Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 November 2012

538 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to introduce the Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) Bill [NIA 16/11-15], which is a Bill to enable the Department for Regional Development to continue to make payments to water and sewerage undertakers for a limited period; and to make provision requiring certain notices to be registered in the Statutory Charges Register.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Superannuation Bill [NIA 6/11-15] do now pass.

I record my gratitude to the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for their detailed scrutiny of the Superannuation Bill. That was evidenced by the need to extend the Committee Stage beyond the usual time and the number of evidence sessions that were held with the Civil Service trade union representatives and other stakeholders, including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and departmental officials. I also thank Members for their support, and I look forward to their continued support in the passage of the Bill through to its Royal Assent.

I now turn to the Bill. The Superannuation Act 1972 in Great Britain was amended in December 2010 to remove the requirement in that Act for trade union consent to detrimental changes in the Civil Service compensation scheme in Great Britain. However, it also augmented the procedure for consultation with trade unions by introducing new reporting requirements to document the consultation that is being carried out with the aim of reaching agreement on changes.

As Members may know, the Northern Ireland Civil Service generally operates pension and compensation scheme arrangements on the basis of parity with Great Britain. The Superannuation Bill will amend the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to position the Department of Finance and Personnel to introduce equivalent secondary legislative changes to amend the terms of the compensation scheme for the Northern Ireland Civil Service in line with those introduced for Home civil servants in December 2010. However, until the Superannuation Bill becomes law, the Civil Service compensation scheme in Northern Ireland cannot be amended. That means that the terms of the compensation scheme for the Northern Ireland Civil Service remain more generous than those in operation in the Home Civil Service scheme. Failure to maintain parity with Great Britain and to realign the two schemes will exert an unjustifiable pressure on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. In short, the Bill is important and necessary legislation.

As you know, during Committee Stage, the Committee considered that a strong case existed for amending the Bill to provide for a measure of Assembly control. As such, the Committee proposed an amendment that would subject any scheme that has the effect of reducing the amount of compensation benefit to negative resolution. I welcomed the opportunity to consider that amendment and, after consultation with the Office of Legislative Counsel, I agreed to it as it will strengthen the role of the Assembly, address the trade union concerns about fairness and scrutiny and provide a level of assurance in that regard.

As discussed at Consideration Stage, the newly reconstituted pension forum offers the opportunity for compromise and agreement on potential nuances in the timing and substance of compensation scheme changes. The pension forum continues to meet regularly, and I believe that it is a perfect vehicle for meaningful engagement and consultation between my Department and trade unions.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Final Stage of the Superannuation Bill.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, it received written submissions and held oral hearings with key stakeholders. The Committee agreed a number of key conclusions and policy recommendations in addition to the amendment to the Bill, all of which helped to address issues raised in evidence. Those were set out in detail in the Committee report and were accepted by the Minister. I addressed the provisions of the Bill in detail during the debates at its previous stages, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work that the Committee will be concerned with as a result of the Bill coming to pass.

Members were mindful that the removal of the requirement for the Department to obtain the consent of the Civil Service trade unions for a reduction in benefits provided under the Civil Service compensation scheme was always going to be a contentious issue. During Committee Stage, the Department provided important clarification that engagement between Civil Service management and the trade unions offers opportunity for compromise and agreement on potential nuances to the timing and substance of compensation scheme changes in the North. In its report, the Committee recommended that local consultation with the trade unions should be undertaken at the formative stage of policy development and in tandem with, rather than subsequent to, the respective Whitehall Department. The Committee believes that the pensions forum has the potential to provide an appropriate mechanism for meaningful engagement in that regard.

I now turn to the agreed amendment to the Bill, the specifics of which were well rehearsed during the debate at Consideration Stage. The Committee believes that the agreed amendment will provide a measure of Assembly control, which is appropriate in the context of devolution. After some debate, the Committee opted for the negative resolution procedure in the amendment to align more with the provision in the 1972 Order for changes to the compensation schemes of other public servants. In addition, the Minister has provided assurances to the Committee regarding the Department’s intention to observe the 21-day rule in the laying of a scheme under such Assembly control.

The work that arises from the Bill, in particular the engagement undertaken in relation to future subordinate legislation, will, therefore, be conducted in the context of the safeguards in the Bill and the assurances that the Department has provided to the Committee and the wider Assembly. In terms of the assurances, consultation reports laid by the Department under clause 2 of the Bill will be expected to demonstrate and provide transparency by setting out in detail the appropriate steps that have been taken to try to secure agreement between management side and trade union side.

I thank the Minister and departmental officials for their responsiveness and assistance to the Committee throughout the development of the legislative proposals. On behalf of the Committee, I formally support granting the Bill its Final Stage.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I support the Bill's Final Stage. As the Committee Chairman said, quite a lot of evidence was taken, and members decided to support the Bill throughout and are pleased to support its Final Stage.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Chéim Dheiridh an Bhille. I support the Bill at Final Stage.

The Minister referred to the amendment to the Bill, which I think strengthens the Assembly's role by giving Members, the Committee and political parties the opportunity to hold the Department to account. Without that amendment, it would simply have been a matter of taking the veto away from the trade unions and handing it to the Department, and there would certainly have been an element of hypocrisy in that. It will become the case that a veto, if there is one, will be given to the Assembly, which is where I believe it should be. That is good for the devolved institutions and for democracy.

The Committee had some debate about the differences between consultation and negotiation. At the end of the day and because of the lack of case law around negotiation, the Committee preferred to follow the legal precedent associated with consultation. However, I think that the amendment urges the Department to consult seriously with trade unions. The report produced as a result of such consultation would be subject to negative resolution, and I think that will encourage the Department to ensure that real efforts are made to reach agreement with the trade unions. So, I think that the Committee's scrutiny has been helpful and has produced a fair outcome in relation to the Bill. For that reason, I support the Bill.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak briefly at the Bill's Final Stage. Given the ongoing economic uncertainty facing our society, there is an evident and pressing need for us to continually revise and refine how we govern. That applies equally to the processes that we employ to maintain the pension and compensation schemes for our public sector. As other Members have said, the Bill primarily amends the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, with a fundamental change relating to trade union engagement when changing the Civil Service compensation scheme.

The enactment of the Bill will remove the requirement for trade union consent to any proposed changes to reduce compensation levels payable to civil servants on redundancy. However, as the unions play a vital part in representing our public sector workers, the new requirements in the Bill will call upon the Department to report on the consultation process that is undertaken. The introduction of such a requirement places the responsibility on the Department and the Minister to be transparent and accountable in how they present information and engage in consultation. That should ensure due process and that credence is given to the trade union voice. The Alliance Party, therefore, supports the passage of the Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank Members for the contributions that they have made in this short debate. It is an important issue. I do not think that the shortness of the debate is in any way reflective of how important the issue is. Of course, it is an important issue, but the fact that the debate has been a short one is an indication of how much work was done at Committee Stage to satisfy the members that the legislation that is coming forward has sought to provide the safeguards that they wished to see, while at the same time recognising the reality that I spelt out at the start of the debate — namely, that we need to have the changes in place if we are going to have the changes in the superannuation scheme. If we do not bring those through, it will, of course, be very costly to the Assembly. I think that Members at least recognise that, where there are parity issues and where deviation from parity is going to incur huge costs to the Assembly, whether they like parity or not, and whether they would like to plough their own furrow or not, nevertheless, there are constraints upon us. It really is cavalier to suggest that we can go our own way regardless of the economic consequences.

