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 3 of 20.
“What are the items on which we could get broad agreement in the Assembly to say that we should at least start the process of moving from excepted to reserved matters? That is why amendment No 11 is important. It is set in with amendment No 20, which proposes a new schedule that would put in the time frame for agreeing the terms of a Programme for Government. There seems to be broad agreement amongst the parties that it is desirable that we have control of that and that more responsibility is devolved as the Assembly continues its journey to maturity. <BR /> <BR />When I reflected on the Consideration Stage, I knew that we were not in a position to go as far as I would have liked with designations, petitions of concern or moving to weighted-majority voting.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 addresses an issue relating to private Members' Bills. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament designate a Bill Clerk and give total support for private Members' Bills. It has been hard for our Bill Office to manage to do that because it is dealing with so many things. It has been unfair on staff, and the amendment is simply a reflection of how we could best deal with that. Amendment No 18, which is on the legislative timetable, found broad support from the Assembly and is aimed at finding a way of writing it into the main body of the Bill. I think that that is to be encouraged. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 came about from reflecting on the Committee Stage and the Consideration Stage of the Bill. It was very much about asking how we find a mechanism to start the process of political maturation here.”
“I will deal with my amendments first. I will link amendment Nos 10 and 18. On amendment No 18, in the Consideration Stage debate I felt that there was widespread support for how we, as an Assembly, should have a debate around an Executive's legislative timetable. I think that even the Speaker, in his writings and correspondence on the Bill, talked about how we could create some family-friendly hours. There are many Members with young families, and it is a question of how we deal with that and make this place more family-friendly and easier for people to balance work and family commitments. That is important. It also is an important dynamic to make sure that we do not end up in the situation that we had in the last two mandates with a rush of legislation in the last few weeks and months.”
“That simply gives us to 30 June 2016. Amendment No 19 means that the Bill becomes law the day after Royal Assent. It, again, is technical in nature.”
“No one is ever quite sure what the d'Hondt level is, but it is probably around 11% or 12%, maybe even 13% with the changes to the number of Departments. I hope that we can find some agreement around the 8% level and that amendment No 4 will be made. It strikes the balance between having an opposition of a reasonable size and not setting the bar so high that you have to meet the d'Hondt level. Hopefully, the 8% level will find favour with Members. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 and 19 are very technical in nature. They are about addressing any possibility of dealing with things like Royal Assent coming late and d'Hondt being run before we have fitted in the time. That allows time for the Assembly to change its Standing Orders to meet those needs if a party were opting to take up its role as opposition after the 5 May Assembly election.”
“Amendment Nos 5 to 28, LT1, LT2 and LT3. <BR /> <BR />Given the length of the day that we have had, I will be as brief as possible, although I am always aware that, when people say that, they then go on and speak for an hour. In guiding the amendments in my name, I have been in constant consultation with other parties, reflecting not only on the Committee Stage and some of the changes suggested there but listening to the debate at Consideration Stage and the parties' views. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 4 and the issue of 8% forming the basis for an opposition. Debates at Committee Stage and Consideration Stage showed that we had to find a balance somewhere. Originally, I proposed 5% of the Assembly membership, and, in 'A Fresh Start', it was moved to the d'Hondt threshold.”
“If only the Minister could see whether there was any way of tapping into some more of that resource in the national target and build on the successes. To stop the scheme effectively a week from now is putting huge pressure on businesses in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, and that is huge source of regret.”
“I am grateful. I do take that point, because why on earth would you, at a point in the future, enter into or believe in a Government commitment or project? You would have to have a fair degree of suspicion when you entered into such an agreement. It reminds me of the old saying, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help". That level of suspicion around what would happen would be created. Not only is this hugely damaging to DETI's reputation in Northern Ireland but it deals a huge blow to confidence. <BR /> <BR />The agrifood sector availed itself of the scheme, which was helping to deliver on some of its targets, and it could have been used and managed every bit as well as it is being done in England.”
