy was introduced, the idea was that this money would be used for projects to ameliorate the damage to communities caused by quarries. Quarries, generally, have a very good track record in Northern Ireland of dealing with their local community. However, it is irksome that this money has been confiscated by London — or, probably, by Southend-on-Sea — yet, as far as I can see, not one penny has come back to Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister cannot grab a couple of hundred million pounds that has been ring-fenced for coronavirus and use it for a new road scheme or extra provision within education. <BR /> <BR />There are areas where extra money could be raised, and I urge the Minister to address these, potentially for next year's Budget. I will give a few examples. The aggregates levy takes roughly £19 million a year out of the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is sent to the Exchequer. I have close contacts with the quarry industry, and I met two quarry operators from Northern Ireland this year who have paid over £1 million per quarry in aggregates levy. That is a huge amount of money that is being taken out of the economy. The irony is, of course, that, despite coronavirus, our quarry industry is doing exceptionally well.”
“I have been in this Chamber 26 years today, so this is my 26th Budget, and I have to say that I have heard it all before. What we have had is a succession of MLAs using the Budget as a platform to pursue their particular pet projects, be it issues in their own constituency or a wider concern. What I have not heard this afternoon — it is rapidly becoming this evening — is anybody suggesting where the pot of gold is that we are going to obtain to fund all these demands. We, as an Assembly, have to be realistic and suggest that we must raise more money if we are going to fund additional services. Barnett consequentials are limited; yes, extra funding has been made available because of coronavirus, but that is for particular, targeted purposes.”
“The Member should know that, as long as he includes the word "budget" in every sentence of his contribution, he will not catch the ear of the Deputy Speaker and will be able to continue regardless. <BR /> <BR />Speaking about the Budget, will the Member accept that there are many businesses in Northern Ireland that, unfortunately, have had to close but are not on the list of those that have been told to close? Typical examples of that are ferry operators and dog kennel owners: they cannot survive in the absence of other aspects of the economy. They have to close, but, because they are not on the list, they do not get a penny.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 7 October 2020, you wrote to me about a remark that I made during a debate held on 6 October 2020. You pointed out that, even though I had made it clear in the debate that I was quoting someone else's remark, your ruling was that, even in that situation, it could be deemed offensive to quote what someone else had said. Mr Speaker, can you confirm that, the following day, immediately on receipt of your letter, I wrote to you to acknowledge your ruling on the issue and to withdraw the remark immediately?”
“The Minister is absolutely correct: she does not have the power to revoke planning approval. She has, however, the power to consult Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council to offer funding to enable it to pay any compensation that would be required in order to revoke.”
“The Minister was generous and gave way. Will she give way a second time?”
“Does the Minister accept that, had they been consulted, they would have made a very strong recommendation that the application be refused, and we would not be here tonight having this debate?”
“I would like to think that, in a couple of years' time, you will drive past Knock Iveagh and think, "Isn't that wonderful? It has been restored to its natural context".”
“<BR /> <BR />The only thing that is driving what is going on in Knock Iveagh is the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) subsidies for turbine generation and payments for transmitters. We, as taxpayers, are paying for the destruction of Knock Iveagh. We, as an Assembly paying out that money through the ROC payments, have every right to take action to undo the damage. That development would not have occurred without those subsidies. I call on the Minister on this particularly special occasion. I know that revocation is a very blunt instrument and should be considered only as an absolute last resort, but, as the Member for Upper Bann has, quite rightly, pointed out, this is too important to allow the problem to fester any longer. Action has to be taken.”
“It is such an important archaeological site that the only way out of that particular difficulty that I see is for Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council to revoke planning permission and the Department for Communities to pay any form of compensation required. The site is simply far too important to allow that very unfortunate situation to continue. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister was due to come to the site because I received an invitation, although I was surprised to get one. I would have been there, but I then received a note to say that, because of the weather — it was appalling weather — the visit could not go ahead. However, I hope that, even after this debate, the Minister will herself appraise the site. Not too many people in north Belfast know where Knock Iveagh is, but I hope that there will be one more before Christmas.”