I thank the Members for the way in which they have conducted the scrutiny of the Bill. As I have said, and as Members have acknowledged, as a result of that scrutiny and of recommendations that were made, we have amended part of the Bill to try to strengthen the role of the Assembly. All of the Members made the same point, which was to ask, if we are taking away the veto from trade unions, what we can do and what we are doing to ensure that at least there is proper consultation and that, when we say that we are going to consult, there is some mechanism to determine whether that consultation has been proper.

There are a number of things. First of all, we have the pensions forum, which meets monthly, where those issues are discussed, as Mr Bradley and the Chairman said, at an early stage with the trade unions. There is a long process of looking at any changes that are to be made so that there can be a proper input. I actually think that that ongoing work is better than what some people suggested, which was to have a fixed period of consultation, because it allows all the nuances that people have talked about to be gone through.

The second thing is that not only does there have to be that process but a report has to be made to the Assembly on what consultation has taken place, with records of that consultation. We have said that, when the Assembly is considering any changes to the compensation scheme, we will lay the regulations 21 days prior to the discussion. So, there is the report looking at the consultation; there is the 21-day period; and then, of course, there is the change that we have agreed with the Committee, which is the negative resolution. I am not so sure that we would call it an Assembly veto, as Mr Bradley described it, and I hope that it is seen not as that but as a genuine attempt to give the Assembly its say and a chance to look at all the information in terms of any superannuation changes and how we have come to reach that point.

Mr Bradley raised the issue, which the Committee had talked about, of whether it should be consultation or negotiation. It is quite clear from the terms of the reference of the pension forum with the trade unions that it was formal consultation and not negotiation. The whole idea of consultation is that it is designed to reach agreement, if that is possible. In negotiations, of course, you have to reach agreement, so there is a difference. Negotiation is used more for pay issues than superannuation issues.

I hope that I have shown to the Assembly that, first, although this change is necessary, it reflects what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is necessary if we are to get changes made quickly, but it still has built-in safeguards. For those reasons, I ask the Assembly to pass the Bill and allow it to move quickly to Royal Assent. That will allow us to put in place the arrangements that are necessary to change the compensation scheme in time to avoid any economic penalties for the Executive and the public purse in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Superannuation Bill [NIA 6/11-15] do now pass.

Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Mr Wells will have 10 minutes to make his contribution, and all other contributors will have five minutes.

A valid petition of concern was presented on Friday 16 November in relation to this motion. I advise Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly, in consideration of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (NIA 71/11-15), imposes upon Mr Jim Wells MLA the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of seven days beginning on the day after the resolution.

Before I start, Mr Speaker — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

— I congratulate you and all of your staff on a wonderful weekend of celebrations for this Building.

I move the motion on behalf of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and, in doing so, I ask the Assembly to agree to impose upon Mr Jim Wells the sanction of exclusion from the proceedings of the Assembly for a period of seven days.

I take no satisfaction whatsoever in asking the Assembly to do this. However, I think that the Assembly has a duty to respond to the breach of the code of conduct that has been identified by the interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

All Members have received a copy of the Committee's report on the complaints about the conduct of Mr Wells that were made by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín and Ms Mary McArdle. Each complained about separate encounters with Mr Wells in June 2011. The former interim Commissioner for Standards, Dr Tom Frawley, investigated those complaints, and Members have also received a copy of his reports.

Ms Ní Chuilín alleged that, on 8 June 2011, Mr Wells confronted her on the West Staircase in Parliament Buildings in an aggressive and threatening manner. She said that Mr Wells had pointed his finger very close to her face and told her that she would not be welcomed by the Ulster-Scots community and that neither she nor her special adviser would be going to south Down.

As we all know, Ms Ní Chuilín's special adviser at that time was the other complainant, Ms McArdle. Specifically, Ms Ní Chuilín claimed that Mr Wells had said to her:

"You needn't think you are going to bring that murderer to South Down."

Ms Ní Chuilín described Mr Wells as having been very angry, venomous and intimidating during this encounter and said that she had found the exchange completely unexpected and unsettling. Ms McArdle alleged that Mr Wells confronted her later the same month. She said that he passed her on the first floor corridor in Parliament Buildings and said to her, "There is the murderer herself." She went on to say that Mr Wells told her that she had murdered a young woman coming from her place of worship, that she was a disgrace and that she had better not dare come to south Down. Ms McArdle said that the whole exchange lasted one or two minutes and that, during that entire time, Mr Wells wagged his finger in her face. She described Mr Wells as having been forceful, aggressive and intimidating during the encounter and said that she considered his conduct to be an abuse of power.

Mr Wells has accepted that separate exchanges took place between him and each of the complainants on the dates in question. There is no real dispute about the general tenor of those encounters. There are, however, some specific differences between the complainants' and Mr Wells's accounts of the respective exchanges. In respect of his encounter with Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Wells said that he told her that he disagreed with the appointment of Ms McArdle as her special adviser. He considered that he had most likely made a remark along the lines of, "You had better not bring her to south Down." Although Mr Wells believed that he may have wagged his finger towards Ms Ní Chuilín, he had no recollection of having pointed his finger at her in an aggressive manner.

In respect of his encounter with Ms McArdle, Mr Wells disputed the allegation that he called her a murderer, although he said that he had mumbled a snide remark as he passed her. He said that he had used the phrase "monster adviser" before saying to her, "You murdered Mary Travers coming out of her Catholic place of worship." Mr Wells said that he may well have said to Ms McArdle that she was a disgrace and that she had better not come to south Down. However, he disputed that he had used the word "dare" in this context.

The interim Commissioner was unable to corroborate either Mr Wells's or the complainants' accounts of the exchanges that occurred. The interim Commissioner, therefore, examined the provisions of the code of conduct against the conduct that Mr Wells himself acknowledged in responding to each of the complainant's complaints against him. Having done so, the interim Commissioner concluded that Mr Wells had breached the code of conduct. Specifically, the interim Commissioner said that Mr Wells's conduct on both occasions was in conflict with the principles of conduct of respect and good working relationships.

The Committee has agreed with the interim Commissioner's conclusions. The code of conduct requires Members to treat other Members and their staff with courtesy and respect. Individuals should not be subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. That is clear. It is the Committee's view that, on each of the two occasions in question, Mr Wells's conduct went beyond what is acceptable under the code of conduct.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

No; sorry. I am too busy at the minute with this. You will have plenty of time to contribute afterwards.

The Committee also reached that view after giving the matter careful consideration. We recognise Members' rights to express their opinions, and we agree, of course, that Mr Wells should not have been prevented from expressing his opinion on Ms McArdle's appointment. However, the issue is the manner in which Mr Wells expressed his opinion. When you confront someone in the corridor, call them a monster, point your finger in their face and warn them to keep out of a certain area, you have crossed the line into unacceptable behaviour.

It is a matter of real regret that the Committee had to bring this motion to the Chamber. The Committee had agreed that an appropriate apology from Mr Wells would have been a fitting and proportionate resolution to the matter. It is very disappointing that Mr Wells chose not apologise. His failure to apologise left the Committee with no option but to bring forward this motion to impose a sanction and, therefore, to have this debate.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to make a few comments on behalf of my party and on my own behalf.

Once again, I express sincere sympathy to the Travers family on the heinous and shocking loss of a beloved member of their family. It is obvious that, as for so many other victims of the Troubles, their pain and suffering continue. No doubt, today's proceedings will exacerbate that pain.

