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 9 of 38.
“The honourable Member for South Down, who probably just about has CSE woodwork, is not the person to comment on that. The point is that, when Mrs O'Loan from Tughans, Mr Jim Allister QC and Mr Richard Bullick, who is the author of the protections that we are debating, have considered all he said yesterday and all the comments from other Members and are still alarmed, that doubt comes into my brain. <BR /> <BR />If this was the District Council Dog Fouling Bill or the Litter Picking Bill and we got it wrong, it would not be the end of the Earth. However, this is so fundamental to how we govern Northern Ireland that, if we allow it to go through, when many of us still have doubts, and it all unravels, we will never retrieve the situation. One thing is certain: the Members to my right will never agree to an amendment.”
“Would there be massive planning applications that have to go through by the first week of October? <BR /> <BR />I am waiting, Mr Stalford or Mr Lyons.”
“I plead with Mr Lyons, who exercises a powerful position in the Executive Office, not to go over the cliff this afternoon or to go beyond the point of no return but to accept, as Mr Stalford said yesterday, that there is conflicting legal advice. That is the only thing that we agreed on yesterday; there is that conflicting advice. If there is that element of doubt that all the MLAs I have spoken to have, what would be wrong in allowing this item to be rolled over to the first sitting day of the new session? <BR /> <BR />I will gladly give way to Mr Lyons, Mr Stalford, Mr Dunne or Mr Harvey to tell me what could go wrong by doing that to allow us to forensically examine the comments of those opposed to the Bill, to see if they hold water. I believe they do, but maybe they do not.”
“Mr Kearney was remarkably quiet, but Mr Lyons has been given the job of defending this document. Having listened carefully, as many did, to Mr Lyons, I feel that there is still an element of concern. The issue is so important to me and the people of Northern Ireland, that, even if I harbour a 10% doubt as to the effectiveness of the legislation, I think that we need to have another look at it.”
“I can assure you, from my experience of St Andrews, even though I was not there, that Mr Bullick played an absolutely crucial role in the negotiations at St Andrews to establish the protections that have served the Assembly so well; indeed, it is noticeable that what was agreed at St Andrews has saved our community from some really strange proposals, many of which still sit in a store in the Executive Office. We know that, under the St Andrews Agreement, they have absolutely no prospect of seeing the light of day. That has given us protection for 13 or 14 years. When the author — the person who was so instrumental in the drafting of that document — says that he is still extremely concerned, despite the eloquent defence by Mr Lyons yesterday at the end of the debate.”
“The fact that he has now gone public on three occasions to express his concerns about what we are doing holds a lot of water as far as I am concerned. No one in the Chamber has really answered his concerns. Many of the younger Members — there are people who were not born when I first sat in the Chamber; not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you — will not be aware of the significance of Mr Bullick; in fact, people have asked me, "Who is Mr Bullick?".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Members are still assuring me that they are hanging on my every word, so it cannot be that boring. However, I will not wander any further into the internal machinations of any political party in the Chamber, but I note that none of the Members to my left has stood up to contradict anything that I have said. <BR /> <BR />Following yesterday's debate, there has been a huge adverse reaction from the community on what happened. Many people have put pen to paper, either on social media or in newspapers, to indicate that they are deeply concerned. Most significantly, one of those is Mr Richard Bullick. There was concern yesterday that we quoted Mr Bullick so often. Frankly, I have enormous respect for the judgement of Mr Richard Bullick.”
“There are many people out there this afternoon whose names are on a piece of paper held by the Chief Whip, who will stand in that Lobby and shout out those names, when many of those people are very unhappy with being asked to vote for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, may I suggest that I have unlimited time because this is legislation?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that most Members are fascinated to hear about the internal affairs of the DUP, but they have turned, I am afraid, to an obscure Back-Bencher marooned in the desert, who, unfortunately, is today ensuring that he will remain in that desert for a long time. <BR /> <BR />There was an intense discussion. Assurances were given by those involved that, legally, the Bill was an enhancement rather than a weakening of the St Andrews Agreement. On the basis of that verbal assurance, people have allowed themselves to be whipped to go into the Lobby to vote for something with which they are extremely unhappy but are scared to say so, apart from saying it to me.”