“The scheme is therefore something that we should have been supporting. <BR /> <BR />From the perspective of the agrifood sector, it could have a huge impact.”
“That seems as if we could make and use this scheme and stretch it far beyond and get the maximum benefit out of it". We end up being the only part of the UK that has to call time on this — even earlier than we had hoped to. Of course, we end up with all the problems associated with that, such as the possibility of businesses running into financial hardship, or businesses not knowing whether they should have been putting workers on notice last Friday, this Friday or whatever Friday. It creates uncertainty for the subcontractors. It makes doing business on a government scheme very difficult. This is exactly the type of business that we want to support: home-grown business that is not going to move to a lower cost base at some point in the future, because it has to be here.”
“Not only off the hook, I suspect; maybe out on the voluntary exit scheme. That is the problem that we face. Many colleagues here ran or were involved in small businesses in a previous life. How do you manage that? Very often, it is cash flow that takes businesses down. How do you order £1 million of equipment and then find out that it is not by 31 March but by 29 February that the work has to be done? It is impossible to manage and deal with the scheme that way. <BR /> <BR />The frustrating thing is related to the points that Mr Agnew made. We look across the water at the rest of the country and see that it is managing it and doing it properly. Where there is supply and demand, a balance has to be struck on where, perhaps, a limit has to be placed on what can be used. Most of us would probably say, "That seems reasonably sensible.”
“I have one in south Down that has £1 million of equipment on order, knowing — in the sure and certain knowledge, they thought — that the Government had guaranteed the scheme until 31 March. Where does that business go? When does it start to lay people off? If it is as bad as many Members think, where are we going to stop with redundancies? Will it be at 1,000? Will it be at 1,500? Will it be at 2,000?”
“I represent one of the constituencies that will be very heavily affected by this. Part of the Minister's remit is to, very often, travel round the world and sell Northern Ireland as a place to invest and as a place where there is a skilled workforce and to talk about all the things that we can do. Here, we have a scheme that, as Mr Agnew said, was very successful in creating skilled employment and local jobs yet also in meeting an environmental obligation. We have all those. We have small companies, some of which are subcontractors; perhaps they are self-employed plumbers, working on other smaller businesses. Mr Allister talked about one in his constituency.”
“I am grateful to the Member. Will he also agree that it puts smaller businesses, in particular, in a precarious place when it comes to managing and ordering in stock when they think that a scheme will last for a certain time? Even single traders and plumbers — it leaves all those businesses in a very difficult state in which to plan and budget for the future.”
“Let us all set ourselves the task of engaging meaningfully with Mr Hamilton's working group so that, if it does report in six months, maybe this time next year we can look at creating meaningful legislation that will help some other families not to have to face the agony and public exposure that Sarah Ewart had to.”
“We trusted our clinicians to do that, but we got to a point by the 2013 guidelines, whereby we had closed the doors on clinicians making any decisions on this. That is something that we need to address. I am supportive of Mr Dickson and Mr Lunn's amendment on the very specific issue of fatal foetal abnormality. <BR /> <BR />It is very hard to defend cases involving rape and incest, such as that which occurred in the Republic of Ireland a number of years ago, or the case of a 14-year-old who became pregnant by a relative. I say that as someone who has three children. I know the joy that children bring to a family home, and this is not something that I ever want to be faced with. I am, however, aware that I am a man speaking about the rights of women.”
“I am prepared to count that as a genuine effort to find a way forward, and I hope that I am not proven wrong. I hope that it is a genuine effort. If these amendments are to fall tonight, I would regret it, but if it is a genuine effort, let us all set ourselves the task of finding some way to deal with these issues that lie at the core of circumstances that have limited outcomes. Let us see how we can find a way to deal with that in our health service. <BR /> <BR />Some people are worried that this will open the floodgates. This crisis has been created in Northern Ireland by a combination of previous guidelines, court cases and the fact that, 10 to 12 years ago, these cases were being dealt with in a way that still met the current view of the law.”