Our primary aim as Members is to make good legislation, to help and advise all our constituents and to abide by a set of rules. We should be using this hour and a half to help eradicate poverty, to help get jobs into Northern Ireland and to help prevent so many people — 392 people — losing their home — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. The motion before the House was tabled by the Standards and Privileges Committee. This debate is about nothing else and nothing more. I warn all sides of the House that I will not allow any Member to widen the debate. I will not allow that to happen. Mr McCarthy, please continue.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The entire Assembly approved the appointment of an independent ombudsman. He has completed his work fairly and squarely. Surely we have a duty to support his findings, whether we like them or not. I thank Dr Tom Frawley and his staff for the work that they have completed on our behalf.

Mr Wells must surely acknowledge that he went overboard and crossed the line. He could quietly have made amends for his actions. Of course, Mr Wells was not the only one outraged at the appointment: we were all outraged. Why is it so difficult for DUP Members and perhaps other Members to say, "Sorry"? Even David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, stood at the Dispatch Box and said, "Sorry".

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am being reasonable with the Member, but he is going outside the brief of the motion.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Members have got the gist of what we are talking about today. I was disappointed to learn this morning that a petition of concern had been tabled. That is another misuse of the mechanisms of the House. I urge Members to support the motion.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I thank Mr McCarthy for proposing the motion. As Chair of the Committee, I would generally do so, but, given that I am totally opposed to the motion, voted against it in Committee and will vote against it again today, it was not appropriate for me to propose it.

On his personal remarks as a member of the Alliance Party, I must ask Mr McCarthy, if he thinks that we should follow the Commissioner for Standards on everything that he does, what the point is of having the Committee in the first instance.

I, too, am disappointed that we have got to this stage. Many difficult decisions in Committee have been handled with a level of maturity, as such issues should be. However, the fact that we have brought the motion to the Floor of the House shows a degree of failure in the Committee.

The motion calls for the suspension of Mr Jim Wells for a week from the House. It is not about whether Mr Wells broke the code of conduct when he had his encounter with the two individuals. Mr McCarthy, it is important to clarify that there was not agreement in Committee on whether Mr Wells had breached the code of conduct in the first instance, nor was there agreement on whether we should table the motion. There are Members on this side of the House who argued that Back-Benchers have a fundamental right to express their own views and a right to challenge Ministers on decisions that they have taken, particularly those that were taken in a context in which people across Northern Ireland were left very upset.

I also heard, during the discussions on the report, Committee members talking about how it was important that we protect the integrity of the Committee and the integrity of the House. That was absolutely right, but the motion does nothing to protect the integrity of the House or the integrity of the Committee. Indeed, I heard Mr McCarthy propose in Committee that we should suspend Mr Wells for an indefinite period. That would do nothing to enhance the integrity of the House. The motion in front of us was proposed by Members from Sinn Féin and supported by the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not recall saying what you have just said I said. When it was proposed that Mr Wells be suspended, I remember posing the question of whether he would be suspended with or without pay. That is a different subject.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. My recollection is very different, and I will be interested to hear if other Members agree with my recollection that the Member proposed that Mr Wells should be suspended indefinitely until he came to the House for an apology.

Let me put on record the reason why I think the House should oppose the motion. It is very simple: this is not a proportionate response to the alleged breach of the code of conduct. To suspend a Member for a week for allegedly having had an encounter with a Minister and her adviser in the corridors in which they claimed that they were upset is not —

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Member said that there was an alleged breach. From my reading of the report, there was a breach. I want the Speaker to rule on that.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Allow the Member to continue.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not a punishment that in any way fits the crime, and it is not a proportionate response. If Members take a cursory look at other legislatures around the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic, they will see that this is not a proportionate response.

I want to draw the House's attention to other jurisdictions in which there have been suspensions of a Member for a week or longer. On 12 May 2011, Mr David Laws was suspended from the House of Commons for seven days for a breach of rules regarding rented accommodation. It was around the misuse of expenses. On 25 January 2008, Derek Conway was suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days for serious misuse of parliamentary funds when he was paying his son for work that he was not judged to be doing. Again, that is a serious financial matter. On 2 February 2005, Mr George Galloway was suspended for 18 sitting days for receiving undisclosed personal financial benefit from the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr Clive Betts was suspended for a week for the employment of a personal friend whose study visa had expired and for being party to altering a letter that was then presented to an immigration official. Again, that was a very serious breach of the code of conduct in the House of Commons, and he was suspended for seven days. In 2002, Keith Vaz was suspended for a month for allegations that he had interfered with an investigation.

It is not just the House of Commons that we can look to for evidence; we can look at the Scottish Parliament. On 1 March 2007, Mr Brian Monteith was given a suspension of five days for disclosure of confidential information to the media. Again, that was a serious breach in which a Member leaked information to the media. On 1 July 2005, a number of Members — Colin Fox, Frances Curran, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie — were suspended for a month for disorderly conduct during First Minister's questions, and that matter was referred to the Scottish Committee. Again, the Scottish examples are about serious breaches of the code of conduct. Something similar happened in Wales in May 2012, when Keith Davies was censured for unreasonable behaviour in a hotel room that was paid for by the taxpayer.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not give way because I have very little time left.

I have made the point that this is not a proportionate response. In other jurisdictions throughout the United Kingdom, this is not how such a situation is handled. It will set a precedent in Northern Ireland that a Member who commits a minor breach of the code of conduct will be suspended for a week.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I ask the House this: given that a precedent is being set for such a minor breach, what will we do with a Member who seriously breaches the code of conduct? I urge the House to protect the integrity of the Committee and the House and vote against the motion today.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is up.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá i dtacaíocht an rúin. I will say a few words in support of the motion. I disagree with the Chair. It is his role to direct and guide the Committee, and the majority of people in the Committee voted for the motion. Mr Speaker, I am glad that you gave the direction on how the debate should take place, because I do not want to see people going off on a tangent. This is about a motion being tabled by a Committee and brought to the Floor of the House by the majority of the Committee. I would like Members to stick to the motion. Unfortunately, over the past number of weeks, a few contentious motions have been brought to the Floor of the House, and this is another one. As the Deputy Chair of the Committee said, we should be talking about unemployment and poverty and everything else. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

This is a Committee motion; it is not a Sinn Féin motion, so Members may understand that. Although my name is on it, it is normally the procedure that the Committee's name should be on it because it tabled it. However, I accept that my name is on it.

I want to bring a few things to the Floor of the House. This whole Building is an office, be it the basement for refreshment; the ground floor, where this very Chamber is based for debate; the first floor, where people can bring issues to Ministers; the second floor for administrative backup; the third floor offices; or the fourth floor for IT and HR. The whole Building is used for the benefit of Members to bring debates and to support them in their role as MLAs. We are talking here about the Nolan principles and how Members should — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— conduct themselves in this Building. It is an office. Members can deny that all they like, but, basically, that is what it is. The Chair spoke about what happened in Committee. The issue is that the Member has been found in breach, and that is in the report. I had to laugh when I heard him, because I have experienced working with Mr Wells in Committee in a previous mandate and I have never heard Mr Wells mumble anything. He is very articulate in everything that he puts across — I will give him that — so I do not accept what he said here in response. He will have a fair crack of the whip.

