Doctor Paisley and Mister Clerk
In celebration of the recent 25th anniversary of the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Paul Moore – former Clerk to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee – has been sharing his recollections from the Assembly’s early days.
In this final episode of the series, Paul is forced to reconsider his relationship with Committee Chairman, Ian Paisley, and what that means for his own position as the Committee’s Clerk.
Audio versions of all eight episodes are available on Paul’s ‘Mister Clerk’ podcast which may be found on the Spotify, Apple and Amazon podcast platforms.
Episode 8 – The Unravelling part 2 – Time to Go?
Last time, I recounted a ten-week period when Dr Paisley created merry hell and marched members up to the top of the hill, only to ‘go missing’ when the going got tough.
It’s now July 2002 and we have just finished our last meeting before the Summer recess. As I look back on this Assembly session, I would describe that period as a ‘nail in the coffin’ regarding my respect for, and relationship with, the Chairman.
On further reflection, it occurs to me that one huge event last year was also highly significant in this regard.
What happened? Well, it’s widely agreed that everyone will remember where they were and what they were doing on the eleventh of September last year, or 9/11 as it’s usually called. I am certain that I will.
*
There is a stunned silence as we gather round a small TV on the fourth floor of Parliament Buildings, aghast at the repeated images of a plane flying into the second tower at the World Trade Centre in New York, with the first tower in flames from being hit a while earlier.
The complete collapse of one of the towers adds a further layer of shock and horror. One moment there is a burning building with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of souls awaiting rescue. The next, there is literally nothing but dust. Half an hour later, the other tower suffers the same fate.
The sheer scale (and the continuous live reporting) of the tragedy is overwhelming, and we are sent home early to be with, and cling tightly to, the ones we love. We are all in a state of shock and confusion, but we can feel that the world has changed.
*
It is two days after the attack, and I am pleased to discover that the Acting First Minister (Sir Reg Empey) and the deputy First Minister (Seamus Mallon) have tabled a joint motion of condolence for debate today. I settle in to watch proceedings on the team’s TV, convinced that an act of this magnitude will transcend all of our local issues of conflict and bring our warring politicians together.
My mistake.
Dr Paisley first tries to amend the motion of condolence, but the Speaker refuses to countenance such a move. Then Sir Reg Empey, who’s first to speak, properly extends Northern Ireland’s sympathies to the American people. But he then goes on to compare the IRA’s 1996 attack in Canary Wharf to the attack on the Twin Towers, saying they differed only in scale, and that sets the tone.
Dr Paisley has just been called to speak on behalf of his party. He launches into a highly charged and emotional rant, decrying any “dialogue with terrorism”. He alleges that concessions to terrorists have “turned the monster into a greater monster” and claims that there are Members in the Chamber whose organization is “part of the international organization” that carried out the attacks in the United States.
In a final piece of theatrics, he leads his DUP colleagues out of the Chamber, making it clear that they are doing this to avoid hearing the contribution of the Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams.
*
The Speaker has just called a halt to proceedings, as it is clear that Members’ contributions have been reduced to sectarian point scoring and ‘whataboutery’, very loosely disguised as sympathy and compassion for the victims of the attack.
The Speaker announces that a Book of Condolence has been opened for Members and Assembly staff to pay their respects. I queue to sign the Book, but my heart is heavy as I do so – not just as a reaction to the atrocity, but with my own growing sense of hopelessness that the Assembly will ever really be able to work.
The ‘walkout’ was clearly a calculated political move on Dr Paisley’s part, and it has created headlines UK-wide. I suppose it may help the DUP consolidate its recent election gains.
My personal exposure to the IRA’s campaign was limited to having car bomb shrapnel rain down on the putting green in Bangor at which I was working (in August 1981) as I crouched behind a low wall 200 yards from the blast. So, I may not have the same perspective as those who suffered much worse at the hands of the IRA.