“When the judgement came out there were even more guidelines. This is a crisis of governance in Northern Ireland. We have, to his credit, a Minister of Justice who has tried to get some of these issues through the Executive. I think that this deserves to come before the House as stand-alone legislation with Committee scrutiny through which we could bring all the experts, clinicians and legal people together to give evidence. So far, however, in the Executive, we have had a collective inability to agree legislation, and indeed can barely agree on much more than a consultation. In addition, we have a collective inability to get guidelines out or to get agreement on what they should be. <BR /> <BR />The First Minister and the Minister of Health have announced that a working group is to be set up.”
“I would much prefer to see our Departments working much harder on sex education and making sure that we drive down unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortions. What the amendments are about is us showing, in very limited circumstances, some compassion to people who are at an absolutely heart-wrenching point in their lives. That is why we have to support them. <BR /> <BR />As for the arguments that it is not the right way of doing it and that it is not the right time, we have had the debate for many years and have wrestled with it. Mr McGimpsey was the Minister of Health when the Department first brought in guidelines. Those guidelines were judicially reviewed, and the Department lost on two quite minor issues. Then we went into a new Administration, and more guidelines were produced.”
“If we cast our minds back to a number of years ago, there was a case in the Republic of Ireland — I think that it was called the x case — of a young woman, who was maybe 14 years of age and who the state, at one time, was going to force to stay. I find that a difficult thing to defend or to say that that was the right decision. I accept that there are concerns, as Mr Allister said, about how you prove it. I, for one, am prepared to trust women on that. That is something that we have to do. <BR /> <BR />Standing here, I am acutely aware that I am a 40-something man who is talking about the rights of women. I do not have hugely liberal views on abortion on demand; I am not a supporter of it.”
“That would be a huge step forward in dealing with a tragedy in as compassionate a way as we can and building in the supports that all of us would want to see, whatever choice that mother or that family might make. That is something that we have to recognise. <BR /> <BR />Like Mr Agnew, I would have preferred for it to be seen as a health issue rather than through the criminal law. I find it somewhat disturbing that the laws that we are seeking to amend are 150 and 70 years old. They seem so far removed from life in 2016, not just in Northern Ireland but probably anywhere in the world. <BR /> <BR />We are addressing tragedies, no more so than in the case of rape and incest.”
“The one thing that I recognise and say to colleagues who oppose to the amendment is that it is about giving a choice to a family in a very difficult set of circumstances. It is not saying that they must do one thing or the other, and it builds in support that we would want to see. Many families might take the option of going to full term and might find some crumb of comfort in having a minute, two minutes or 10 minutes with their child. That might help with the grieving process for that family. All that Mr Dickson and Mr Lunn's amendment is suggesting is that, for some people, we might offer that choice, that support and that ability to deal with it here, at home, in a hospital that is close to their family, and not have to move the problem.”
“We listened to the stories of women, who, like Sarah Ewart, came forward to tell their stories. That is an incredibly courageous thing to do. There are few things that you will ever talk about in the public square that are more personal than that experience. There are few things that are more personal that you will have to deal with and truly bare your soul on. That is why the amendment on fatal foetal abnormality is hugely important.”
“Like many colleagues in the House, we know the huge joy that children bring to our lives and, for some of us, the huge joy that grandchildren bring to the lives of colleagues here. However, the debate and the amendments that we are talking about relate to times when individuals or families are faced with what can only be described as absolute human tragedy, when you are given a diagnosis and your joy turns to great alarm and sadness. I would not wish that on anyone. I just hope that I am never faced with that set of circumstances or ever have to even think about what our reaction as a family would be. I do not want to have to do that and I do not want anyone else to have to do that.”