I want to spend my remaining two minutes talking about the role of the Committee. All Members are mandated to represent their communities here, but they also signed up to the Good Friday Agreement and this institution and how it should — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— and the formation of the institution. They are either here to respect that or they are not. They are either going to follow the rules and regulations of it or they are not. That is what I am saying. So, we are part of a scrutiny Committee. We have gone down the route of having an independent commissioner bring forward a report, and the majority of the Committee respected the decision on that.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

OK.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is important that we put it on record very clearly that no unionist on the Committee at any stage supported any aspect of the report. It was supported entirely by a cabal of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the smaller parties.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Maybe the Member is hard of hearing. The majority of the Committee supported this, so the Committee brought it forward. I said the majority. Those are the rules, and that is what we are adhering to. I will say this: the majority of the Committee supported the motion and the report from an independent commissioner. There are Committee staff here at the minute. I could very well ask this: what is the point of having a scrutiny Committee on Standards and Privileges?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you very much. It is not so much that I want to challenge the Committee on Standards and Privileges and say that it does not have a role after today. The Member said that we were setting a precedent. There is a petition of concern in, so we are not going anywhere down the road of setting precedents. The issue is about respecting the decisions and respecting what is here. If the role of the Committee is to ensure that a commissioner brings forward a report as part of the process, you should respect that. That is what will come out of today. I go back to this: it was a Committee —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

OK. Go on.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will be very brief. The interim Commissioner for Standards did not bring forward a proposal to suspend the Member from the House. That is what the Assembly is being asked to do today. That is the issue in protecting the integrity of the House. It is on the question of suspending a Member for seven days for such a minor alleged breach of the code of conduct.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member would not apologise, and, to be fair, the Committee gave the Member ample opportunity. [Interruption.] To be honest — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. Members should not shout across the Chamber. Allow the Member to continue.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With the last 10 seconds I have. The Member was given ample opportunity to write an apology. Actually, I did not favour that, but the Committee supported it. With that in mind, I support the motion.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Let me touch on some of the background that might explain the motivation for these complaints. Within the debate and, frankly, despair in the community about the appointment of Mary McArdle, the Ulster Unionist Party identified one certainty, which is that Sinn Féin was wrong not to notify the Travers family that it was about to promote a woman convicted for her part in the murder of Mary Travers. It is wrong because Sinn Féin says that it understands victims and understands their needs. They even tell us that they themselves are victims. So they understand that victims are not only traumatised by the event that happened to them and their loved ones but live in a constant, relentless fear of being retraumatised, of waking up some morning to news that plunges them back. That is what Sinn Féin did to Ann Travers. The complainants understand victims, so they know that they should have done something to warn Ann Travers, to send a message or find an intermediary to say, "Look, in a couple of days, you will wake up to news that you will find impossible to take. It will fast-track you back to the blackest day of your life".

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely, the debate is about the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Mr Nesbitt's role as commissioner is not what we are debating today.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I warned the whole House earlier: the debate is about the motion before the House; it is about nothing else. So, I warn all sides of the House. I will allow Members some latitude around all these issues, as Members know from the past. So, as far as possible, contributions should be to the motion.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just emphasise that I was trying to give some context to the motivation for the complaints coming from two members of Sinn Féin, a party that demands respect, human rights and equality — certainly, when it suits them.

I will skip on, then, to Mr Wells. What should we think about Mr Wells and what he is supposed have said and done? It appears that he said and did things that are matters of regret. It would perhaps be better if he had not said and did whatever he said and did. However, he was angry; like most people, he was angry. It is not just me saying that it is a matter of regret: Ann Travers thinks it would have been better left unsaid. I know that because the Ulster Unionist Party asked her. We do not just say, as a piece of rhetoric, that we understand victims; we put victims first, by asking them, "What do you think about this?".

Here is an interesting fact: Ann Travers feels guilty about what is happening in the Chamber today. I do not need to tell Sinn Féin that; they understand victims, of course. They get it immediately. However, for the rest of us, the point is this: a part of Ann thinks that it is her fault that we are having this debate and that, if she had not —these are her words, not mine — "made such a fuss" about Mary McArdle being promoted by Carál Ní Chuilín, we would not be here doing this. You can say that that guilt is irrational, but ask Sinn Féin and they will tell you — they know all about victims — that those feelings of guilt are very common among victims. So these complaints and the long slow process towards resolution have served only to put Ann Travers through hell once again. I can put it no more simply than this: given that Sinn Féin understands victims, I can only conclude that it is cynically exploiting Ann and her family with these complaints.

Now, there is another side to Ann's reaction, and I must again ask Sinn Féin to excuse me for stating the obvious. I listened to the Minister, Carál Ní Chuilín, on the BBC television news last week, reacting to Jim Wells. She said that we all needed to respect each other. She said that an insult to one elected representative was an insult to the people who elect them. This is the same Carál Ní Chuilín who once posted a tweet on her social media site describing Michael McDowell, an elected politician and Irish Government Minister, as — I quote — "a complete gobshite". She said of this elected representative, Michael McDowell, that — I quote:

"It makes you think of white sheets and of burning crosses".

I am sorry that the Minister is troubled by those images, but, forgive me, I am more concerned about the mental images that Ann Travers has to cope with when she thinks of Mary McArdle. She thinks of her sister bleeding to death in her mother's arms, a gun pointed at her mother's head that misfired not once but twice and of the gun pumping shot after shot into her father.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I will.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am sure that the Member would like another minute. Does he not think, given the traumas that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party are revisiting on Ann Travers, that they should withdraw the motion rather than push it to a vote?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute added to his time. Once again, I make the point that even interventions need to keep to the motion before the House — [Interruption.] Order. I remind the whole House and the Member who has the Floor that this is not about the Culture Minister and it is not about any other Minister: it is about the report from the Standards and Privileges Committee, which the House is debating.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that Ann Travers would feel that she wants this to finish. So, if the easiest and quickest way for it to finish would be for Sinn Féin to withdraw the debate, absolutely, that would suit her. However, because this has gone on for so long — she has lived with this for well over a year now — she is questioning, although she does not really need to question, the motivation of those who brought the complaint.

Mr Speaker, you said that today is about Jim Wells, and I accept that. However, it is also about other people, with your indulgence. It seems that the debate has turned its focus to say that this is not about what Mary McArdle did; it is about what was done to her. Therefore, in the virtual world of Sinn Féin, as the clock strikes 13, the perpetrator becomes the victim. The victim of what? Exposure to what most people were thinking at the time. How will the Ulster Unionists vote? I asked Ann Travers if she had any advice, and she said just three words: "Support Jim Wells".

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not propose to speak for long. I am sure that you will be delighted. The SDLP will provide only one Member to speak in the debate, because we believe that there are much more important issues to be discussed in the Chamber today. It is unfortunate that we have school students in here watching the debate. I hope that Members are mindful of the fact that people are looking at this place and looking to us to provide leadership and hoping that, maybe, we can provide a different kind of leadership for our young people.

