On the 2nd of December 2024, it was exactly 25 years since ‘the appointed day’ – the day when legislative powers and executive authorities were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. But what was it like to work there in the early years?
Paul Moore, a Civil Servant seconded to the Assembly, found himself in the role of Assistant Clerk to the Assembly Committee that was being chaired by a certain Ian Paisley.
In this fourth ‘episode’ – which Paul has adapted from his book: ‘Doctor Paisley and Mister Clerk – Recollections of Ian Paisley’s Agriculture Committee Years’ – the Assembly has returned from its first period of suspension, and Paul finds out what it’s like to actually be ‘Mister Clerk’, and to be the official responsible for the Committee’s operation.
Audio versions of all four episodes are now available on the ‘Mister Clerk’ podcast which may be found on the Spotify, Apple and Amazon podcast platforms.
Paul’s book is still available in paperback and e-book formats from amazon.co.uk: https://amzn.eu/d/89Lkwxq.
Episode 4: Mister Clerk 2 – the Sequel
If you’ve read or listened to the first three episodes (and thanks very much if you have) you’re probably thinking: Hold on – why has this guy written this book when he isn’t even the ‘Mister Clerk’ in the title? What’s the craic?
And you’d be quite right. While I was indeed working alongside the big man and an eyewitness to his Committee’s (and the Assembly’s) first year, I wasn’t actually ‘Mister Clerk’ during that time.
But all that’s about to change. For the short version of how I came to be known as Mister Clerk, we need to go back to the Summer of 2020.
*
Devolution had taken place with five Clerks (all seconded NI Civil Service Principal Officers) taking care of ten statutory committees. It has been clear from early on that they can’t be expected to manage such heavy workloads indefinitely, and now that the suspension has been lifted, the Assembly authorities have launched a recruitment scheme for new Clerks.
This is open to everyone. Crucially, that means that I can apply, even though the job is at a higher grade than I could normally apply for in the Civil Service.
*
I applied, and I had my interview at the end of September 2000. After being initially (in November) disappointed at the result, I have today (at the start of December received a letter saying that I am considered suitable for immediate appointment as Clerk! Yes!
Given my current role, and Martin’s preference for the work involved in his other Committee (the Finance Committee) I think it likely that I will be appointed as Dr Paisley’s next “Mister Clerk”. How exciting is that? Very exciting indeed, but a little bit terrifying too, if I’m honest!
*
Sure enough, shortly after Christmas 2000, I was told that I was to take over as Clerk to the ARD Committee. My formal appointment came through on the 16th of January 2001. That was three days ago and the responsibility for clerking today’s Committee meeting is all mine!
I am really nervous, but I am doing my best to look relaxed. I take a great deep breath as I sit at Dr Paisley’s left-hand side, and he calls the meeting to order. As usual, he asks ‘Mister Clerk’ to take members through the business, but this time it’s me on the end of his request. When I speak, I am a little embarrassed by my audibly shaky voice, but I am glad to be underway.
Half an hour ago I had – very anxiously – conducted the pre-brief with Dr Paisley, and I had advised him that there were to be visitors from Sweden in the gallery today. And there they are, in the front row of seats, all looking incredibly Swedish! Dr Paisley sees them, then roars a hearty welcome at them and gives them a cheery wave to boot.
All I can think of is that it isn’t technically ‘in order’ for a Committee Chair to refer directly to those in the Gallery. Wisely, however, I let Dr Paisley’s procedural indiscretion go without comment.
Much of the rest of today’s meeting will involve members’ consideration of another draft Committee report. The format for this task has been well established for the first two reports, and I feel comfortable helping the Committee through this process again – I drafted the report and know it inside out. Members reach agreement on the report’s conclusions and recommendations without fuss or acrimony, and that helps settle my ‘first-night’ nerves.
This is it. I’m now flying solo. In cinematic terms, I am now ‘Mister Clerk 2, the sequel’. The question is whether I will prove to be a success, perhaps even a ‘blockbuster’, or if I will end up a resounding flop?
*
It’s not long before I’m tested.
The Committee recently appointed a ‘Specialist Advisor’ to write a report on the European Commission’s Animal Waste Directive. I have had to advise members that his draft report fell well short of what the Committee had asked for. Members grilled him about it at last week’s meeting and, with Dr Paisley (true to form) whipping them up to a frenzy of indignation, the members decided that I should terminate the man’s contract with immediate effect.