“In looking at this issue and listening to the debate, I have huge respect for colleagues. This tests all our consciences because of personal circumstances or issues of faith. I think that it is important — in fact, it is hugely significant — that we are having this debate without a petition of concern. In the UK, we have a great tradition in parliamentary democracy of having votes on issues of conscience like this, and I think that this is an important marker to set down. <BR /> <BR />This is an issue that I think about and reflect on. This month six years ago, my wife and I got the great news that we were expecting our first child. We have subsequently gone on to have three pregnancies and three healthy children. We had midwife-led care through the NHS, and everything went very well. That was our experience.”
“However, you cannot then start to complain when others use the petition of concern. It is part of the system, and that takes away your right to complain when others use it against equal marriage, for example. It would have been a huge sacrifice by the DUP because it could have triggered a weighted majority vote. However, unless the DUP gets about 45 seats after an election, it does not have the numbers to block it.”
“I am grateful to Raymond for another intervention. There were a couple of things throughout his comments. First, the World Bank recommends that opposition parties chair a public accounts committee. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill that points to a "Frankenstein's monster". Our electoral system and d'Hondt are all your guarantees into Government. On moving away from designation to a weighted majority, a weighted majority still protects people, and you can set it at whatever level you think appropriate. I agree that all those protections should be there.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will he accept that Westminster is significantly older than this Assembly by a huge number of years? As I said in Committee, this Assembly is a creature of statute. It is set up by statute. Effectively, the 1998 Act is our constitution, and that is why I think that it was important to give confidence in doing that in Standing Orders. The debate that has resulted from the Bill having been tabled has literally all been done in public session. It has been good that that has been done, and people know exactly what they are signing up for. That is why I think that putting it in primary legislation is so important.”
“I do not think that anyone looks on the way that our Budget is done with a great sense of pride. We need a better system and we need to do it much better. Amendment No 28, from the SDLP, is about that issue. It might be worth looking to see whether the party would consider an independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland at Further Consideration Stage and if that would be a useful addition. I am supporting amendment No 29, which is a DUP amendment about the removal of technical groups. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks at the end of the group 1 debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 21 and 22 are, again, about the names of opposition leaders or positions. My amendment Nos 23 and 24 relate to the right to allow a technical group. I appeal to Members to consider it. I have pared them way back to allow us just to have technical groups in here. It is a recognised right. It was a right used in the Dáil by Sinn Féin before they exceeded the seven seat threshold. So, it is a right that they used, and we should have it here, if so desired. That technical group would also have access to the Business Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25 is, again, about opposition names and may not be moved. Amendment Nos 26 and 27 are about the Budget Committee. These are hugely important amendments and add significantly to the Bill because of the way our Budget process has been handled.”
“I will probably not move some in that sequence, and the eight or nine amendments on changing titles. Amendment Nos 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are about changing titles, so I will wait and see what the House decides on that matter. <BR /> <BR />The next set of amendments removes technical groups. Amendment No 16 is important in that we should, at least, allow Standing Orders to provide for different names or titles — or, indeed, no title — for the equivalent of leaders of the opposition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 18 is important because it commits to speaking rights. Mr Kennedy and others alluded to it being important that that issue stayed. Amendment No 19 is, again, around speaking rights. Amendment No 20 states that after a Government is formed, speaking rights for the opposition will be enhanced by 20%: if we have an opposition.”
“So many of our young people are now more interested in Westminster politics than in what happens here, even though the Assembly has huge powers over every aspect of their lives. <BR /> <BR />I will do a quick run-through on the amendments. I will not move amendment No 1 and will bring it back at Further Consideration Stage with the figure changed to 8%. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are about taking technical groups out of the Bill. Amendment No 4 is probably unnecessary if others are made. Amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7 deal with technical groups.”
“Sorry, four parties now. It will probably be back to five after the election. <BR /> <BR />We are not the only place in western Europe that has to address these issues. We are not the only place in western Europe that uses a system of PR and has coalition Governments. Our ideological divides might be quite profound, but the Belgians can do it. In one case, they took a long time to get agreement on forming a Government, but they got agreement, formed a Government and governed, whereas we just use the system, get into government and then think about what we will do. We have to get beyond that, or the voting public will not be interested in coming out to support any of us, never mind with any enthusiasm.”