“That was denied. It was only when several members of the party pleaded for a meeting that a meeting was held yesterday morning at 10.30. Please feel free to contradict me, if that is not true. At that meeting, a lot of concern was expressed, as a lot of concern has been expressed to me by Members from across the board. In the absence of someone much more capable, in the form of Mr Allister, unfortunately, they have had to turn to an obscure Back-Bencher. "Obscure Back-Bencher": is that unparliamentary, Mr Deputy Speaker?”
“The implications for the governance of Northern Ireland are immense, because it could lead to judicial review and a legal situation where Ministers can prove that, under the legislation, they have a right to proceed in whatever way they jolly well like. When things are being done and Ministers are out of control, it will be difficult for them to meet members of our community and say that they sat in the Chamber and allowed themselves to be whipped to vote for something that they did not approve of. <BR /> <BR />Having been a member of the DUP for 46 years, I am aware of the internal workings of the party. I know that there was no consultation on the Bill in the largest political party in the Chamber until yesterday morning. There was no discussion on it until one prominent member of the party pleaded with the Chief Whip to have a meeting.”
“Yes, if that is what he is doing, but he has not convinced me that he is. I gave him the opportunity to say that application A and application B will have to be processed between now and the first week of October. If he is saying that there is no prospect of that happening, what would be wrong — he has not answered this point — in allowing the Assembly, the community groups that have been caught unaware, the general public and the legal profession an opportunity to have a few weeks — I mean "a few weeks" — to sit down and to consider the Bill more carefully? Nothing could be lost. However, what if he is wrong and Mr Stalford is wrong?”
“Mr Muir listed 38 planning applications that were sitting in the system, but what he did not say and what nobody said is that, on planning application A, we want to make a decision in August, and, on planning application B, we will definitely need to make a decision in September. I suspect that the reality is that, when we come back in October, there will still be 38 planning applications sitting there, because that, unfortunately, is the way that things work in the system at the moment. I will give Mr Lyons the opportunity to name me the applications that are so urgent that they have to be processed over the next 8 weeks.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Mr Lyons for the fact that, at last, he has explained the need for the rush, but can he tell me of one decision that would definitely have to be made between now and the first week of October? Mr — the gentleman from North Down, I have forgotten his name. I am awfully sorry. The new Member for North Down — somebody remind me.”
“I am saying that the Bill has caught many people in Northern Ireland unawares, and many people would like to have had an input to a proper consultation on it through the Committee. I presume that Mr McGrath's Committee would have been the appropriate Committee to deal with this. They have been denied that opportunity. The Bill has gone from the printer's to ratification and, presumably, Royal Assent in less than a month. There have been 11 minutes of consultation about it in the relevant Committee. Members were given less than 24 hours to submit amendments. I sat in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and had to read out to Members that, if they wished to table amendments, they had to be in by 9.30 the following morning. That is highly irregular.”
“Everybody here knows the significance of the Buick case, but, over the last 24 hours, I have received many hundreds of emails from individuals, from people who are even concerned about giving the Minister for Infrastructure the power to unilaterally make a decision on controversial planning applications. I am sure that other Members have also received emails, for instance from the group opposed to the Dalriadan gold mine application in west Tyrone or the application for a similar development in Armagh.”
“My point is that a court could well decide that a Sinn Féin or SDLP Minister or even an Alliance Minister who wished to impose Irish-language road signs on the people of Northern Ireland would have the power to do that under the Bill, because it is not cross-cutting. Unless there was a clause in the Programme for Government expressly forbidding that, the Minister would be well within his powers to proceed with that policy, which would be anathema to a large proportion of the people of Northern Ireland. They do not want Irish-language road signs. <BR /> <BR />The Bill purports to update the legislation to reflect the Buick case.”
“There will be maverick — I will use "maverick" rather than "rogue" — Ministers on the nationalist side who will attempt —.”