The fact is that the Committee on Standards and Privileges had a report from the interim commissioner that said that Mr Wells breached the code of conduct for Members in the way that he acted in the House. My view on that is that it is simple: there has to be some form of sanction. However, it must be pointed out — Mr Wells, maybe, needs to know this — that many members around the Committee table tried to avoid this day. We did not want to bring this to the Chamber, mainly because we did not want to give Mr Wells and all the other people another platform. We offered Mr Wells a way out. Mr Wells was offered the opportunity to provide an apology to the offended parties. He refused to do that, and now we are here today. This is being debated in the House today because of Mr Wells. The bottom line —

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No, I am sure that you will have your say, Mr Wells. The bottom line is this: it is incumbent on all of us in the House to treat each other with respect, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not and whether you are in government with them or not. You have to treat each and every person — each and every colleague in the House — with respect. It is very unfortunate that, again in the House, we are repeating and regurgitating old arguments when we could be dealing the thousands upon thousands of people who are leaving our shores or joining dole queues. Instead of doing that, we are talking about Mr Wells. Let us get this done and done quickly. This is on Mr Wells: he had an opportunity to apologise, and he did not take it.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I want to deal with one practical issue in the report before us today before developing the theme a little. There is an issue with the timeline. The complaint was received on 30 June, and Mr Wells was contacted, presumably, on 3 September. When the issues being raised include supposedly as serious a matter as wagging your finger close to someone's face and you are expected, two months later, to remember whether you did in fact do so, that is inappropriate. On any future occasion, if a complaint is lodged, the Member concerned should be informed as soon as possible thereafter so that their memory of how close or otherwise to the face a finger was wagged is fresh.

I move on to the body of the report. This is a serious matter. However, when I read the report, I found shades of Basil Fawlty. At the start of the report, Ms Ní Chuilín says that she found her altercation with Mr Wells unsettling. So, a Member who served four years for her terrorist occupation and involvement with weapons in a bomb attack found it unsettling that words were exchanged. After spending four years in jail for terror offences, she was unsettled because somebody raised their voice at her. Then, of course, she spent 10 years as a co-ordinator for Tar Anall or whatever it is called, which is a project for republican ex-prisoners. So I am sure that there were many occasions during those 10 years when people waved finger close to her face. We have no record of her finding those occasions unsettling, but she found this one unsettling. Then, she went on to say that Mr Wells conducted himself in an aggressive and intimidating manner. Intimidating? A Member involved in terror found a raised finger intimidating.

I will almost rest my case there, but I feel the need to move on because Ms McArdle then put in a complaint as well. She used a whole range of phrases to describe her conversation with Mr Wells, words such as forceful, aggressive, hostile and intimidating. I will take the Fawlty Towers analogy a bit further: I cannot second-guess the secretary in the interim commissioner's office, but even that person did not put the following in inverted commas. Whether they were too embarrassed to do so, I do not know. Ms McArdle also said that she did not expect anyone to be subjected to such behaviour in their place of work. This is a person who, as we all know, was convicted for their part in the murder of Mary Travers, but she talks about people being subjected to such behaviour as a raised voice in their place of work.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I will.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that, as stated in the report, six members of staff reportedly heard the two meetings between me, McArdle and the Minister, but, when interviewed by Tom Frawley, not one of them heard it, and not one of them remembered it?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Member to speak in such disparaging terms and not address her as Ms McArdle?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Well, Mr Speaker, unfortunately, and Mr Eastwood made the point —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. On that point of order, it is important that Members use proper names when debating any subject.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On the point that Mr Eastwood made, people have to work out the rationale for bringing the motion. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that we should be involving ourselves in more important business, put their hand up in Committee to bring a debate on the report here and then say that it would be far better if we were talking about jobs. Do you want to talk about jobs or the report? You cannot bring the report to the Assembly and then say that it should not be here.

I will expand the theme that Mr Eastwood developed. Mr Wells is the centre of attention today because of the Committee vote that brought the report here.

If people want more indications of unionist anger at what Sinn Féin did in the past, they will get them. I just wonder why I have treated Sinn Féin in a particular way for 14 years and there has never been a complaint. Have people got the stomach for a complaint? Do they not want to complain? What is your problem with making a complaint? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members must make their remarks through the Chair.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

You see, Mr Speaker, some unionists react to Sinn Féin as though that party had never been involved with terror. Some other unionists —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member is skating on very thin ice with regard to Sinn Féin, which is a political party that is represented in the Chamber. He knows that fine well. He is trying to get a reaction. However, we cannot let it pass. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Sinn Féin, who they share power with around the Executive table and who they share the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister with, was never involved in terror.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As I said, Mr Speaker, some unionists react to Sinn Féin as though it had never been involved with terror. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would appear that the Member is ignoring the Speaker's ruling. Is his language appropriate or not?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, let us bring Members back to the report. I ask Members to be careful with their language and how they use it in the House.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Other unionists react to Sinn Féin as though it had never been forced to stop their involvement with terror. However, all democrats in the Chamber deal in different ways with those who were past terrorists. I know the way that I have dealt with them. I support Mr Wells.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I support the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The fact that the Chairman did not present the report is a reflection on the Committee itself and on the Chairman. In any situation, whenever someone chairs a Committee, we expect the Chair to represent the Committee at different times, regardless of whether they agree with it.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I did not speak in the debate as Chairman of the Committee. However, does the Member honestly suggest that it would be appropriate for the person who voted against the motion in the Committee, and who proposes to vote against it today, to move it? That would be a preposterous position to adopt.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute added to his time.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

If the Chairman reflected on his role as Chair, he would be able to reflect on the Committee and present a report from whatever quarter it came. After all, it is your Committee. It is not a Sinn Féin Committee or an SDLP Committee. It is your Committee — the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No. I will not give way again.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take umbrage with the fact that the Member is trying to suggest to the House that, in some way, I am biased in my chairing of the Committee. If any Member has a complaint to make about how I chair the Committee, I propose that he or she brings it forward. I will not accept any Committee member's suggesting to the House that I chair it in any way partially.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has certainly put his remarks on record. Let us move on.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We will reflect on that.

The role of the Chair is an important issue, but it is not the main one. The petition of concern is more important. We now have a situation where it is pointless to have a Committee on Standards and Privileges, because every report that that Committee brings forward will simply be deferred by the DUP when it does not like it. So, what would be the point of having a Committee on Standards and Privileges in future?

Mr Wells has got his backup and support today. It is noticeable that he used to be away down in the corner of the Chamber on his own, which is where he took himself once when he fell out with the party. Now the party has moved down to him and has given him a wee bit of support to get round today.

Before us today is a report from the interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards. He has upheld the complaint. Whatever else happens, with the petition of concern or whatever else it could be, Mr Wells has been found guilty by the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. So, he is guilty of the offence and of the complaint that has been made against him. Whatever about the petition of concern, it will not save the fact that Mr Wells has been found guilty. Remember this is a future Minister of Health. A future Minister of Health has been found guilty of bullying. When he is the Minister of Health, he will have to say that he does not want staff in hospitals and in the health service to be bullied. This is the man who actually is bullying around this Chamber.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us return to the motion. All contributions should be on the motion.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, I think that it is very relevant.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Member who has just sat down but who currently has the Floor to suggest that Mr Wells has been found guilty of bullying? No such guilt has been found at all.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Apologise. You did not treat me with respect.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. Order. I take it that most Members have read the report, and its findings are absolutely clear. Let us move on.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. We have had an indication that Mr Wells bullied two women outside the House. We also had the situation in which he bullied women in the House and called them names. On that occasion, he very quickly realised his position and apologised. It is a pity that he did not do the same in this situation, but he failed to do so. So, we have a situation now in which unionists have filed a petition of concern, which is their safeguard.