“I accept that there are ideological differences between parties, but it is up to them to agree what they can agree and to start to deliver. Our big difficulty is that they barely deliver even on the stuff that they agree on. That is the problem. That is probably difficult because you have five parties in government, and it is difficult to negotiate.”
“That is what I call genuine power-sharing. It is genuine power-sharing based firmly on the principles of the Good Friday Agreement and genuine power-sharing that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. On some of the amendments —”
“The Tories and Lib Dems were pushed to uncomfortable places: the Lib Dems over tuition fees and the Conservatives over House of Lords reform. We read bits and pieces about it, but the Government did not collapse. They did not need somebody to come in from Europe to sort out their problems or a former US senator to help them through the difficulties. Look at the difficult decisions that the Republic of Ireland has had to make over the last eight or nine years. That is why a single unitary Government and a collective Cabinet make such a difference to the way in which they do their business. That is why I put it in. You have the authority of Ministers acting here, but it is acting in a shared-out way and saying, "There is so much for you, and there is so much for you". We need government to act, speak and deliver as one unit.”
“People do not see delivery. They see an economy languishing behind the rest of the UK, never mind behind the Republic of Ireland. They see hospitals and the health service in difficulty and do not see reform coming. They see limited reform on education. We see all that right across government. The Bill is all about driving us to a point at which we build consensus between government parties and have negotiations and government parties then sort their internal problems behind closed doors, present a policy and a united front and stand by that policy rather than all heading for the hills when something gets slightly difficult and they are pushed to uncomfortable places. That is not what governing is or should be about. We all lose credibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is about getting good governance that is held to account by an opposition that provides the voting public with an alternative at a future election. We are in the politics of zero consequences, politics where elections do not really matter that much. We might change a few faces here and there, but, overall, the same numbers will come back. Think how different it might have looked in the autumn, when we were in crisis, had there been a viable opposition challenging the lead parties in the Government. There might have been a real fear factor about having an election. It might have been a real motivator to sort out the problems. That is the difference. That is why we need to get that. <BR /> <BR />It is true that we all get tarred with the one brush. Many a time, I am asked, "What are youse all doing up there?".”
“<BR /> <BR />I genuinely believe that most people come into politics to pursue noble causes and better the lives of the constituents in the areas that they live in and represent. I have no doubt about the motivations of most people in the Chamber, but you want to get on and deliver that. Sometimes, I see Ministers who want to get on and deliver some type of reform but cannot do it. We are four and a bit years into Transforming Your Care. How much of it have we delivered? I might not like the direction of travel of some Executive policies — that is fine — but if, at least, the Executive were agreed on them and were going in that direction, I could understand that and respect it. When the Executive hit a difficult decision and everyone runs for cover, it makes you look dysfunctional. It is not the way to conduct government.”
“I agree entirely with his point that we have been good at the peace process but we need more than government by peace process negotiation. We need to do better than to simply say, "We have hit a crisis so we'd better ring David and Enda to see if they can come and help us out", and then say to them, "Can you come and gently nudge us through? And don't forget to bring the chequebook with you". We need to do better than that — everyone here — as parties that are working and investing in actually developing the policies, ideas and politics of aspiration for the people we serve. Otherwise, why are we here? Why is this institution here? What are we seeking in politics?”
“I know that it has certainly been problematic. Sometimes, when you seek certain rights, it can be batted about between the Business Committee and the Committee on Procedures, with nobody quite wanting to make a decision. Again, that comes back to why the Bill is so important. Over the next few hours and possibly next Monday, Members have to make a decision on what they are voting for. That is why the Bill just cannot go the way of another report. You cannot just say, "Well done, everybody. That was a fascinating read". This has to be voted on. People have to say yes or no. They have to show the colour of their money. That is very important. <BR /> <BR />I just want to deal with a couple of Mr Agnew's points.”
