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 4 of 20.
“<BR /> <BR />We want to get to a point where we have scrutiny, deliver good governance and deliver for the people who send us here to represent their interests. It is an enormous privilege to do that. <BR /> <BR />Before I go through the amendments, I will set some context by outlining what was said in the debate. Ms Ruane made a point about majoritarianism, and I nailed that myth: there was never — in any of my plans, in this Bill or in any of the amendments that have been tabled — any attempt to do that. I want to see, and I have always said this, genuine power-sharing and people working for the common good, not this shared-out power. That is worth looking at. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bradley talked about the technical groups, which I have dealt with.”
“Others have questioned the need for salaries. In Scotland and Wales, leaders of opposition or non-Government parties get a salary, regardless of whether they take it or use it to employ people. I am relatively relaxed about that. However, I made the point at the Committee that, when it comes to an opposition holding the Government to account, if you have even four parties in a coalition, you end up with nearly 100 Members from governing parties, with all the financial assistance that that brings. You end up with Departments that have a total of 25,000 civil servants working for them, and you end up with 18 or 19 SpAds. Yet, somehow, people are fearful of an opposition of nine or 10 Members or a technical group in the corner that does not get opposition rights but gets modest funding.”
“This Assembly's Budget is beholden to the Executive arm of government, which is a problem that needs to be addressed. So implementing all the changes could be cost-neutral because of the change in the Committee structure.”
“It means that we become a laughing stock outside. The case for technical groups — I accept that they are stripped of the right to form an opposition — is very strong. I encourage Members to support that proposition. <BR /> <BR />Some of the costs are very modest; there is actually a saving. We are about to get rid of three Departments. That means that we will go down by three Committees as well, which saves over £500,000. Even if we were to have a budget committee, we would still be about £300,000 better off. Even if we were to hold a review of financial assistance to political parties and give some more support to opposition, we would still be in a position to save money. If we looked beyond that, at why the Assembly pays all ministerial salaries, you could save more money from that as well.”
“The Democratic Unionist Party has eight Members, or 1·2% of the seats, in the House of Commons, and yet it is allocated some Opposition Day debates. Nigel Dodds, as DUP leader in Westminster, gets picked fairly regularly to ask a question to the Prime Minister. I am glad that it has the rights to do that. Let us have some rights for the affectionately named "naughty corner" here. Over time, this corner has played an important role in bringing forward and pushing for legislation. Sometimes, it is almost like the children's fairy tale: somebody has to say that the emperor has no clothes in this place. The Government are not always right on things. They need to be told that and held to account, but that should not come from inside the Government; that makes our Government look, to use Peter Robinson's phrase, "dysfunctional".”
“I think that, as the research carried out during the Committee Stage showed, there were 21 members of the Dáil technical group. That is one more than the largest opposition party of Fianna Fáil, but the technical group does not get the rights; Fianna Fáil does. The technical group gets the speaking rights, which is right and proper. I was happy to concede that my original thinking of technical groups was that they could form an opposition if no one else was willing to step into that role. <BR /> <BR />Technical groups would make a useful addition. They would have very limited additional rights, but perhaps they could have the right to have a seat on the Business Committee. At the minute, we have no way of tabling motions. We cannot even table an Adjournment topic, as has been said before.”
“I accept, from the Committee report and process, that I have, through amendments, stripped technical groups of the right to form an opposition, but technical groups are very much in line with many other Parliaments that make up our United Kingdom and these islands. I gave some examples to the Committee. The European Parliament was mentioned by Mr Allister, who is a former Member of it. He took advantage of being in a technical group. Its threshold is 3·3% to qualify for a technical group. In Dáil Éireann, it is just over 4%. In the Scottish Parliament, it is five Members out of 129, which is 3·9%. That does not prevent other parties doing that. In the Republic of Ireland, there is a huge tradition of independents.”
“<BR /> <BR />I accept that, during the work on the Committee report, the issue of technical groups vexed many Committee members. I can tell you that there was a look of fear when the very idea of Steven Agnew being some sort of leader of the opposition assisted by Jim Allister was mentioned; that was just too much to bear.”