South Down is a no-go area for Sinn Féin or for Ministers and whoever Mr Wells does not like in this situation, so he will decide who actually can come in and out of south Down and actually threaten everyone else who he does not want to come into it. That is a threat against the Ministers of this Assembly. Again, I ask Members to reflect on the fact that we are talking about Ministers of the Assembly. Whether you like them, agree with them or oppose them, they are Ministers and represent the Assembly, so they should be given respect, as should other Members in future.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When reflecting on this debate tomorrow, Mr Speaker, I ask that you read Hansard. The Member has just said that Mr Wells threatened people with their lives if they came to south Down. From reading this report, I do not believe that there was ever a threat made against anyone's life. Will you make a ruling on that, Mr Speaker?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me read Hansard and reflect on all that has been said in the debate.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I treat threats as threats. I do not know in what other way you could treat a threat but in that way.

We could have come here today and talked about Ulster Resistance, the red berets and the unfound arms that the DUP and Ulster Resistance reported — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— but we did not do that. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have already warned the Member that he should not shout across the Chamber. All remarks must be made through the Chair.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I will get there eventually. We could have talked about all those issues, which again are about bullying in the community, and, unfortunately, about some sad bullying right across the board.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

OK.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member agree that the Members across the way are giving the impression that they put up a stout defence of Mr Wells yet that could not be further from the case?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not think that you can defend the indefensible. The problem is that the Committee found that it could not defend the indefensible. In fact, the Committee as a body tried to get Mr Wells to respond and apologise, which would have dealt with the situation, but he refused to do so.

We are here debating along the lines of what is in the report. Mr Wells said that he mumbled something. We are talking about a Christian gentleman. We have an opportunity here for the truth. I think that it would be very fitting if Mr Wells, even if he did not apologise, simply said, "Yes, I did say that" or, "No, I did not say that. I just mumbled something." He may be quite happy to do that. Having failed to tell Tom Frawley exactly what he said — he said that he just mumbled something — it is important that Mr Wells say today exactly what he said and what he meant, and what he meant by, "Do not bring that woman to south Down." What exactly was that threat? How was he going to carry it out? How was he going to ensure that that woman did not come to south Down? It looks as though Mr Wells has a barrier around south Down that nobody crosses unless he reflects on it.

I ask him to reflect on something else. He was part of the old Stormont. I think that today is a reflection of the old Stormont. Unfortunately, unionism did not learn from the old Stormont. It is still repeating the same thing that we —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— had before. We have an attempt today to have one-party rule —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Time is gone.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— that dictates to the rest of community.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Molloy made a statement that Mr Wells is part of the old Stormont. I think Mr Wells probably was not old enough to vote when that was done away with in 1973.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. It is not a point of order. Let us move on.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I take Members' conduct very seriously. It is appropriate that our behaviour does not bring the Assembly into disrepute. That being said, I find that I cannot support the findings of the Interim Commissioner's report on the allegations brought by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and her staff, and nor can I support the proposed sanctions.

In order for me to explain my reasons for not supporting the proposed sanction, I need to talk about the Commissioner's report. For me, one of the most crucial points of the report is the lack of independent evidence that is available. Although all parties concerned in both cases tell roughly the same story, in the case of the Minister it is obvious that this was a chance encounter. It was not premeditated, a fact that I feel is acknowledged by both parties. Mr Wells admits that he did make a comment to the Minister, who was walking away from him at the time and who then proceeded to turn round and face him. Had she not done this, she would not have seen the alleged wagging of the finger, which of course Mr Wells denies.

Mr Wells has maintained that he did not tell the Minister that she was not welcome in his constituency, but rather that her unelected, unvetted, convicted murderer member of staff would not be welcome. It could therefore be argued that by doing this and making this view known, Mr Wells was indeed placing forward a view that was at the forefront of his constituents, and therefore —

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I think that is an important point. The reason I made it very clear that the Minister's adviser was not welcome is that almost all of the Ulster-Scots culture groups and sporting clubs in south Down, in my community, have at least one person who was a victim of IRA terrorism. It would be an absolute insult to the memory of their loved ones to have McArdle coming to South Down accompanied by the Minister.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added on to her time.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Wells for his intervention.

As Mr Wells stated in an earlier intervention, despite a number of Ushers being present — a fact acknowledged by both parties — none remember this incident, something again which suggests to me that the exchange was not as aggressive as portrayed by the complainant. These halls, as you know, Mr Speaker, echo quite a lot. Is it really conceivable that a man so angry as to frighten a woman would not have raised his voice, or that his body language would not have alerted someone in the vicinity that there was a heated exchange happening? I also have serious concerns regarding the time lapse between the exchange happening and the complaint being investigated.

As regards Ms McArdle's complaint, again a number of issues have not been resolved. First, Ms McArdle accepts, as does Mr Wells, that the initial comments —

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Certainly.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I appreciate that. Will the Member agree that, resultant from this motion, Unionists in this House, from this day, will be wary of any discussion or engagement with Sinn Féin in the future? What is next on the agenda? Will terrorist war crimes be accepted as legitimate complaints in this House, and where will that take us?

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member, and I have to say I agree with him.

I will go back to the point to do with Ms McArdle. First, Ms McArdle accepts, as does Mr Wells, that the initial comment was a snide comment, and not made directly to Ms McArdle as she walked past. She then turned and confronted the Member. Now, bearing in mind that the Minister had already had a run-in with Mr Wells regarding Ms McArdle's appointment and was apparently frightened, would she not have conveyed this to her staff, advising them not to get into confrontation with such an aggressive person? And, if not, was this not a dereliction of her duty of care to her staff's safety?

Despite this, Ms McArdle alleges that the word "murderer" was used, and Mr Wells said "monster" was the word. The facts are clear; Ms McArdle is a convicted murderer, and Mr Wells may well view her crime as monstrous, as would most law-abiding citizens. Either word could be argued as legitimate to be used in regard of Ms McArdle. Many people in Northern Ireland were sickened by her crime, and under freedom of speech should Mr Wells not have the right to make his views known? I also note that, once again, there were no independent witnesses, despite people being present, and I find it amiss that Ms McArdle was not asked about her demeanour or tone when she turned to confront Mr Wells, because that is exactly what she did: she turned to confront Mr Wells.

I doubt very much that she was speaking in the same tone as I am today, and I believe that Miss McArdle had some idea of Mr Wells's views.

As for the apology, Mr Wells does not feel that he has anything to apologise for, and he feels that an apology would not be genuine on his part. The Committee is recommending a sanction that is too harsh for the crime due to all the inconsistencies that I have highlighted in the evidence. Mr Wells was merely mirroring the views that many of his constituents held, and there was no premeditation in his acts. Suspension is too harsh and will serve no one, and it sets a dangerous precedent of Members making apologies that they do not mean. For that reason, they will, effectively, be worthless. Therefore, I cannot support the sanction.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tugaim tacaíocht do thuairisc an choiste. I support the Committee's report.

I am not going to rehearse what happened; we know what happened. We have heard about it and read about it. Committee members have discussed it at length. Commissioners have taken the time to give everyone the opportunity to air their point of view. Having listened to everyone, they concluded that Mr Jim Wells was guilty of breaching the code of conduct and that he should apologise in writing. We have the report. He has not done that. Is that such a hard thing to do?

Now, I do not know what Jim Wells is going to say, although I could probably have an educated guess. However, this is not about political opinion or religious belief. This is not about what happened in our conflict in the past, although Jim and his mates might try to dress it up as that. This is about anti-Catholicism, sectarianism and misogyny. The definition of misogyny is hatred or dislike of women and girls. That is what Jim Wells has done and has been found guilty of. What makes it even worse is that it is a mixture of sectarianism —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not give way.

