John McCallister
South Down · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“She did whatever needed to be done and nothing seemed to be too much trouble or too difficult for her to overcome. <BR /> <BR />It was very much to her credit that she was able to work and find a solution to an issue that, as we go forward, will allow us to look at different things.”
“Sometimes, one of the downsides of being in politics is that social media exposes all our lives to some really quite harsh and unkind things. I certainly am delighted that things have improved in that regard, not only with getting the Bill passed but with your father's health improving.”
“Like colleagues, I welcome the Final Stage of the Licensing Bill. Following on from Mr Ross, it is a shame that Mrs Cochrane is standing down because we could desperately do with her back here to continue the reform of our licensing laws, although that is looking like quite a big job for anybody to take on.”
“It would have been such a shame to have to have him removed on his last day. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I will begin by paying tribute to you and the respect agenda you have set in your time in the Speaker's office.”
“<BR /> <BR />In this term, I am particularly proud of the private Member's Bill to reform the way that the Assembly does its business, and I hope that the messages from all of the political parties seem to be that there is a will to have a much more collective and cohesive Executive on the other side of an election.”
“While there is partly a disappointment in some regards about what the Assembly and Executive have achieved, the one thing that they have achieved is to have got people talking from very different and difficult backgrounds. As Mr Hamilton said, it is much better having a robust debate in here than division on our streets.”
The complete record
Every one of 975 lines we hold for John McCallister, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 20.
“To me, that sounds very much like a single legal entity of a Government.”
“All those changes help to drive the point about collective government. I will quote from the manifesto of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) in which it challenges the Northern Ireland Assembly to look at and reform the use of petitions of concern.”
“It got people thinking about what collective government means, so much has been achieved on the opposition side. The 8% is hugely significant, as is having it in the Bill that there will be an Assembly debate on a legislative timetable. We have seen in the past few months how difficult it is to cope with a rush of legislation. <BR /> <BR />The areas of the Bill that I would have liked to see more progress on, but, alas, could not persuade Members on, are very much how our Executive arm of government works and around collective cabinet Government. However, the Bill has helped to focus minds on what some of the other reforms mean; for example, reducing the number of Departments and changing OFMDFM from having departmental responsibilities to being a coordinating Department.”
“So, that is a huge reform that can be passed in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Like all Bill sponsors, whether Ministers or not, I did not get everything that I would have liked. I break the Bill into a couple of main areas. The Bill has emerged from all the votes, all the stages, including two amending stages, and amendments that have been tabled with its opposition side largely intact and enhanced. It is enhanced by putting in an 8% threshold; that is better than in Fresh Start. The entire debate on the Bill has helped to move some of the provisions from the Stormont House Agreement to what is in Fresh Start. I suggest that the Bill has made civic society and other organisations start to use some of the language that it has helped to put into our politics.”
“As I have often said, if, in those times, the Assembly achieved very little, it got people talking to each other. However, that has changed now: there is a hunger from the people whom we represent to get on with governance and delivery and to move to a much more mature politics where policy matters. They expect the Executive and the Assembly to deliver. <BR /> <BR />This Bill is about reforming these institutions. It would be a significant change to have a place called "opposition". I was once involved in a debate about opposition, when someone said, "There is no place called opposition". I hope that, after today, that is no longer the case and that we will have a place called opposition. The big challenge will be to make sure that people stand up and have the courage to take up the role as an oppositional party.”
“I am grateful to the Member. The point is worth reiterating. Sometimes the Assembly is at its best in its Committees and when it deals with the legislative process. I have often referred to the Executive as "dysfunctional", but I was always confident that the Committee and the Assembly would see the wisdom of what I was proposing. I am pleased that we are at this stage and hope that the Assembly sees fit to pass the Bill at Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />Reform is necessary, as Benjamin Disraeli said. In a progressive country, change is constant and inevitable. You always need change. Politicians rose to the challenge in 1998 — some of you were involved at the time — of lifting us out of a very dark chapter in our history and setting us on another path.”