“That puts it in a difficult position because that would come from ratepayers, and it was not responsible for the decision in the first place. <BR /> <BR />There is precedent for this: Ballynahone bog in south Londonderry is a major example of a raised bog. Planning approval was given about 25 years ago for peat extraction. Friends of the Earth took a judicial review against the then Department of the Environment's decision. That was successful, the decision was overturned and compensation was paid to the developer, which was Bulrush peat. Ballynahone bog, to this day, remains as it was centuries ago. We have to accept that doing that was expensive, but, equally, I see exactly the same parallel with Knock Iveagh.”
“I resent the fact that the ink was hardly dry on the permissions when the developer moved in to erect various structures on the hill. On top of that, a series of developments have occurred since, including a roadway, that do not have planning permission. <BR /> <BR />When the Department accepts that it has made a fundamental mistake, the council — Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon — should not have to pick up the bill for that; it should be the Department. This is where it gets difficult; the responsibility has moved from the Department of the Environment, which, of course, is now part of DAERA, to the Department for Communities. One of the reasons why the council has not been able to take action is that it realised that compensation would have to be paid or legal action would be taken if it took enforcement action.”
“Indeed, when the application went to a planning appeal, the planners noted the major gaffe that the Department had made. They were totally open about it and said that they forgot to consult that part of their Department, which would have recommended refusal. <BR /> <BR />In 2013, then, an identical situation arose. I have no doubt whatsoever that had proper procedure been followed, the application would have been refused, but it was not. Therefore, what is now on top of that hill, which makes it look more like an industrial site rather than a very important archaeological site, would not have happened.”
“<BR /> <BR />We need to go back to 2013, when planning was the responsibility of the then Department of the Environment's Planning Service, and it made an absolutely fundamental error. I could understand the error if that Department had not made exactly the same mistake, a few years earlier, with Finnebrogue, which is an important historic demesne near Downpatrick. A planning application came in for a deer abattoir — known affectionately by the locals as Bambi Belsen. The abattoir was built in the area, and then, unfortunately, it was discovered that the Planning Service had not consulted the relevant branch of the then Department of the Environment to establish the historical context of the estate. So, it was approved, and then they discovered that they had made a fundamental mistake.”
“I thank the Member for Upper Bann for bringing the subject to the Chamber in the form of an Adjournment debate. It is a very important issue, and it is one that I have been involved in since its inception, in an area that I know very well. <BR /> <BR />For Members who may not be aware of the area, Knock Iveagh is a hill that is located just as you approach Rathfriland from the Banbridge area. It is a very prominent feature in the landscape, and, as we knew when the original application went in — and now know even more about as a result of the work of the Friends of Knock Iveagh — it is an extremely important historical site. In fact, the more research that is done, the more important it becomes.”
“I think the question on everyone's lips, particularly in Newcastle, is this: when will she as Minister come and cut the ribbon to announce that that scheme has been completed?”
“It is not so much about global warming as it is about erratic weather and extreme weather conditions. Newcastle has had three once-in-100-years floods in 22 years. That is a clear indication of where we are going. Those situations will continue to arise. Therefore, I think that we are all waiting with bated breath to hear what the Minister is going to say about how she believes that that awful situation can be prevented in the future.”
“I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a house that was built in 2013; it looks, on the face of it, as though the Flood Re scheme, which would have been a godsend to that particular family, does not apply in that situation. I want to know — I am trying to get an answer from the Association of British Insurers — the reason for that very unusual stipulation. There are houses that have been rebuilt since 2010 in situ; why should they be left out of that scheme while others are not? I want to hear from the Minister what she intends to do, through the Rivers Agency, to ensure that we do not get a repeat of that. <BR /> <BR />Some people believe in climate change and some do not. I do. I believe that it is man-made and that it is having a profound influence on the weather systems in our country. People talk about global warming.”