I know nothing about contracts! So, I’ve had to take advice from the Assembly’s legal team, and last week I issued a letter of termination to the Advisor. I have since been able to negotiate a reduced fee with him for the time he has already spent on the job. Termination? Negotiation? I’ve never done anything like this before, and it all seems very grown up and responsible.
The Committee reluctantly agrees to pay the negotiated fee. It goes against the grain for members (and for me too) to pay the Advisor anything at all for the quality of work he has produced, but I explain that I am acting on legal advice, and the members take me at my word.
I’m pleased at the level of trust that the members are placing in me, as their novice Clerk, but I’m also starting to wonder whether the extra salary is worth the extra hassle!
*
And the hassle keeps on coming.
The Minister has alerted Dr Paisley about some positive BSE tests on casualty animals, and senior department officials are in Parliament Buildings to brief the Committee today (the 9th of February 2001). This time there is no hyperbole needed from Dr Paisley. This really could be catastrophic for the beef sector in Northern Ireland, and especially for its hopes of getting the BSE export ban lifted.
The officials first brief the members in closed session. The Chairman then opens the meeting to the public and the officials read out a prepared statement, followed by members’ questions. The gallery is full of press people, all scribbling furiously.
It feels like the Committee is being used by the Department to manage this bit of bad news. I can certainly see the attraction. This way, the Department can get a message of reassurance out to the public quickly, and the cross-party nature of the Committee means that a political consensus can be quickly established and publicly articulated. Clever!
If Dr Paisley has any sense of being manipulated, he doesn’t mention it. I think he wants the Committee to appear supportive of the industry, and he’s avoiding his usual political posturing, In fact, he’s now insisting on the issue of a press release supporting the Minister’s approach and praising the effectiveness of measures that are in place to protect the consumer in Northern Ireland. Incredible!
Could it be that this whole Assembly thing is actually giving politicians the opportunity to rise above their usual tribal instincts? In particular, is Dr Paisley showing that he is capable of operating beyond his usual comfort zone of hyper-critical opposition? My hopes are, once again, raised for the future.
*
I am pretty sure that I am getting more than my fair share of difficult situations as a new Clerk, and there’s one innocuous-looking piece of subordinate legislation which, it seems, has the potential to give me even more problems.
Members are well used to DARD’s officials briefing them about their reasons for making subordinate legislation, and they usually go along with DARD’s proposals without much bother. But they are being particularly ‘bolshy’ about this one. Through it, the Department wants to make a very small increase in a fee paid by farmers involved in growing Seed potatoes, and after some discussion, they’ve told me to let the department know they are against the increase.
*
It’s the 25th of May – our last meeting before the elections that are being held on the 7th of June. The Committee has agreed not to meet on the 1st or 8th of June, so it’s important we get things done today. Business was going ok, but the Committee has, with fewer than five members now present, just lost its quorum. This is really unfortunate timing, since the DARD officials responsible for the disputed legislation are in the room and ready to come to the table.
Dr Paisley has, on my advice, formally suspended the meeting, but as he and I stand up from the Committee table for a bit of a stretch, he suggests to me that the remaining four Committee members could hold ‘informal discussions’ on the Statutory Rule with the officials, and that the Committee can come to its conclusions when the quorum has been regained.
I immediately assume my risk-averse Sir Humphrey mode, and I express my view, quietly, to the Chairman that such a move would not be appropriate. To my surprise, Dr Paisley puts a big arm around my shoulder and says, with a wide grin: “Mister Clerk, I think I have been around this game a lot longer than you have”. The physical contact was unexpected, and it sort of feels like an important moment between us. “Fair enough, you’re the Chairman”, I reply, and the remaining members have a chat with the officials just as he suggested.
The Chairman waits until the quorum is regained, then returns to these ‘informal’ discussions, convincing those members who had missed them to accept the word of those who had been present. They then unanimously agree that DARD should be told to absorb the additional costs that the increased fee is intended to cover. With all that sorted, Dr Paisley smiles at me as if to say: “Told you!” I’m happy that the business was concluded. I just wonder how we’re going to record all that in the Committee’s minutes!
*
Despite the Committee’s representations, the Department has gone ahead with making and laying the problematic Statutory Rule, so it has now become law. That means that the Committee has to formally consider the made Rule, and we’re looking at it today.
The Committee’s options are limited. They can either record no formal objection (allowing it to remain as law) or table a motion for debate in the Assembly, seeking to have the Rule annulled (meaning it would no longer be law). I explain to members that annulment of subordinate legislation very rarely, if ever, happens in Westminster, and has not yet happened in the Assembly. I caution that such a move should not be taken lightly.