“So far, we have had 15 hours of debate; over nine Committee meetings; a Consideration Stage of nine and a half hours over two days; some 52 votes in Committee on clauses; 20 Divisions at Consideration Stage; and another five Divisions at Further Consideration Stage.”
“As I said in various debates, the driving factor for the Bill has always been to deal with the historical divisions that plagued us for so many years, while recognising the successes that we have built on for almost 18 years. How do we do that? The absolute necessity is to provide good government by getting to a point at which a Government can function as a collective, make decisions and be held to account for those decisions by a properly constituted opposition. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that the Bill has been subject to a decent amount of scrutiny. We probably never thought that we would see this day; like others, I was not totally convinced that we would make Final Stage.”
“I am sure that the deputy First Minister will be keen to have as much contact as possible with the incoming Irish Government.”
“What makes this place so unpopular with all the constituents whom we expect to be speaking to and encouraging to vote is that they do not see the delivery on the ground and do not feel the change that this place can make. The Assembly and the Executive have enormous power over the lives of every citizen in Northern Ireland, yet we do not see this being used to its full potential. Getting to that and reducing numbers will not drive good governance without, at times, changing the culture and achieving a much more policy-based form of politics: a Government held to account by an opposition. However, I will, like other colleagues, support the passage of the Bill.”
“I have no difficulty in agreeing that we should bank success. The point that others have made is this: why use accelerated passage for a Bill that will not apply for over five years? We could easily have done this in the new term and debated all the points very early on. It could have been introduced in late May or June of this year to a new Assembly. This is the point that I make whilst dealing with all the points that our colleagues have brought up as to what size we think the Assembly should be. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to bank the progress. I welcome the fact that we are at least making some progress and are changing the number of Assembly Members here, as well as reducing the number of Departments. That is important because it helps to drive the delivery of what I like to see as good government.”
“There is an argument in the Welsh Assembly that 60 Members are not enough to provide all the scrutiny and that, with extra powers going, the number should be higher — possibly more like 80. <BR /> <BR />I simply make the point that, in the Bill, we have not decided what the numbers should be. We have not decided whether we are all broadly agreed that it should be 90, 80 or 75. If 90 is the figure, how do we fill that gap? Do we de-couple from Westminster constituencies, or do we have a top-up list system? We have not yet set out our thought processes on that. There is broad agreement that this Bill is a good thing, but I fear that we will pass it today and then, depending on the 2018 Westminster constituency review, find ourselves going down to 80 or 75 Members in 2021.”
“Absolutely. We would have a different level of representation and for different reasons. We have a different historic context to put that in. I also point out that our local government is a very different animal from that in Scotland or Wales. Scottish local government maybe employs some 100,000 people because it is in charge of delivering certain aspects of social care. When we simply compare the size of this Assembly with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, we are not comparing the same levels of function and responsibility. We are also not comparing the need for the inclusion and representation of various sectors of our community. That is something that they do not have to do. I absolutely accept Mr Poots's point that, if you do a straight comparison, of course we are larger.”
“It could easily have been done in the new mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />It comes back to the point about the need for accelerated passage. I do not think that there is a need to pass the Bill by accelerated passage and to do it at this time.”
“The importance of the debate and the overall reforms we have looked at over the last number of months, whether through my Bill about reforming the Assembly and creating an opposition, the reduction in the number of Departments or the reduction in the size of the Assembly, all should be about how we get to a point where we have good governance that is held to account by a robust opposition. That is vital, and I welcome those changes. <BR /> <BR />As Mr Allen said, it is important to reflect on why we had 108 Members. We may move to having 90 Members with one fewer per constituency — five per constituency in 18 constituencies — but I am concerned about what will happen if we do not have 18 constituencies in 2021 and are then at 80 Members. Is that the size of the Assembly that we want?”