“Gosh, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been described as many things in my life, but never "boring". I say to the Member that the people of South Down already have experience of this, because the district council has imposed Irish-language signs throughout the district and all attempts to invoke section 75 have failed miserably. The council has full authority to impose those on communities that do not want them, so I wish the Member well in trying to stop Irish-language road signs within similar restraints. <BR /> <BR />The Member says that I am throwing up, in a rather boring fashion — I will really have to up my ante, if I am being boring — false alarms about situations where people will feel worried and concerned, but my 22 years' experience in the Assembly has shown that such situations do arise.”
“Now, if a Sinn Féin Minister or, indeed, an SDLP Minister for Infrastructure decided to have Irish-language road signs between Newcastle and Kilkeel, it would be difficult to argue that that is a genuinely cross-cutting measure that will have an impact on the Department for Communities. It will not really matter, because a court will decide that it has no real impact on the work of the Department for Communities.”
“I use "rogue" in the sense of someone who is totally out of control, rather than someone of doubtful moral background. <BR /> <BR />The point I am trying to make is that we have seen this, of course. Mr Conor Murphy introduced legislation to impose Irish-language road signs on the people of Northern Ireland. The reason that he got absolutely nowhere with that Bill was that it was pointed out to him that, under the existing legislation, it would get absolutely nowhere. <BR /> <BR />Now, I will give way to Mr Stalford on this point. He said, "Ah, but that affects the work of the Department for Communities".”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I go into my speech, I say that I am glad that Mr Stalford is back. He answered a question that I raised about a rogue Sinn Féin Minister on a solo run wanting to inflict Irish-language road signs on the people of Northern Ireland. He stood up and said, "Oh, but that is cross-cutting, because it also impinges on the role of the Department for Communities".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, if you hear a hissing sound during my speech, it is me burning many bridges between me and my erstwhile party. I am fully aware of the consequences of what I am about to say, but it has to be said. I simply cannot stand by and watch the House take a decision that will have — could have enormous implications for the governance of Northern Ireland without at least standing up and warning of the consequences. It is often said that opposing the Executive is like jeering at a passing steamroller — that is probably about as much impact as I will have — but I want to be able to look the people of South Down in the face, maybe in 18 months' time, when this radically unravels, and say that, at least, I had the courage to stand up and say that we should not have done it.”
“Mr Lyons must be very reticent to speak when I am on my feet, because he has been given many opportunities through yesterday's debate and today's to explain the reason for the rush, the reason why less than 24 hours was given for amendments and why we are heading at breakneck speed down a road that may prove disastrous. He has not on any occasion been prepared to intervene when I have been speaking, so I am offering him the opportunity, since you have raised the question, to explain why we are doing this.”
“The junior Minister Mr Lyons is obviously quite shy when it comes to me, because he has been offered many opportunities to come to his feet to explain the rush, and he has sat quietly, as has Mr Kearney, and we have —.”
“The Member is making a valid point that there are 38 applications in the system. How many of those would be determined before October? Given that we are in the COVID-19 crisis and in the middle of the holiday period, if we decided to halt the consideration of the Bill to allow for cool heads to sit down and think through its implications, would any of the 38 applications be affected if we had the temerity to sit down and have a long hard look at what we are about to do?”
“That question was asked by so many Members yesterday. It is the one question that was evaded on every occasion by the proponents of the Bill. What would be wrong with parking the Final Stage of the Bill until October to allow a cool-headed reflection of its implications? I am perfectly happy for Mr Lyons, Mr Stalford or anyone else to stand up and answer these questions. Why the rush? Why did it have to be handled this way? If they do not answer those questions, I am afraid that many of us have deep suspicions around what is going on. <BR /> <BR />There is silence.”
“in the Chamber yesterday, but it is the one question that —”
“Let us move to consider another situation. One of your Ministers is responsible for infrastructure. He decides to implement Irish language road signs throughout Northern Ireland. Clearly, that is entirely within the ambit of the functions of his or her Department. Unless there is a policy forbidding it in the Programme for Government, how does that policy go onto the Executive table? What is to stop his Minister simply proceeding to introduce Irish language signs throughout Northern Ireland?”
“How do you bring something that many Members of the Assembly and in the Executive find utterly repugnant to the Executive under your legislation?”