Dr Paisley brushes aside my concerns, and in a masterclass of troop-rallying, he convinces everyone, including one of the Minister’s party colleagues, that they are protecting the small farmer against the mighty department. Suitably mesmerized, members formally agree to recommend to the Assembly that the Statutory Rule be annulled. This could be interesting!
*
While I curse my luck at the difficulties I am facing, I am pleased at the way the Chairman and members have accepted me as their new Clerk. I get a real buzz from sitting next to the Chairman and being the ‘Mister Clerk’ that he asks to take members through the business of the day.
In truth, I am quite proud of myself for having (apparently) made the transition so seamlessly to the next level.
But you know what they say about pride…
*
Today, the 22nd of June, sees the Committee’s next meeting. It comes just three days after my 40th birthday, and I am in a pretty good mood. Plenty of business has been conducted in the meeting’s first couple of hours – all very amicably – and now George Savage has taken over as Chair when Dr Paisley left the meeting.
Business moves on to the draft speaking notes for the Chairman to use at the Assembly debate on the contentious Statutory Rule, and I hand out copies to members.
The draft includes reference to members’ disquiet at the Minister proceeding with the Statutory Rule against their advice. I was expecting a quick nod-through, but it seems my confidence was badly misplaced.
John Dallat has just hit the roof. He is so angry: “This is an outrageous personal attack on the Minister by Ian Paisley” he says, continuing “We have had to deal with this man’s tyranny for the last thirty years. I’ve had enough of it, and I’ll not put up with it any longer!”
The blood drains from my face, and all of a sudden, I am finding the Clerk’s seat a very lonely place to be. But I know that I have to shoulder responsibility, and I calmly (though my voice is shaking) say that it was I who drafted the speaking notes – the Chairman has merely approved them.
This does nothing to appease John. Indeed, he now turns his wrath towards me, saying he is even more outraged that an Assembly Clerk should be ‘attacking’ the Minister. Ian Paisley junior – apparently seeing an opportunity to wind John up even further – jumps in and says: “Our party has every confidence in the Clerk. Are you saying that you don’t?”
John’s face gets redder still. This could get seriously out of hand, I think.
In my most conciliatory tone, I explain that because the motion aims to strike down a piece of legislation, and is unprecedented, I have taken the view that the Chairman’s speech needs to make a robust argument as to why the Assembly should annul it. I add that I am reflecting views expressed by members at the previous week’s meeting and I acknowledge (with the greatest respect, obviously) that John had not been present at that meeting to hear those views.
In a lightbulb moment, I suggest that if the terms “The Minister” and “she” are both changed to “the Department” then the valid points of argument could still be made but without any sense of personal attack on the Minister (which had, of course, been completely unintended by me).
John finally sees that the draft is not the result of Paisley tyranny, and calms down. Thankfully, Ian junior backs off too. The other members are also relieved at this de-escalation, and accept my suggestion as a satisfactory resolution, quickly signing off the amended speaking notes.
Somewhat shell-shocked, I take the Committee through the rest of the day’s business without further incident, then catch up with Ian junior afterwards on the balcony overlooking the magnificent marble staircase that leads up from the Great Hall.
I tell him that the worst possible crime for a Committee Clerk would be for him or her to be perceived to favour (or be favoured by) one side or the other. I add that while I appreciate having his and his party’s confidence, I need to have everyone’s confidence, and that I would be grateful if he didn’t use such a tactic to get at John (or anyone else) in the future. I get the sense that Ian junior doesn’t give two hoots about my concerns, but I think it was important for me to say my piece.
*
After all that drama, the debate on the motion to annul the Statutory Rule (held on the 26th of June) was something of a disappointment. The Chairman used his amended speaking notes, but since only 15 minutes had been allocated to the debate, only four other Committee members spoke. The Minister opposed the motion (hers was the only voice against it) but the motion was carried without division.
So, legislative history was very quietly made that day: the Seed Potatoes (Crop Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 2001 No. 228) were struck from the Statute Book – a first for this Assembly.
Quietly made history, perhaps, but I’ll admit that I was a little thrilled to have played a part in it.
Next time: In Episode 5 – ‘A Virus Strikes’ – the Department has to deal with multiple outbreaks of an acute infectious disease (no, not that one, thankfully) and seeks the Committee’s help. Paul wonders whether, in the midst of a crisis for the agriculture sector, party-political point-scoring will take a back seat for ‘the greater good’. What are the chances?
Discover more from World Byte News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