But there are Assembly staff members who were directly affected by ‘the Troubles’ but who are now working hard for members of all parties – including those connected to paramilitaries – equally and impartially. In contrast, I am seeing little from certain MLAs in terms of reconciliation, or ‘moving on’ and this walkout seems such a parochial response to an event of such global importance.
In my eyes, it is just plain wrong to have subverted the expression of condolence in the way that Paisley and his party colleagues have done. I’m afraid that much of my respect for the man (and he has proven worthy of respect as a Committee Chair) has been lost today.
*
So, Dr Paisley’s behaviour at the 9/11 debate – and his more recent stoking of the fisheries ‘fires’ – are two major factors in the unravelling of relations between the Chairman and me. Now that I mention it, I can think of some others, too.
In one incident in September 2000 – when I was still Assistant Clerk – John Dallat accused Dr Paisley of a “shocking abuse of position”. I concurred. It was exactly that.
*
John Dallat has tabled a motion for today’s meeting about a ban on grazing sheep at the Silent Valley reservoir. It is intended to reach an agreed Committee line on the subject. Ian Paisley Junior immediately tabled an amendment to that motion, though it is not clear if he holds a strong view on the issue or is just making mischief to annoy John.
A vote is taken first on the amendment (by a show of hands) and Martin has announced the result as a 4:4 tie. That means that the amendment falls and that a vote will now be taken on the original motion. Or, at least, that’s what should be happening.
It seems that Dr Paisley has suddenly realized that his boy’s amendment has failed. He announces that he had, in fact, wanted to vote on this matter – bearing in mind that he hasn’t previously exercised a casting vote – and he declares the first vote null and void! He instructs the Clerk to re-take the first vote. Martin follows orders and, with the addition of the Chairman’s vote, the amendment is carried by 5 votes to 4. Martin and I are so taken aback by this that we forget to advise the Committee to now take a vote on the motion as amended. What a procedural mess!
*
John was incandescent that day (understandably) and made a formal complaint to the Speaker. Ultimately, the Speaker’s response was that he would not rule on matters that took place in Committees – stressing that Committee Chairs effectively exercised the same powers as the Speaker in the Committee setting – but he also articulated his expectation that Chairs would uphold Standing Orders as they did so.
I reckon there was a clear message within that response, and, thankfully, Dr Paisley never repeated this dubious practice. It put the Clerking team in a difficult position, though, which still rankles with me to this day.
*
In another notable incident, Dr Paisley made a show of his power and control over a party ‘underling’ – and fellow North Antrim MLA – Gardiner Kane, by refusing to suspend a committee meeting briefly to allow Gardner a ‘comfort break’. Dr Paisley had suspended proceedings on a number of previous occasions, usually when he needed to relieve himself.
It was clear how distressed Gardiner was becoming, but Dr Paisley made it clear that he should stay where he was, in order to avoid a loss of the Committee’s quorum. I was appalled, and I lobbied the Chairman on Gardiner’s behalf several more times. It wasn’t as if we were in the middle of an important presentation, so business could easily have been paused.
It was a good twenty to twenty-five minutes later that Dr Paisley finally suspended the Committee meeting for a break, and he did so only because he needed the loo himself.
This was bullying, plain and simple, and I’m afraid Dr Paisley went further down in my estimation that day.
*
In truth, while these all represent further nails in that particular coffin, Dr Paisley isn’t the only one on the Committee for whom my levels of tolerance have started to wane.
While I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts themselves in front of an electorate – and who are subsequently elected to public office – sometimes the calibre of elected Members is called into question.
In one example, the Committee was holding discussions after being briefed on the need to destroy ‘prions’ in infected material such as animals with BSE. These prions could, apparently, cause transmission to humans and destroying them was proving difficult to achieve.
Billy Armstrong’s contribution to the discussion was memorable: it went something like:
“You know the way they said that these prions can only be got rid of by very high temperatures? Well, what are the hottest things we have on this earth? Volcanoes! Is the answer not to put these dead animals into volcanoes? That would get rid of your prions”.