“First, it said that the dwelling has to be domestic, which is fine. Secondly, it has to be on mainland UK. I am always worried by that phrase "mainland UK"; I think, "Does it include Northern Ireland or not?". Maybe that is aimed at the Hebrides, Orkney, the Isle of Man or whatever. I want clarification that it includes Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The condition of the Flood Re scheme that I found the most difficult to understand is that it precludes a claim coming in for any house built after 2009. I cannot understand the logic of that exclusion. A house built after 2009 is as likely to flood as a house built before 2009.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, as has already been mentioned, there are residents in the area who have made insurance claims. Indeed, the assessors have been out, the damage has been totted up and claims are already beginning to be paid. Indeed, I applaud the action of Newry, Mourne and Down council, which has been out and has already authorised the payment of £1,000 to each person affected by the flood. The speed with which it moved, and the very flexible approach that it showed to the residents, is to be applauded. However, the bulk of the damage will have to be covered by insurance. There is a system in place called Flood Re, which is a fund of £180 million that has been set up by all the major insurance companies in the United Kingdom. I have two questions for the Minister. I looked up the conditions for Flood Re.”
“I am sure that the same points will be made time and time again by the Members for South Down and others as to why the flooding happened so, therefore, I am going to take a slightly different tack. <BR /> <BR />First, I would like the Minister to address an allegation that was made that, although systems were in place to prevent a reoccurrence of the 2008 situation, various controls that are operated from a central control room and which would have diverted water away from the Bryansford Road and Shimna Road area into the Burren River — I believe that that system is located somewhere up in the vicinity of Tollymore Forest Park — were not operational. That allegation was made to me by several individuals on the day. I have no idea whether it is true or otherwise, but it would be very useful in the debate for the Minister to deal with that.”
“I support the sentiments that have already been expressed. Like many other MLAs, I was in Newcastle following the flooding and witnessed for myself the dreadful damage that had occurred. It reminded me of the situation in 2008, when similar devastation happened. At that time, there were calls for remedial action to be taken immediately. <BR /> <BR />I applaud the Minister for coming down to Newcastle; that was appreciated by all of the local residents and I thank her for that. She heard at first-hand what was going on and about the amount of damage and suffering that had been inflicted on the residents of Shimna Road and Bryansford Road in particular.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that, unlike my last intervention, this actually is a point of order. Can you explain the ramifications of what is about to happen? Is it possible for the Bill to be put on hold and a final decision delayed until October? Are we putting ourselves on a trajectory that means that, if we go to a vote now, there is no way back and this Bill will become law? To put it another way, is it possible for the two junior Ministers to adopt a procedure that would enable us to come back to this in eight weeks' time?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Throughout the debate, the Minister has failed to produce the advice that he has received that states that this legislation must be passed before the ministerial code can be amended. Will he produce that advice? It is an absolutely crucial aspect of the debate.”
“The Minister now has a good opportunity to explain how my concerns and those of many unionists in South Down can be assuaged and why that could not happen because of this legislation. I just do not see it, and nor do many other legal experts.”
“The Minister is articulate, but he uses long sentences, so it can be difficult at times to ascertain when he is about to finish a sentence. It is not my intention to disrupt his flow of thought, as it were. <BR /> <BR />He raised the point that I alluded to about a Minister wanting to inflict Irish-language road signs on a community without its support. That has happened already in South Down with the district council. Mr Stalford said that a solo run could not be done on that because it was also an issue for the Department for Communities. He did not answer adequately how exactly that was significant to the Department for Communities or any other Department or how in court it would stand up as being significant and how we could stop a Minister doing that.”
“That cannot be done until the autumn, so why can you not allow the Bill to be scrutinised further and bring it back at the stage that you are dealing with the ministerial code?”
“I am sorry to be awkward, junior Minister, but we have homed in on an absolutely vital issue here. You have said and Mr Lyons has said that you cannot amend the ministerial code without passing the Bill. There is no legal advice and no law that says that you cannot amend the ministerial code, regardless of what you do with the Bill. What is also important to note, however, is that, if you amend the ministerial code, that has to be approved by the House. That will, obviously, not be done until the autumn. There may well be amendments. There will be several stages to that. The main rationale therefore for you rushing the Bill through now, which is to get planning applications, falls in its place, because you cannot do so without an amended ministerial code.”