“<BR /> <BR />We would then become more than just an Assembly and Executive that spends money without thinking about the consequences for how you raise money or cuts corporation tax without thinking about how you fill the gap in skills funding. We would have to deal with all the questions that flow from that. We would need to look at our economic data. If we are getting the Northern Ireland fiscal affairs council to tie in with that and have that scrutiny where it belongs in our representative democracy here in the Assembly, that is very much in need of reform. I encourage Members to support changing that. I hope that, even though Sinn Féin opposes the clauses, it will look at amendments like that and, even at this late stage, recognise that there is likely to be a Bill passed and try to shape some of it.”
“It is fair to say that the desires of that report have not materialised, so it is now time that we look seriously at our Budget process. As I pointed out in an intervention to Mr Attwood, if we are serious about devolving more powers to this House and about being at the forefront of the larger conversation and debate that is going on across the UK about what powers devolved regions of our nation have, and, if some parties like Sinn Féin are serious that they want their hands on more of the fiscal levers that operate this — that is something that I am supportive of, but devolving corporation tax powers or certain income tax powers comes with its own difficulties — we need to lift our game significantly.”
“As Mr Attwood said, the Budget process has been very unsatisfactory for a long time. A full five years ago, at the end of the last mandate, the Finance and Personnel Committee did its own report examining legislative provisions to allow for a Budget Committee to be established and whether an amendment to legislation is required, and considering the potential membership of a Budget Committee and whether there would be the possibility of a conflict of interest if you were to sit on it and on another Statutory Committee. There was also to be a memorandum of understanding signed between the Assembly and the Executive. I think that I am correct in saying that that has not been signed yet — a mere five years after the fact. I will quote from the Committee's conclusions:”
“Indeed, the Alliance Party is currently very near that level; if they were to turn down the tempting offer of Justice, perhaps, in the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />That is why I think it is important. There are several things. It is not only about being a d'Hondt party but about asking parties to come out of government. I have concerns about the wording in Fresh Start that says that parties have to declare whether they are going into government before they are permitted to take part in the Programme for Government negotiations. That might cause some difficulties in how the process would be managed. That is what I propose to do with amendment No 1. I hope to get agreement from across the House when it comes back at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the broad issues of technical groups and the Budget Committee.”
“I am grateful to the Member. D'Hondt is just a mathematical calculation, and it can depend, of course, on where all the parties are. For example, in 2011, had the Ulster Unionists one more Member, the Alliance Party would have been outside the d'Hondt process, and that would have knocked it about. My best guess is that you are probably looking at a d'Hondt calculation requirement of 12 or 13 MLAs for one Minister. It might reduce down to that somewhat, although it might be higher. Do not forget that there will be nine Departments, so that is why the number will be up slightly. But it again depends on where other parties come. This will reduce it and will give the option to smaller parties if they grow and are more successful.”
“I am prepared to not move it today but to come back at Further Consideration Stage with more or less the same amendment but with the figure changed to 8% from 5%. For that reason, I will not move amendment No 1, and I think that amendment No 3 is the other one that is linked to those changes.”
“I take Mr Agnew's point. It is much more familiar, and we are used to it. That is probably a simple reflection of our coverage of Westminster, and it gives that familiarity. If that is voted through when the Question on clause 6 standing part of the Bill is put, I will happily not move the amendments. By simply tabling them, I wanted to give the Assembly the opportunity to say that it preferred the other titles or, indeed, to make space and provision in Standing Orders for those other titles. I think that is something worth looking at. <BR /> <BR />Before turning to all the amendments, I will make a few key points. The first is on my amendment No 1, which will create qualifying parties. I think that is a very important amendment.”
“In the Scottish Parliament, as Mr Allister rightly pointed out, the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems are all in opposition to the SNP Government. The Labour Government in the Welsh Assembly are opposed by the Welsh Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. So, do not make that mistake. That is why I listened to some of the evidence in Committee and said, "Look, I am prepared to move on these titles and to ask whether that is something that people might feel more comfortable with". I am perfectly comfortable with the titles "leader of the opposition" and "deputy leader of the opposition". I think they bring clarity, but if others were more comfortable with changing those to "leader of the largest non-Executive party", which would be more reflective of what happens in Scotland, I am comfortable with that.”
“That was done in order to consociationalise much more the names of the title. In response, Mr McKay made the point about Scotland and Wales in an intervention to Mr Allister. I would say on that subject that we should not confuse not having the title "leader of the opposition" with being in opposition. I do not think that Mr McKay's party colleague Mr Adams has the title "leader" or "deputy leader of the opposition", but I suggest that he considers himself very much in opposition in Dáil Éireann, and will possibly continue or might be in the Government in a few months. But those are changes.”