“I hear what the Minister says and am grateful to him for his replies outlining that his difficulty is that there is such a short period left. <BR /> <BR />I would like to draw his attention to the microbreweries that have grown up over the last number of years. In my South Down constituency, there are a number that really need legislation to make their business viable and make sampling days an attractive part of our tourist product. That really needs to be looked at and I urge the Minister to leave that with his Department and his successor. Will he pledge to do that?”
“I support the amendments on organ donation. They do not go as far as I would have liked, but I will certainly support them.”
“It is a set of circumstances that one would never want to be confronted with. Imagine the difficulties of such a traumatic event and having to make those decisions. However, that is the important point about these amendments, which are about promotion and putting some structure in place to make sure that we can maximise donation so that, from now, the number of lives that were not saved — 17 people — falls, year on year. We can ensure that people who wish to donate have their wishes respected in the end and are not overruled by their family. All of that has to be done through very sensitive conversations that must be had at a difficult time.”
“<BR /> <BR />Much of the debate on organ donation is about how to continue to ensure that families have those important conversations long before they are confronted with a set of tragic circumstances and that families know about their loved ones' expectations and wishes and what they wanted. That is very important in dealing with the blockages and issues at times of organ donation that seem to be presented to the Department. People may be on the organ register, but their family objects to donation.”
“I commend Mrs Dobson's work in introducing and progressing her private Member's Bill and the Committee's work in scrutinising and shaping it. It is probably slightly bittersweet for her. Whilst the wording of the amendments is similar to the Bill, they probably fall short of what Mrs Dobson would like to have pushed onto her agenda for organ donation. At least it lays down an important marker. We may have found agreement in the Chamber as to how we progress something and, as the Chair said, put some of the structure in place on how to improve organ donation and availability.”
“I am grateful to the Member for that, and I intend to back the amendment. I will listen keenly to what the Minister has to say and will possibly be guided by his advice. At Second Stage, he gave a commitment, as much from the perspective that this sends out a strong message in a public health arena as from anything else. It sends out the message that the Assembly is serious about tackling smoking and the dangers to children. I am minded to listen intently to what the Minister has to say. I support the principle, and I hope that the amendments do enough to get us to where we want to go.”
“<BR /> <BR />For me, this is probably the big debate for the Minister in moving this stage: do we go for a total ban on smoking in cars, which would probably be easier to enforce, or do we leave the discretion that it is simply a ban in cars carrying children under the age of 18? That is an important distinction to make. One is easier to enforce, but it might go too far and be an infringement on civil liberties.”
“I am grateful to the Chair of the Health Committee for that intervention. There is a small volume, in cubic metres, of air in a car. Even with the windows open, smoke simply does not clear. That is where the risk comes from. <BR /> <BR />I come back to the point that the big debate on the amendments is about what will be most effective. I would have preferred the Executive to table their own amendments, as there was a clear will at Second Stage for that to happen, although I know that there were issues, maybe, with getting Executive clearance. However, I would have liked us to have been through that process by the time we hit Further Consideration Stage so that we could build on any amendments to make them as effective and as robust as possible.”
“They, along with many other factors that we have introduced, make a huge difference to road safety and to the injuries sustained. For example, when children are brought home from hospital, no one seriously says, "Well, it is a private space, so you can bring your child home lying across the back seat of your car". You cannot leave hospital without an approved child seat. You might say that it is an infringement of civil liberties, but I say that it is a good thing because it saves lives. It is too important to be left up to the individual when individuals do not always make the right choices.”
“I accept the argument that the Member makes about private space. However, even in a very modestly sized house, the volume of air in a smallish room is significantly larger than that in a car. That comes into it. <BR /> <BR />As for the argument as to whether the Government should ever interfere in regulating anything that goes on in a private space, we have done so over the past 30 or 40 years, particularly with cars. There is a reference in old files that the Northern Ireland Parliament almost introduced seat belt wearing 11 years before it was introduced across the United Kingdom. That would have saved thousands of lives, had it happened, but the Parliament collapsed before it could be progressed. Today, no one argues that seat belts are a huge infringement on civil liberties. They save lives.”