It is a mixture of sectarianism and misogyny, a lethal cocktail. Here we have a Member who has been elected for many years, so he cannot claim ignorance —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not give way. I have heard enough from the lads across the way. Here is a Member — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— who claims to support the institutions, yet refuses — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us have remarks through the Chair, and let us refer to Members by their proper names.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. Here is a Member who claims to support the institutions yet refuses to take up the opportunity to attend a Committee of the institutions that he claims to support. Here is a Member who is being talked about as a Health Minister in the near future yet who shows complete disdain for the decisions arrived at democratically by a Committee of the Assembly. I ask Mr Nesbitt in particular to note that this is not a Sinn Féin motion; it is a Committee motion.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not. I could accept it if Jim Wells stood up and said, "My apologies. I lost the head. I feel very emotional about people who were killed in the conflict." Then, we could have a real debate about how dreadful our conflict was and how difficult it was for all families, for the Travers, for Enniskillen, for Loughinisland, for Teebane, for Bloody Sunday. But, you see —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not.

The motion is not about the people killed in the conflict. Do not dress up misogyny as pretending that people care for particular families. It is much more complex than that. If we are serious about dealing with our dreadful past and the hurt that was caused collectively, let us create a framework in which to do that. However, that is a debate for another day.

A Member asked earlier why other complaints did not come to the Committee. During my time in education, Mr Wells, who now does not support the report, was one of the people who brought a vexatious complaint to Tom Frawley about me. The reason it did not come through a Committee — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will tell you why: the reason it did not come through a Committee was that it was unsubstantiated. He was joined by his friend down the bottom of the hall.

Mr Wells told Mary McArdle and Aire Carál Ní Chuilín, Minister Carál Ní Chuilín, that they are not welcome to come to south Down. Well, the last time that I looked at the election results for the past five elections, Sinn Féin got significantly more votes than Jim's party. So, he should never assume that he represents everyone in south Down; he clearly does not. The people of south Down understand that there was a conflict and that people in every community suffered greatly, people like the Loughinisland families and young James Morgan, RUC, British Army and IRA volunteers. The people of south Down understand that. My — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. [Interruption.] Order. We are debating a motion that has come to the House on behalf of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Let us, as far as possible, have contributions about the report.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

My message to Mr Wells is this: gone are the days when there was not a Fenian about the place and when women did not have the vote or power. Sinn Féin will not tolerate bullying behaviour or inequality. It certainly will not tolerate misogyny or anyone being treated as a second-class citizen. If Mr Wells thought that he could intimidate two strong women, he has another thing coming.

My message is simple: I do not agree with Mr Wells's views —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— but I respect the fact that he has a mandate and that people have voted for him. We expect the same from him. Before Members vote —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— supporting misogyny — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— they really need to think about it. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

People will look in and will think that the debate is somewhat bizarre and farcical. They can thank Sinn Féin and the SDLP and the Green Party and the Alliance Party — it always seem to vote with the SDLP and Sinn Féin — for bringing the motion forward and wasting the Assembly's time.

I have known Mr Wells for many years. I have known him since I was a young person — he was not just as young — and I have always found him to be a very honourable man. He is very forthright and speaks his mind, but, at the same time, Jim would hurt neither an animal nor a human being. Jim is very conscious of all of that. I believe that Mr Wells works very hard and carries out his duties for the Assembly and his constituents in a very honourable way. He should not have been brought before the House as he has been today.

I should say that no decision has been taken. A recommendation was made to the Committee, and the Committee has made a recommendation to the House. However, the House will make the decision.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The report of the Committee very clearly says that Mr Wells has been found guilty and a recommendation of what should be done has been brought before the House today.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us clarify the issue: both complaints were upheld. Let us move on.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The House will make the decision on Mr Wells's suspension, nobody else. We will wait and see what happens.

Nonetheless, people have been described as being offended and hurt by a comment that Mr Wells made. We have heard today from Ms Ruane about misogyny and the hatred of women. What hatred of women was involved when someone saw fit to pump Tom Travers and his daughter Mary full of bullets? That was a real hatred of women. I will give way to Ms Ruane if she wants to apologise on behalf of Sinn Féin for the travesty that was carried out against the young woman Mary Travers.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will certainly talk about misogyny in the House. This Member — [Interruption.] The Member has to understand — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us have remarks through the Chair.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I note that Ms Ruane could not bring herself to apologise for the murder of a young Roman Catholic woman, who was leaving the chapel —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You had your chance. The Member had his chance.

That young woman was leaving a chapel and was gunned down by the IRA. Ms Ruane had her chance to apologise, and she failed to do so. Yet, on the other hand, she has demanded that Mr Wells should apologise for doing what? Waving his finger. It is not good enough if you wave your finger, but it is all right if you put it on a trigger. That is the situation we find ourselves in, and Ms Ruane has tried to bring misogyny into it. How pathetic of Ms Ruane. Thank goodness she is no longer our Education Minister.

As to what happened, I am not sure whether Mr Wells called her a monster or a murderer. Had he called Ms McArdle a murderer, he would not have been the first to do so; because, on one day, the learned judge, in effect, said to her, "You're guilty of murder. You're going down". So, Ms McArdle is a murderer, and if Mr Wells described her as such, he was not describing her inaccurately. He was being factual.

What amazes me is that we have Ms Ní Chuilín and Ms McArdle, who were prisoners that Sinn Féin would deem to have been prisoners of war and thus soldiers. These "soldiers" of the IRA were actually afraid because somebody waved their finger. Thank goodness that we had the SAS on our side and not Mary McArdle and Carál Ní Chuilín, if they are afraid of a finger being waved at them. [Interruption.]

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. There is a point of order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The SAS — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The SAS was found guilty of serious murders. I respectively ask the Speaker to rule on the Minister's support for the SAS.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, I ask Members to come back to the report that is before the House.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The report concludes that Mr Wells spoke out of turn. I have to say that many in the community in south Down and across Northern Ireland will fully support what Mr Wells did and what he said.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member is right to make it clear to Sinn Féin that, while it clearly wants to put manners on Mr Wells, it is right that we put manners on its members. They were the victim-makers, not the victims.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again; let us get back to the report that is before the House. Continue Mr Poots.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask through you, is the Member issuing another threat that he will put manners on Sinn Féin? Because I tell him that he will have a long way to go. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us move on. Continue Mr Poots.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that Sinn Féin will probably want to move on and forget that Mr Molloy is actually proud of the fact that he is ill-mannered. I was taught from quite young in life that a little manners will take you a long way.

In the eyes of many of the Northern Ireland public who we represent today, Mr Wells has done nothing wrong in identifying that Ms McArdle is a murderer and that many sections of the south Down community would be less than welcoming to Ms McArdle were she to come and visit that community. The fact that we are debating this here today is a disgrace on the parties opposite. It is a disgrace on the Green Party and the Alliance Party that they stood with Sinn Féin and Colum Eastwood, the man who carried the coffin of the dissident terrorist. It is a disgrace that they stood with them and that we have this debacle this afternoon.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt ar son an rúin seo. I speak in favour of the motion.

I always find it bizarre and farcical when a Minister says that he finds a debate bizarre and farcical yet gets up and speaks in it. That is particularly so on a day of news reports that there are all sorts of problems in the accident and emergency departments in the Belfast Trust, yet the Minister has time to come here to watch a bizarre and farcical debate. Perhaps, his time would be better spent doing the job that he is elected to do.