“I welcome the possibility of going beyond just saying that it has to be a d'Hondt party that forms the opposition. I think that, otherwise, you lessen the chance of getting an opposition. Why would someone choose to go into opposition when they can have all the trappings of the Government? Mr Agnew made the point of asking this: why would you go into opposition when you can be the internal opposition in the Government? That is the problem. I said it at Second Stage, and I say it again: that has bedevilled us now for years. We have a Government and an opposition, but they are just all the one people. They are the same Members. Government and opposition need to be separate and distinct roles. <BR /> <BR />Look at the amendments that I have tabled on the changes of title.”
“I accept that Sinn Féin Members oppose all the clauses, but I thank them for their engagement across the process. It now looks as though we will pass a Bill in some form, so that is why I am not incredibly downbeat today because we are going to get a Bill that, for the first time, puts opposition into primary legislation. I think that we will, over the next few stages, get a Bill that does that. I accept that we have a petition of concern to the schedule and to clause 13. That debate is for another occasion. It is slightly ironic that a petition of concern has been used to petition of concern changes to the petition of concern. I would like to have seen those changes. <BR /> <BR />Looking at what is left in the Bill, there are still significant opportunities in it to create space for an opposition.”
“When you reduce the number of Assembly Members from 108 to 90 — and, if during the next five years, we lose two Westminster seats and that reduces the number further to 80 — that changes the chances of some parties being included in the d'Hondt calculation. Those two things change that, and it is almost as though some of the debate and commentary around the Bill ignores that. Those changes are important, and I welcome them, but it is important to note that at no point has anyone suggested that we move away from this and towards some type of majoritarianism. Some of the commentary, certainly at the Committee Stage, was incredibly ill-informed on that, instead of people actually reading what the Bill said. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the groups of amendments.”
“People out there are crying out for good governance and leadership. Yes, they want safeguards, but neither the Bill nor any of the amendments does any damage to those safeguards and that protection. We should have the confidence, 18 years after the agreement, to move forward and change this. <BR /> <BR />People say that this is maybe moving too much, but do not forget that we put through a Departments Bill that reduces the number of Departments from 12 to nine. Nearly everyone in the House welcomed it as a good thing, but that Bill changes the d'Hondt calculation slightly; that ups the bar for meeting the d'Hondt calculation. People seem to have missed that.”
“In the almost nine years that I have been a Member of the House, it has almost collapsed on numerous occasions. Virtually every year, we have a chat about there being an election before the autumn, before the spring or before the summer — every year. What do we have to do? This is where, I think, Mr Agnew nailed it: we have to get to the point where we deliver good governance.”
“We do not fall neatly into that. Our system here was designed to deal with and help us to address our historic divisions. What I have put forward in the Bill in no way damages how we might address those historic divisions. It does not move away from d'Hondt — much to the disappointment, I am sure, of others. It does not move away from that; it stays very firmly with it. In no way would it move us back. You have two safeguards there. D'Hondt cannot be changed, and there was no attempt to change it. D'Hondt is your key to government. Our electoral system — a proportional representation system — also means that you cannot change it. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the evidence at Committee Stage from academics who talked about needing to maintain stability.”
“We are not good at pursuing compromise, particularly in this Executive. We stall everything. The fact is that, instead of seeking compromise, we use the petition of concern. <BR /> <BR />In response to a question from Mr Kennedy about whether he could think of another consensus-based model that had a mandatory coalition, Professor Coakley stated:”
“That is one of the key things, and it is a system that I think is good. It will give you a coalition Government no matter what. The Republic of Ireland uses the same electoral system, and I do not think they have had a majority Government since roughly 1977 — a long number of years. I do want to tackle one of the comments made at the outset by Caitríona Ruane on the move and the quote from Professor Coakley about majoritarianism. <BR /> <BR />In his evidence, Professor Coakley said that there were basically two types of parliamentary system. There is the majoritarian model of Westminster or the Dáil or the more consociational model like Belgium or Switzerland. Those are two examples that he gave. We do not have either. Professor Coakley said:”
“First, in responding to the debate, I thank the Committee for its report and all the parties, not only for contributing to today's debate but for their engagement over a number of months and maybe even longer than that. That engagement has been useful in developing the process and, in listening to that, it will not have been lost on many of you that some of the amendments that I have tabled have been very much a reflection of listening to what has been said in Committee and to some of the evidence from outside, shaping the thinking that we need to do. <BR /> <BR />What are the changes to opposition that I want to see? When you mention the word "opposition", many people think that it has to look like Westminster. We are different from Westminster, primarily because we use a different electoral system to Westminster.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does he also accept, in his support for improving our budgetary process, that this becomes even more important if we devolve the power to vary corporation tax? If we seek to follow other regions of the UK and have other tax-varying powers devolved, we really need to lift our skills in dealing with the Budget process.”