“Let us envisage a situation, Mr Stalford, in which we have a pro-choice Minister of Health who exercises his authority in a way that is repugnant to many Members of the House. How do we bring his or her activities to the Executive? For it to be significant or controversial, the matter has to be clearly outside the ambit of the Programme for Government. Should it be cross-cutting, under the old law, it is very clear that it has to be brought to the Executive. However, under the new law, unless it affects significantly any other Department, it cannot be brought before the Executive. Now, abortion is a controversial issue, but it is difficult to see how it affects anything significantly in the work of the Department of Agriculture, the Department for Infrastructure or the Department for the Economy. Therefore, it fails those two tests.”
“Will Mr Stalford accept that the very same legal advisers gave advice to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme and that the advice was found to be very wanting indeed?”
“More windmills, Mr Lyons. You have not answered this question: what would be wrong with giving two more months' consideration of the Bill to iron out all the uncertainties that are so obviously inherent in it?”
“The junior Minister is tilting at windmills: we are not asking for any of that. The Minister has not addressed the issue of "Why the rush?". He has not quoted any outstanding legal challenges based on the Buick judgement. He has not indicated any crucial infrastructure project that we must get a decision on quickly if we do not pass the Bill. Will the Minister address the fundamental point — the one thing, I think, that the House can agree on today — that we need a few extra weeks to consider the Bill to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and so avert potential disaster?”
“Maybe it was an interesting time to get bad legislation passed without public scrutiny. I am worried about it, and I know that my view is held by many unionists throughout Northern Ireland. Therefore, I appeal to Mr Lyons to simply agree to an extension of the period for scrutiny of the Bill so that we can all agree with it or otherwise with a clear conscience knowing that we have done everything to check and double-check that what we are being told is correct.”
“The fundamental difference is that there had been months and months of debate on Brexit. Every jot and tittle and the minutiae of every piece of legislation and policy had been debated. The difference here is that we have had 24 days and less than two hours' scrutiny in its entirety. That is the crucial difference. <BR /> <BR />I get more and more suspicious about this legislation when Back-Benchers are ordered to stand up and support its rapid passage through the Chamber. That makes me more worried, because I have to wonder whether there is a hidden agenda to get it through on the nod. There is also the fact that they decided to table it when they knew that people's attention was on coronavirus, when many Members had holidays planned and when we had the issue with Mr Storey's funeral.”
“You could be in favour of the legislation, or you could be against the legislation: there is nothing that requires the urgency with which this is being pushed through. And the more that Members stand up —.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we know is that, when the late Martin McGuinness was about to leave his post as Education Minister, he unilaterally abolished the 11-plus, and the reason why we adopted St Andrews was to make it absolutely certain that that did not happen again. People might say, "But it hasn't happened since". Well, it has not happened because, although there are many obnoxious proposals emanating from the Members to my right that, if they had half a chance, they would implement, but they do not bother because they know that, under the present arrangements, it is not worth their while and they will be blocked. Anything that weakens that worries me intensely. I ask Mr Lyons to explain — this is the Achilles heel of the argument — what would be wrong if today we agreed not to move the Bill any further and to bring it back in October.”
“The honourable Member is very long-standing, and I have known him for about 50 years. The honourable Member misses my point. You could have a situation where Magee campus is very pleased to have courses transferred from Coleraine, and you could have a compliant Minister who would allocate the appropriate funding. There could be huge concern in the East Londonderry and North Antrim constituencies about that, and my reading of the legislation before us is that it could not be stopped. It is a totally hypothetical example. I was going down the route of the GAA, and that obviously caused offence to the Members to my right, so I am plucking that out of the air as another example. It could be pensions for those who have been involved in terrorist activity. It could be anything.”
“I will make no further comments about the GAA, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Let us give another example: a proposal to move university departments from Coleraine to Magee. That would cause huge concern to the community in Coleraine. A Sinn Féin Minister, should he happen to hold the portfolio, could do that. My interpretation of the legislation is that there is nothing that can be done, if the Bill goes through, to stop that, because it clearly is within his or her power and does not meet the criteria to be stopped under the legislation.”
“This is the organisation that holds "Great Escape" events in South Down — events eulogising Bobby Sands — and one of its leading lights was hurling sectarian abuse at a loyalist parade in Newcastle last September.”