“I am certainly open to being persuaded either way on that.”
“I am grateful to the Member. Certainly, 15% is way too high — way, way too high. There is a sizeable number of people who do that. I will also point out — I think the point was raised in an interchange between Mr Ross and Ms McLaughlin or another member of Sinn Féin — that the damaging impact of smoking can last in a car for up to an hour after a cigarette has been smoked. I realise that we are probably not going to solve that problem. Having that sneaky fag, if you like, on the way to lift the kids from school is still incredibly damaging. <BR /> <BR />Maybe this is where I will test some of the arguments on civil liberty and even enforcement. Does it then become easier to ban smoking outright in cars regardless of the age group because it becomes easier to police, or do we just ban smoking in cars with children under the age of 18?”
“I agree with his comments about anyone who would smoke in the car with their children. It is absolutely mind-numbing that people would act in such an irresponsible, reckless manner. The Assembly, with, I hope, the support of the Minister, can send out a clear message that that is not an acceptable way to behave.”
“We have driven down those numbers with different measures. Now when you go abroad and people are smoking in a bar or restaurant, it almost seems an alien concept. We have become so used to the ban. It was very much a welcome step a number of years ago. The same arguments were put up then, such as, "This could be very difficult to enforce." It has become probably one of the most complied-with laws that we have passed here. <BR /> <BR />On the very idea that we would allow or permit in any form people to smoke in cars, I agree with the Minister. I think that when the issue was also talked about at Second Stage and people declared that they would be likely to bring forward amendments, he used the phrase "stupid" — "stupid", "reckless" or maybe even one stronger than that.”
“It will probably not come as a surprise to many that I support banning smoking. I led a debate on this subject in the early months of this mandate. I accept Mr Ross's arguments round civil liberties, how this impinges or impacts on those and how we make sure that we send out a very strong public health message when it comes to smoking. That is one of the key messages that legislation or regulations flowing from this should send out. It should send out a very, very strong message to people that this is not acceptable, that it is dangerous and that, most of all, it is dangerous to the most precious thing that parents will have in their life — it is a health risk to their children. <BR /> <BR />The health risks for all the population who smoke have now been well-documented for many decades.”
“I was just going to give her a chance to comment on any claims against —”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the extremely wet winter we have been having and the toll that that is taking, in particular on our rural roads. South Down is suffering as much as anywhere. What role and action is the Minister taking, and how much pressure is she exerting, in Transport NI's identification of necessary repairs and of erosion and excess water? Can she give an undertaking that potholes will be identified quickly and filled in with hot bitumen, rather than the cheaper cold bitumen, as it lasts significantly longer? Does her Department —”
“That does not serve anyone well. She made the point that we need and hope that this will lead to a robust and independent mechanism for investigations to be dealt with impartially, fairly and in a way that can give confidence to those under investigation, but, most of all, give confidence to the public and to the people whom we seek to serve. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful for Members' support for a range of amendments. I will continue, right up to the very last, to urge you to support as many of the amendments that stand in my name as possible and, indeed, those amendments that I have spoken in favour of that stand in the name of colleagues.”
“I would like to have seen more around collective responsibility and legal entity, but his key point was that this is the venue, this is the place, this is the Chamber that should do the reform of our Assembly and Executive. I think that is key. That is what is set out in amendment No 11 to the schedule about that maturity that other colleagues have talked about. I think it is right and proper that it is based on legislation here and is open and debated through all the stages and all the votes that have taken place. <BR /> <BR />Ms Sugden made some good points around the ministerial code. She said that there is limited opportunity to investigate breaches. It can be unfair to Ministers who may be the subject of unfair and unfounded allegations that there is not some way of independently and robustly investigating that.”