“I thank Ms Bradley for taking an intervention. Would she and her party colleagues look at that more favourably if it were set slightly higher, at, say, 8%?”
“I think it meets very well the policy that is set out by the Minister, and it ties in better with some of the party policies and positions on education that have been laid out in the past. Why would we stop schools that come together, particularly in rural areas, and that want to work together from doing so? Maybe over time and over a continuum, as the Minister's policy would say, they could move to an integrated model, so why would we preclude that from being in the Bill? That is why I think it is important to have it in the Bill. I am grateful to others for supporting my other amendment.”
“That is why this is so important to get right. <BR /> <BR />On the other amendments, I am grateful that there seems to be broad support for amendment No 5, which is in my name. There has been other debate on amendment No 4, but I am not totally convinced by it. I think it is probably a better amendment than the Minister's, which really does the same thing. Amendment No 9 is my amendment to the Committee's amendment No 8. I am supportive of amendment No 8, and I am relatively relaxed about amendment Nos 9 or 15 being made. I am probably more tempted to support amendment No 15, which is in Mr Hazzard's name, but I am supportive of amendment No 8 as well. <BR /> <BR />Going through those amendments, I still make the case that Members consider amendment No 2.”
“What I seek to do with the amendments is to make sure that this is in the DNA; that it will last longer than the funding; that we look at the cost and resources and take them into account so that this lasts longer than when the money runs out and schools are no longer interested in it; that they have actually set up a system and have schools working together; and, indeed, that many of the cases in which the Shared Education Bill — the Shared Education Act, as it will hopefully become — and all the regulations and work that will flow from it will become very close partners with area-based planning and the entitlement framework and that all of those policy areas link in together somehow.”
“I am not sure that I entirely agree with that, but I am grateful for the intervention. Throughout the amendments that I have tabled to the Bill and even during the Second Stage debate on it, my concern has been about how we take this from just being a project or a concept and put it into the DNA of our education system. <BR /> <BR />This is one of the few broad policy areas stemming from the Executive on which there is broad agreement by the Executive and the Assembly that it is a good thing and that this is the direction in which to travel. We may debate some of the finer points of how we get there, but there is broad agreement in the House on the Minister's broad policy intent.”
“I am grateful for the intervention. The question about it is this: if schools are doing it, why should we punish them? Why should they not, at least, be eligible to apply for some of the funding? It might not be at as high a level, but why should they be excluded from it? If they have, in Mr Newton's words, a diverse board of governors, a diverse teaching staff and representation, why would we not want to encourage that? The question I would put back to Mr Lunn is this: how is it that, after over 30 years, integrated education has not broken the 7% barrier? If he wants to answer that I will give way. With everything and every part of it written into education Acts and Orders over the years about how it must be promoted, it has never got above 7% of our education intake.”
“It answers not only the Minister's point about jointly managed schools in his policy but Mrs Overend's point about what happens if we have to look at different models for schools. This would apply particularly in rural areas where numbers might be a problem.”
“It is in the Minister's policy. That is why I feel strongly about amendment No 2 and why I feel that it should be getting more support from around the Chamber. It is in the Minister's policy, and it helps to move in the direction of the DUP and UUP around that single education system. Mr Craig was very critical of the five sectors and the almost artificial competition in some. He did not name the schools involved, although I think that Mr Lunn may have helped on that one. Mr Agnew is supportive of the amendment, but for people like Mr Lunn who are supportive of an integrated model this brings integrated schools into the shared education debate. It brings them in and says "You too can be part of it. You too can do this. You can apply for it in what you are doing, share with other schools and think of other models".”