“I think that there are still many measures in the Bill that we have the competence to deal with here. We can and should deal with them. People are debating the principle of having an opposition. The fact that the SDLP and others accept the principle of opposition — even Sinn Féin, while it wants to do it by a different way — is a huge advance from where we were three or four years ago. When I started this process and the debate about opposition, not many to my right would even have mentioned the word instead of making it up. It may have been longer ago for Mr Attwood; he is not as recent a convert. <BR /> <BR />I have dealt with the important issues around Mr Allister's points on the technical groups, from his experience both at the European Parliament and his time here, and the difficulties in doing that. I agree with him.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not as downbeat about the Bill as Mr Kennedy or Mr Lunn are.”
“I am grateful to Mr Kennedy, but he should consider that, since the Good Friday Agreement, Westminster has changed, at St Andrews, things like the way in which the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are elected or appointed, and the fact that we never formed an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the likes of petitions of concern. His party has probably suffered from the debate about the First Minister and the deputy First Minister situation. I warn him: he might want to be careful about what he wishes for from his friends in here, but maybe he should not get too excited about what he will get from his friends at Westminster. I agree that it is better to have it based in legislation, as you and Mr Attwood said. I think that it is important that it stays, and why the Bill is here.”
“I also point out that Lord Empey set the number for opposition at the very low level of just one Member, which might be good news for colleagues in a party here.”
“I will point out what Lord Empey proposed to bring in the House of Lords. He wanted the opposition to have speaking rights; that is in my Bill. He wanted it to have supply days; that is in my Bill. He wanted it to have Chair and Deputy Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee; that is in my Bill. He proposed that those be allocated in a manner that is appropriate to their status in the Assembly; that is in the Bill. He also proposed that the Speaker should determine what is proportionate, and that that be set out in Standing Orders. Again, it is in the Bill that we would work that. Furthermore, Westminster legislation would determine that we only change Standing Orders. That is exactly what this is doing. We have the competency to do it here; why would we not do it here? Why would we let Westminster do it?”
“That is an important point. The thread throughout the Bill about the single unitary government, which Mr Agnew talked about, collective Cabinet government and agreeing a Programme for Government before you run d'Hondt — all those measures — have been seeking to drive us down a road where you are forced to build consensus and look like a Government that are going in the one direction and know roughly where they are going, instead of pulling in many different directions, with Ministers, as Dr O'Malley said, able to act like "dictators" in their own wee fiefdom. That seems very much at odds with the spirit and principle of the Good Friday Agreement. <BR /> <BR />Yes, Mr Kennedy seemed to be making the argument about legislation, but what he really meant was legislation at Westminster.”
“I take a contrary view, because, by doing it in the way that we do it, we end up, as Eoin O'Malley, who gave evidence to the Committee, said, with a situation in which:”
“Here we are in February — I almost said "January" — and still there are no opposition rights. I very much agree with Mr Kennedy's point. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood also talked about OFMDFM being elected. I warn him that petition-of-concerning clause 13 may leave it difficult for him to table the amendment on electing the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. He could have petition-of-concerned the schedule and not clause 13 and still left such an amendment as a viable option. Clauses 13, 14, 15 and the schedule sought to trigger debate on issues that we could not deal with. The SDLP might have just killed that part of the Bill off. <BR /> <BR />There is one point on which I disagree with him strongly. He made a comment about the authority of Ministers and the rationale of power-sharing.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the Assembly votes to accept clause 6, which would create a leader and deputy leader of the opposition, the change of titles in amendment Nos 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22 and 25 would probably become unnecessary. <BR /> <BR />There are several points that I want to make in response to Mr Attwood. I agree with him that this is a chance to put this into law. There is a chance to do that, which will make it difficult for future Executives to take it away. That is a point that Mr Kennedy made at Second Stage: enshrining it in law was a good thing. He said:”