That apart, we get lectures here all the time and from many in the House about due process, and the argument today is about due process. People who work in this Building are entitled to bring complaints to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which determines whether someone should investigate such complaints and then comes up with the findings. In this instance, the complaints were upheld. The Member in question — I do not see him about — was found guilty of what the commissioner described as an "unreasonable and personal attack".

Therefore, in that instance, it is straightforward that the Member should do what any other person would do: either stand over it or apologise. However, this Member has form, as we have seen in the Chamber, where he verbally attacked and abused a Member who happened to be a woman. He was then asked to apologise. He did so, though not in my opinion. He was described last week by somebody as Corporal Pike.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Are you at odds with Ms Ruane? You say that it was a Member who happened to be a woman, whereas Ms Ruane says that it was misogyny.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Put it like this: it is some coincidence that the three people whom he has personally attacked are women. Male Sinn Féin Ministers have appointed male former political prisoners to the position of special adviser without there being any attacks, personal abuse, finger waving or, as he now describes it, mumbling in the corridor. Therefore, there is a good case to be made that, in this instance, he is guilty of abusing women and not men. If that is misogyny, he is guilty of it.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

You said "happened to be".

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am pointing that out, and you gave me the opportunity to do so. Three women — those are the people whom he seemed to attack. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

There are other important points to be made about the role of the Committee. Francie Molloy and Cathal Boylan touched on this, and you, as Speaker, may need to address it in the future. Where now for the role of the Committee on Standards and Privileges? It is a Committee set up by statute and given a design and a template on which it operates. Now, it is circumvented by a petition of concern. There is one thing that I will say to Mike Nesbitt, who, I know, has been lecturing republicans over the past number of days: when you march through the Lobby today, you should bear it in mind that you are clearly saying to people that the lessons of one-party rule have not been understood by you or your party. This is a one-party decision to usurp the role of the Assembly. That is what you are signing your party up to, and, when you walk through the Lobby today, that is what you will be doing.

Gregory Campbell may feel that he has been confronting Sinn Féin for the past 14 years, but I know of no instance when he put his finger into the face of a person in Sinn Féin. He certainly has not put his finger into my face, nor would I allow him to. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I was first elected to the Chamber in 1982, and one of the most difficult roles I had to perform was attending the funerals of many decent members of the security forces murdered by the Provisional IRA. When it came to 2007, after following so many coffins, it was a very difficult decision for me whether to vote to go into coalition with those who had been the spokesmen for those dastardly activities. However, I knew that a large number of people yearned to move on to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. Having done that, I expected that the Members opposite would have had some understanding of the enormous hurt and pain that they had caused the ordinary, decent people of this community over the past 40 years. What I did not expect them to do was to gloat and revel in their past misdeeds. I will give a few examples: we had Mick Murphy, the former Member for South Down, organising a tour —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member will know that I have given some latitude. He now needs to come back to the report before the House.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

You have not exactly given me much latitude, Mr Speaker, as you allowed the Member for Mid Ulster to ramble on about red berets etc.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member is coming very close to challenging the authority of the Chair. I have said that I am prepared to give the Member some latitude, provided that he can link whatever he is saying to the report.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you make a ruling, can the DUP overrule it by a petition of concern? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That is not a point of order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Mr Speaker, of course, I would never dream of questioning your ruling. What I am trying to do is set the context of why I respect neither the decision taken by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure nor her appointment of Mary McArdle as her adviser.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I understand that he is raising the issue of appointments. In 2004, the Member oversaw an appointment in Ballymoney, when Gary Blair, who was convicted of the murder of a Sinn Féin member in Ballymoney, was appointed to the DUP officer board in that area. The Member was there and oversaw that. He saw no issue with that appointment. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Even interventions need to be in and around the report. That should be very clear. Yes, I will allow Mr Wells some latitude in setting the scene, but he needs to come to the report sooner rather than later.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

We had Mr Mick Murphy, the then Member for South Down, organising a tour for Sinn Féin ghouls around the Warrenpoint massacre site. He showed them where they planted the bombs and where the snipers sat and murdered 18 members of the security forces. We had Gerry Kelly coming to the Russell Gaelic Union in Downpatrick telling us about the wonderful Maze escape. He forgot to mention that that led to the death of a prison officer. More recently, we had Gerry McGeough getting the support of Sinn Féin members of Dungannon council, who were trying to get him out early. However, the decision that caused even more discontent and anguish in the community was the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure's decision to appoint Mary McArdle, the convicted murderer of a young Roman Catholic woman who was coming out of her place of worship. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

There is no hierarchy of victimhood, but I have to say that murdering someone and trying to murder her father and her mother as they were coming out of a place of worship has to be sinking to an all-time low.

When the Minister made that decision there could have been only one of two issues in her head at the time. One was that she did not understand the enormous hurt that that decision would cause. The second and perhaps more likely — I notice that she is not here to answer; she is scared to stand up and justify herself — was that she was aware of the hurt that that would cause the ordinary, decent community and the Travers family but continued to make the decision. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

There were only two options, but one thing is absolutely certain: Mary McArdle would not have been appointed to a £60,000-a-year salary as the adviser to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure had she not murdered Mary Travers. The reason that the two women knew each other so well was that they shared a cell. McArdle was the IRA commandant of the women's wing in prison. She was, effectively, the Minister's boss while she served eight years for her attempted murder of police officers at Crumlin police station. The community was outraged because it felt that McArdle was rewarded for her murder of that totally defenceless and innocent young woman by being given this very important post. That caused outrage.

I was angry. The community was angry. I was concerned. Have I a right, in a democratic society, to express that concern? Yes. If I did not have the right to express it forcibly in a way that can even cause concern or upset, there would be no freedom of speech in this Building. I have to have that right, and I exercised that right.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I did accuse Mary McArdle of murdering Mary Travers. I did, because it is true. I said that she was unfit to be an adviser because of her activity. A totally innocent woman was murdered by Mary McArdle.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member draw us back to when he was talking about the number of coffins that he followed? Will he also express concern about the Ulster Resistance weapons and the red berets that were in his constituency at that time? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, I warn all Members that interventions must be around the motion and on Members' contributions.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The difference is, of course, that there was no attempt to appoint anybody from any loyalist paramilitary body to become a £60,000-a-year adviser to any Minister. That is the difference, and that is what stuck in my craw and angered me intensely. I tried to articulate that on behalf of my constituents.

I expressed a view about Mary McArdle not coming to south Down. Members should note that I did not say that about the Minister; I said it about her adviser. As I said, throughout south Down every unionist community group, soccer team, sports society or Ulster-Scots society has at least one person who has suffered greatly as a result of IRA terrorism. Can you think of anything that could be as insulting to those people as to have Mary McArdle arriving in a chaffeur-driven Skoda to some event in south Down and getting out of the car and behaving totally normally? That would be the ultimate insult, because her name was on everyone's lips when that decision was made.

How does Sinn Féin get respect? I am told that I showed no respect to either the Minister or her adviser. What respect did McArdle show Mary Travers and her family? What respect did the Minister show the family and the community when she raked over the embers and brought back to memory all the horror of what happened outside that chapel all those years ago? I do not have respect for those decisions, but we need to move on as a society.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I certainly will.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Is the Member saying that he does not respect this report or the institutions in which he is here to represent his constituents? Basically, that is what you are saying. As I said, it is about respect. Do you have no respect for the role of the Standards and Privileges Committee?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is about non-unionists in a Committee ganging up against someone expressing his point of view in this Building. I thank the Ulster Unionists and my colleagues for their support, but we need to move on.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Yes.