“The honourable Member has let the cat out of the bag. The Member has said that planning applications cannot be considered until the new ministerial code has been adopted. Therefore, there is no rush. Obviously, it will take significant time to devise, publish and consult on that, so there is no reason why we cannot have a delay in the passage of the Bill to enable adequate consultation and public debate on it and analysis of the various legal opinions. At the end of the day, pushing it through today will not facilitate any planning application because it has to run in tandem with the new ministerial code. Why can he not allow the issue to be discussed again in the first week of October?”
“What would be wrong in delaying the final implementation of this legislation to allow the revised ministerial code to be published, and also for the definitions, which are so important to this legislation, to be out for public consultation? Neither he nor Mr Lyons has answered that fact, and nobody has produced the mythical planning applications that have to be dealt with between now and October. Will he answer why it is inappropriate to have a short delay to allow more scrutiny of the legislation?”
“The honourable Member for South Antrim, the junior Minister, should not be concerned about there being numerous interventions because this is such a crucial issue. <BR /> <BR />He made a couple of points. First, he said that the First Minister and deputy First Minister could make the decision but, of course, they would have to agree jointly to make the decision to call a matter in. They could not disagree on the issue. So, in other words, if one party decides that it is not appropriate to bring it in, it will not happen. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, he made a point that I found somewhat surprising. He said that it is essential that the legislation is passed — I presume that he means today — in order for there to be discussion on the ministerial code.”
“Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I keep making the same fundamental error. Does the honourable Member accept the information given by Mr Carroll that, for hundreds of community groups throughout Northern Ireland, the first that they were aware of the legislation was when they turned on their TVs yesterday and heard the debate on it? They have been caught totally unawares and have had no opportunity whatsoever to have an input into this vital piece of legislation. How can he defend his premise that there has been adequate consultation?”
“Does the honourable Member accept the points made by Mr Carroll that, for hundreds of community groups —.”
“Does the Member accept that, in many of those emails, the Aarhus convention was cited, and yet, in none of their contributions has Mr Lyons or Mr Stalford actually sought to deal with that issue? Are we in contravention of the Aarhus convention by doing what we are about to do? I would be very interested to hear whether Mr Kearney or Mr Lyons will answer that fundamental point at the end of this debate.”
“As a former Minister, I accept what Mr Stalford has said: Ministers do not normally release the legal advice that they have been given. However, does the Member accept that not only have we not been given the legal advice but we have not seen the wording of the ministerial code or many of the definitions that are crucial to the Bill's implementation? We are being asked to vote for the Bill blind, and the important bits will come along afterwards. That could create chaos. Again, surely, that is an argument for a slight delay.”
“I just ask him whether, given the extraordinary way in which it has been handled, the total lack of scrutiny that it has enjoyed, the widespread community concern about it and the issues that have been raised long after the Bill was dealt with and published by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, he will consider a short — I mean "very short" — delay to enable cool heads to sit down and get this absolutely right. Those are my comments: I hope that they have not been dull.”
“I am suggesting that the present legislation has served the Assembly and the community well. He has not answered the question: will anything drastic happen between now and the first sitting of the Assembly in October? He has power to delay the Final Stage of the Bill for a very short period to enable Members to have a good, long, hard look at it. He has it within his power to do that today. I am pleading with him not because I am a dissident DUP Back-Bencher or because I have an axe to grind with the party or, indeed, any other party in the Chamber. I say, "Let us make certain that we have got this absolutely right before we go beyond the point of no return". I am not asking him to concede the merits of the Bill. I am not asking him to accept any amendment to the Bill.”
“It is like the definition of victims. We can never amend that definition. We are stuck with it, and it requires cross-community support to bring it back to something that people are comfortable with. <BR /> <BR />In a few minutes' time, if the honourable Member for East Antrim, the junior Minister, moves the Bill to a vote that, of course, he will win because of the Whip system — there are scars on the backs of all the Back-Benchers who have dared to oppose it — he will have a list of, I assume, 26 names that will be called out, and people will be dutifully registered as voting for something with which many of them feel uncomfortable. If he goes over that cliff and I am right and he is wrong, there will be a terrible consequence of what is about to happen.”