“<BR /> <BR />Take Casement Park for instance, which is a planning decision. Say Sinn Féin decided to spend a vast amount of money, as it could, holding the Department for Communities, on making Casement Park even grander, that would cause huge concern amongst the unionist community, given the sectarian and republican nature of the GAA. Could we do anything to stop that? No, we could not, if Richard Bullick, I and Jim Allister etc are right. What will be the reaction of —?”
“The difficulty, Mr Storey, is that, if you are wrong and we go past the point of no return tomorrow, it could be calamitous for the future governance of Northern Ireland. If we have the temerity to ask for and receive a two-month delay to a final decision to enable further scrutiny and it transpires that Mr Bullick and the other legal opinions are wrong, what is there to lose? What would another eight or 12 weeks do to destroy or undermine the Bill? It would mean that, at the end of that period, we could all say, "We have considered the issue carefully, and we can give the Bill our total support". At the minute, there is still a doubt in my mind, and the Bill is too important to vote for if there is that shred of doubt, because the implications are absolutely enormous as far as the future of Northern Ireland is concerned.”
“On this occasion, we can connect Mr Bullick's integrity and knowledge with the debate, because we would not be having this debate without his intervention and that of other legal experts.”
“The reason that so many Back-Benchers respected the views of Richard Bullick was that they knew that he had a legal brain that was second to none in Northern Ireland and knew that he could be trusted in his understanding of complex and detailed legislation.”
“Now, let us move to Mr Bullick. To younger Members, the name "Richard Bullick" does not mean very much. I accept that, but I had the privilege of working alongside Richard for 20 years. In the DUP, when some Back-Bencher decided to look at all the facts and make up his own mind, he was taken in for a quiet bit of re-education. It was a good cop, bad cop situation. I will not name the bad cop — people may know who he is — but I will name the good cop: it was Richard. Whilst one would take the Schwarzenegger approach to re-education and make it clear that one's life would not be worth living unless one changed one's mind, Richard was a diplomat and a gentleman.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we had been told that there was any doubt about that "lock", as it were, or block on the activities of Sinn Féin Ministers, I do not think that it would ever have got through and I do not think that we would have had devolution in 2007. We accepted the commitment that was given. So far, it has worked and legal action has shown that we were right.”
“That was our reward for all our hard work. As a result of those discussions, the St Andrews Agreement occurred. <BR /> <BR />I then attended a series of public meetings. The main issue that sold the St Andrews Agreement to the vast majority of the unionist electorate was that we would always have the ace card up our sleeves to block anything that a Sinn Féin Minister — they never mentioned the SDLP, I do not know why — would do that would be to the detriment of our community. That agreement would never have had the support of unionism had it not been for that crucial undertaking. There was also an undertaking that mandatory coalition would last only for eight years. Unfortunately, we are still stuck with a totally unworkable system.”
“I can tell the Member that doubt has been sown in this obscure Back-Bencher's mind. I can assure him of that. I am extremely worried, and, going by the phone calls that I have had over the past two or three days, a lot of people in his party have the same concerns. As I sit here, I am getting texts and emails that say, "We are desperately concerned as to what the party is doing on this subject". <BR /> <BR />Let us go back to the St Andrews Agreement. I chaired the Programme for Government Committee that led to the St Andrews Agreement. It was a long period of discussions with the parties. The then Speaker, Mrs Bell, decided not to chair them, so myself and Mr Donnelly chaired those discussions for months and months. Our reward was that we did not get invited to St Andrews. I am not bitter.”
“I did not raise any concerns, but when a large body of very professional legal advice says, "Hold on here, there is a doubt", it is incumbent upon us, when there is absolutely no need for the Bill to be rushed through, to sit down with cool heads and examine it. If, when we have all has a chance to do that, it transpires that our concerns are wrong and misplaced, I will be the first to stand up and say, "Yes, I was wrong". At the moment, I am not in a place and a position to say whether it is right to go ahead with the Bill or it is not. It is too important. It is not like a dog-fighting or litter-picking Bill. It is too important, when there is that doubt in our minds, to let it go through to a situation that can never be redeemed. Mr Stalford has admitted that there is that level of doubt.”