“There seemed to be broad support for it, including from Mr Lunn, who was also supportive of the private Member's Bill amendment. Ms Catríona Ruane reiterated Sinn Féin's position. While others might be critical, at least it has been consistent on it, and I am grateful for its engagement in the earlier part of this process. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew talked about good governance and the code of conduct and how sanctions can be so easily avoided if you are outside the scope of that code or are not deemed to have been acting as an MLA. All those things are important issues that the Assembly will have to face up to at some point in the future. <BR /> <BR />At least there is broad consensus now that we need to get to the point of agreeing a Programme for Government.”
“How we support that work, with Bill Clerks, Assembly officials and funding, is also important. I remind Members that it is not just opposition Members, as the Committee Stage reminded us, it is Back-Benchers from across the House. <BR /> <BR />I think that the key phrase for me in Mr Kennedy's contribution was the disengagement between this House and the public. That is something that we have to recognise, and it is at the very core of what I have broadly set out in the Bill. It is about how we re-energise the Assembly. How do we get it back to being very much focused on policy, delivery and, as Mr Agnew pointed out, good governance? How do you address the historical divisions and build in good governance around these issues? <BR /> <BR />Mr Kennedy welcomed the legislative timetable.”
“Mr Attwood and Mr Lunn mentioned the amendment on private Member's Bills. One of the issues that came out at Committee Stage was that, although it is important to create rights for an opposition, we must not forget about the rights of Back-Benchers, be they opposition Members or Government Back-Benchers. That was the motivation behind the amendment on support for all Back-Benchers involved in bringing private Member's Bills. Even those Back-Benchers who bring private Member's Bills that are not successful very often push the Government in the direction they might have been going close to, and they are given the motivation to move on and do something. I see Mr McKay in the House. He helped to move the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his Department to look at the rating of sports clubs. That was a useful intervention.”
“If I heard her correctly, I think she said that she supports amendment No 20, which proposes a new schedule, and amendment No 21, and I am grateful for that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood has a huge interest in the welfare reform agenda and the impact that it will have on the vulnerable and those most dependent on it, not only in his constituency but across Northern Ireland. He spoke about the mechanisms for monitoring some of the mitigation measures. Are they targeted? Are they getting to where they need to go? I think that this adds value and is an important part of it.”
“I will go through the contributions very briefly. I am grateful to Mr Sheehan who, in his role as Deputy Chair of the Committee, went through the amendments. I am grateful to him, his colleagues on the Committee and the Committee staff for all their engagement. Having served on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, I know that it is not used to having a glut of legislation or lengthy meetings, so I am grateful for the work that it put in. I think it made a huge contribution to shaping the Bill and some of the thought processes on it. <BR /> <BR />I welcome Ms Bradley's comments in supporting many of my amendments, including amendment No 4 on the 8%, some of the ones on timing and amendment No 11, which proposes a clause to give rise to the motion.”
“If my amendments, including amendment No 11, are made, I will propose to move amendment LT1, which is the amendment to put the long title back in, with the transfer of responsibilities motion. I urge Members to support the amendments standing in my name because we have a chance to shape the Bill, move in the direction of political maturity for the greater good and improve the delivery and accountability of the Assembly and Executive.”
“I am grateful to the Member for those points. It is up to those who tabled the amendments to speak more fully to them, but the general frustration in the Assembly is how we hold Ministers to account when things go wrong? We usually end up with a vote that breaks down into a petition of concern, which does not seem to get us anywhere. Sanction has been passed on very few Ministers. I suspect that some of that frustration is probably coming out in the amendments. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I hope that the amendments standing in my name find favour with the Assembly as I have tried to speak to every party on many occasions on this and have worked with them.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments in the names of Steven Agnew and Claire Sugden. Amendment No 12 is a stand-alone amendment and would effectively create a second schedule to the Bill. There are important issues, and I know that Mr Agnew and Ms Sugden have spoken before about what Assembly processes there are for holding Ministers to account or keeping within the ministerial code. They are good, sensible amendments that we should look favourably on.”