Even with Billy’s reputation for some ‘left field’ remarks, this was a ‘doozy’.
Then there was George Savage, a couple of months back, speaking in a debate on a Committee report. Towards the end, he reads a direction out loud, despite it being clearly differentiated from his speaking notes by the size and colour of type: “The Committee has…offered a report worthy of the Assembly’s endorsement. Only use the following paragraph if the minister does not agree to provide development services to farmers. The Committee was concerned that no help was offered to farmers.” That was embarrassing, though the Official Report team took out the mistake before publication, thankfully.
*
Finally, there is the current stubbornness of Committee members who are trying to involve themselves in the closure of a prawn factory in Kilkeel, even though this is the responsibility of another Minister and therefore outside our Committee’s remit.
Despite my best efforts at steering them away from the issue, they have even agreed to participate in a ‘task force’ of interested bodies over the Summer. I have vowed that they’ll get no help from me, but I’m pretty sure they won’t actually participate, as they like their summer recess too much. (They didn’t.)
This isn’t an isolated issue. It has become a constant battle for me to try to keep the Committee focused on the important over the trivial; the relevant over the not relevant. Members are very easily distracted and are still afraid of missing something (however small) about which they might later be criticized.
I have sought Dr Paisley’s help in leading members away from this approach, but he has been no help at all. Indeed, he is sometimes the worst culprit!
Add into the mix some Committee members’ lack of understanding of issues, the quality of some of their contributions, their lack of preparation for meetings, and their seeming reluctance to stop flogging a dead horse and you might understand my growing irritation.
I also feel less able than I was to exert influence on Dr Paisley’s chairmanship of the Committee. I am sure I am not the first person to find working with him frustrating, but I am concerned that he isn’t listening as closely to my advice as he once did.
I wonder if I just need to get to the Summer recess. All I know is that I can’t quite shake my annoyance with them all, and that I feel a change of scenery may be for the best.
*
We are now in the early part of the Summer break, and I have been thinking long and hard about my position.
For starters, I am frequently conflicted. It is part of my job to identify flaws in the information that DARD officials provide to the Committee, but sometimes this can reflect badly on former colleagues, and that is hard. Nor can I escape the feeling that I am damaging my future prospects in my parent department by virtue of my (as senior managers see it) playing for the opposing team.
I also feel that my enthusiasm for Committee work has waned. I am no longer as keen to service these particular members, with whom I have worked closely for approaching three years, and I am much less tolerant of their faults. That pains me, as I always want to give my very best, professionally, and serving all the members diligently is a crucial aspect of my role.
I am also concerned about my relationship with the Chairman. I am not looking for a personal friendship – I know I am merely ‘Mister Clerk’ with a job to do – but I can’t help thinking that the ‘visiting Jim’ episode might have affected his level of trust in me personally. And it is vital for there to be a high degree of mutual trust between Clerk and Chair.
I could simply end my secondment and return to the department, but I’d miss the buzz of working ‘up the hill’. Could I engineer a move within the Assembly? I have just reminded my managers of promises they made a while back about rotating staff, but none of my colleagues is actively looking for a change, so far as I know.
*
Towards the end of recess, arrangements were made for me to move to the Assembly’s Business Office. The Chair and Deputy Chair were alerted to the changes (which came into effect on the 2nd of September) by the Deputy Clerk, so I didn’t get to say any formal ‘goodbyes’ to Dr Paisley and the rest of the members in the Committee setting.
That is a pity. While I am certainly looking forward to a fresh start, we have been through quite a journey together as a group, and I expect that in years to come I will remember them with fondness, and I hope they will feel the same way about me.
*
I have just read the minutes of the Agriculture Committee’s meeting of the 6th of September 2002 and they include the following paragraph:
“The Committee placed on formal record its thanks to Mr. Paul Moore for his hard work and dedication and agree that the Chairman should write expressing members’ gratitude to Mr. Moore”.