“I am grateful. I replaced the honourable Member as deputy leader of that party at that time, and I will not go into which of us performed the role better. I know that he certainly got to perform it for longer. <BR /> <BR />I accept his point that he is not fixated on titles: I simply make the point that, if the leader were not available, it might somehow limit things further down, or you would be depending on Standing Orders making more provision. I would simply say that, if it is in the Bill and your party was the party in opposition, you would not have to use the title but might be glad of having the position at the point when it comes to asking questions of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That is the point. I support your amendment No 8; it is a sensible amendment.”
“Those are the points that a Committee like that could certainly look at, so I am not unsympathetic to that amendment. <BR /> <BR />On the UUP amendments, I just worry that amendment Nos 7 and 8 are slightly contradictory. If one party formed the opposition, taking out the provision for a deputy leader of a non-Executive group could limit you in what is written into Standing Orders on a future occasion. However, I am very supportive of adding, through amendment No 8, "oral questions and statements". That is important.”
“However, I would probably pitch this around amendment Nos 11, 20 and 21, in saying that I think I can get enough support in the Assembly to take those steps towards that all-important political maturity. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the SDLP amendment on the establishment of a welfare reform and measures Committee. I am broadly supportive of a measure like that, although it would probably have been better to do it before we gave some welfare powers back to Westminster. If it were to look at things like how we are spending the money or to hold to account how we might use the £585 million on welfare, it would be worth looking at that. Indeed, is that where we want to spend that money? Today, I got a response back from the Employment and Learning Minister in which he said that he effectively has no money to deliver an economic inactivity strategy.”
“Personally, I would certainly support moving back to the d'Hondt system for the election of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister, but it would be wrong of me not to point out to Members that we have a chance at getting agreement on amendment No 11 and at taking those small steps towards political maturity here. I very much welcome the engagement that I have had with Mr Attwood and his party colleagues on the Bill over recent weeks. I think that there is much merit in the new schedule, but I do not think that we will get support for it. I support, of course, his amendments on a motion to request a Programme for Government and on the function of Statutory Committees, which got some support in the last debate.”
“I originally had a similar provision in the Bill, but my policy intent — I seek some clarification from Mr Attwood on this if he is speaking to it — was always that you would broadly make your decision at the start of a mandate: either you are in the Government or you are in the opposition. The reason I had written in a similar provision — it was not completely the same — was that, if you hit a crisis or needed to negotiate someone in, you could do that. Indeed, the reason I dropped it was that there is provision there to rerun d'Hondt. However, I am interested in and am not unsympathetic to that amendment. <BR /> <BR />On the SDLP's other amendments, amendment No 13 is mutually exclusive with my amendment No 11. I am not unsympathetic to the new schedule that it would create.”
“Amendment Nos 14 and 17 are technical amendments to tidy up the language in the Bill if amendment No 11 is made. Amendment No 11 gives you the mechanism to take those small but important steps on the road to maturity. It sends out a very important message to the public that we are starting on that road. We have just finished a lengthy debate on something that is crucial to many people. I wish to see the continuing process of how the Assembly matures and evolves over time reflected in the Bill through my amendment. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendments tabled by colleagues. The SDLP has proposed various amendments to the Bill and a new schedule on leaving the opposition and rejoining the Executive.”
“This proposal on the Programme for Government and amendment No 21 say that we should at least, at a future point, given cross-community support, have the ability and the power in the Assembly to decide how we or a future Assembly might elect its presiding officer or Speaker. That is all that this does; it does not set out how we would do it. You know from the original Bill what my views are on how that should be done, but that is not in these amendments. The amendments simply state that we should devolve those two powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, with all the safeguards built in around cross-community support.”