I am reading Dr Paisley’s letter just now and am feeling a level of self-satisfaction. I do wonder, though, how they’ll all get on ‘under new management’ and whether or not the Chairman will call Cathy – my replacement – “Mrs. Clerk”?
*
As it happened, Dr Paisley’s Committee only existed without me for six more meetings.
In October 2002, police raided Sinn Fein’s offices at Stormont, and arrested the party’s head of administration amidst allegations of an IRA ‘spy ring’ operating within the Estate.
As a result of the raid, the DUP pulled its two Ministers from the Executive and, faced with threats of further resignations, the Secretary of State suspended the Assembly on the 14th of October, and re-imposed direct rule in Northern Ireland.
That was it for the Assembly, and its Committees, for several years. When it returned to the proper, devolved, format, the political landscape had changed further still.
The DUP’s (and Dr Paisley’s) approach of ‘riding two horses’ – that is, continued opposition to the Institutions at the same time as participating in them – did not result in electoral loss or failure. Quite the opposite: two Assembly elections in the intervening period had confirmed the DUP as both the Assembly’s and Unionism’s largest party.
Over the last three or so years, Dr Paisley had also demonstrated – not least to himself – that his leadership and influence could travel well beyond his usual constituency.
I am certain that these things helped bring him, and his party, to the table and, ultimately, to the St. Andrews Agreement and the Assembly’s restoration.
They also allowed Dr Paisley to complete his personal and political evolution to becoming Northern Ireland’s First Minister and forming his ‘chuckle brothers’ relationship with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness. Back in 1999, such an outcome would have been unthinkable, and I firmly believe that it only became possible because of his tenure as Chairman of the Committee.
It was clearly hard, during this period, for Dr Paisley to rise above his baser instincts and to behave in a completely fair and inclusive manner to opponents, some of whom he considered to be mortal enemies. It is also true that Dr Paisley reverted to type on many occasions, but it is my belief that his Committee work enabled him to see these enemies more as human beings, with whom, given the right context, he might be able to find some common ground.
With hindsight, of course, I would have to question whether the ‘two horses’ approach laid sufficient foundations for the DUP’s longer-term ability to work constructively with Sinn Fein in government. On recent evidence, it would seem not, but we weren’t to know that at the time.
*
When Dr Paisley nominated himself as Chairman that cold evening in November 1999, I had anticipated an interesting ride, and it had certainly been that for the best part of three years.
The Summer of 2002 was, however, the right time for me to move on from that particular post, although I enjoyed several more years with the Assembly, first looking after Assembly Questions in the Business Office – don’t ever let it be said that there’s no such thing as a stupid question – and then as a Clerk to the Business Committee. During that time, I frequently came across Dr Paisley and most of the other Committee members who were still MLAs.
I continued to doubt the long-term sustainability of the Assembly, however, and I returned to the Department in 2008 (amazingly, they allowed me back in), before moving to the Health and Safety Executive in 2011, and eventually retiring in September 2019.
Looking back on it all, mine was a fairly long, and not particularly distinguished, career. However, when people ask me what I worked at before I retired, I am delighted to be able to tell them that I was a boring Civil Servant for more than 30 years, but that, for just a little while, I was fortunate to work closely alongside one of the most famous – some might say infamous – political figures in the country.
And he called me “Mister Clerk”.
The End
Sincere thanks to Brian O’Neill at Slugger O’Toole for running with this series of episodes which I adapted from my book: ‘Doctor Paisley and Mister Clerk – Recollections of Ian Paisley’s Agriculture Committee Years’. More importantly, thanks to you for taking the time to read some or all of them.
If you want the full story of my three or so years with Paisley’s Committee, the book is still available in paperback and Kindle e-book formats from amazon.co.uk: https://amzn.eu/d/89Lkwxq. All of my royalties from the book, and the profits from a few private sales, are going to Bangor’s RNLI station.
This is a guest slot to give a platform for new writers either as a one off, or a prelude to becoming part of the regular Slugger team.
Discover more from Slugger O’Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