“It is in the Minister's policy document. That is something that he should follow. He should live up to his policy document. I agree with the Minister's broad policy and the direction of travel on shared education. On religion and community background, that policy document also states that the Department has:”
“It does not mean that you have to always achieve a certain level. The fact that Methody, Dominican College and other schools like Down High School are achieving that from our community backgrounds in Northern Ireland is something that we should be thankful for and that we should try to replicate throughout Northern Ireland. We should make sure that that happens. <BR /> <BR />I do not see any of the negativity about having a single provider. The Minister has the power to set the funding for it, and the Minister's policy states that:”
“There are schools like Methody that have maybe a 60:40 split or schools like Down High School in our constituency that have intakes from both of our main community backgrounds and from no religious background at all. That is happening organically on the ground, and we should be very thankful and supportive of that. I am not saying that they should get the same funding as two other schools. <BR /> <BR />You made the point that, in Methody for example, not enough pupils come from a diverse socio-economic background. That is the very point that I made in an intervention on your colleague Pat Sheehan. The amendment includes socio-economic background, as it does:”
“I will in a second. That is something that we should support, tap into and make available to as many kids as possible.”
“For too long, if you are very supportive of the integrated sector, shared education has been viewed as somehow being second best — the two cannot sit side by side — or, in some cases, integrated education is almost driving the agenda forward and saying, "This is how we do it". <BR /> <BR />I am a supporter of a faith ethos education. Some of the results that schools get, whether it is because of the pastoral care or whatever else, are pretty impressive, not just in a Northern Ireland context but in comparison with the rest of the UK.”
“It is in your own policy, Minister. Why not put it into the legislation as well? <BR /> <BR />I say to Mr Lunn and his Alliance colleagues that this applies to integrated education as well. As I said earlier, you might vary the rates of funding that you put into it, but this allows the integrated sector to be brought into shared education.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mrs Overend talked about it in two contexts. If I recall correctly, she talked about a single provider. She represents a large rural constituency, as do I, and if two schools had to come together, this would allow them to do that. It would also encourage them to make sure that their boards and staff intake are representative. On all the points that you have consistently made over a number of years around ideally moving to a single education system, this would allow you to do that and to support that in that context. <BR /> <BR />What is surprising about Sinn Féin's opposition to the amendment is that it is actually in the Minister's own policy document, 'Sharing Works: A Policy for Shared Education'. I quote:”
“That goes to the heart of it, and I am surprised that others are not more supportive. Mr Newton talked about that diversity. In fact, I think that his old school is Methody, which is now described as a super-mixed school, as is Dominican College up on the north coast. Those types of schools have done and achieved so much organically, not with any great support from anywhere else. They have done it organically, built in huge success and are not only achieving in educational terms but are benefiting our society. That, to me, is key to have in here. If the amendment is accepted, it does not mean that you have to give them the same level of support as two schools together. You can band it. The Minister has the power to shift and move that about in whatever framework he wants to have, but it should be included in the Bill.”
“That does not tell you that you have to get people from all those backgrounds. It says that, if they are there, let us bring them in, but it is not a requirement. There is no limit set. There is no bar or test that says that you have to have 20% from one group; there is no box-ticking exercise like that. <BR /> <BR />The last line of amendment No 2 caused much debate. It mentions:”
“It is important that we look at broadening that out, particularly in relation to amendment No 2, standing in my name. It got much debate; I appreciate that some colleagues referred to it. Some were more supportive than others and some are still open-minded about it. I say to those who are concerned about it that some of the concerns that were raised were around the words:”
“In talking about how to broaden the context, I quote the Queen's centre:”
“I welcome the debate and have always welcomed and supported the Bill. Indeed, I have been broadly supportive of the Minister's overall approach to shared education. The first of my two primary reasons for tabling amendments was to look at how to deepen and broaden the meaning and context of shared education. The second was to look at how we take this beyond being much more than a concept — Mr Hazzard commented on it being a concept — and, as Mr Rogers said, put it in the DNA of our education system, so that this is not just about projects that end when the funding dries up; it is the long-term vision for our education system. <BR /> <BR />If you read the points made by various experts such as those from Queen's and the Rural Centre for Shared Education, you see a big difference in how they would move forward.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The amendment does not seek to put any limits, quotas or criteria in numbers. It is simply about future-proofing and looking not just at the binary religious traditions in Northern Ireland. We have a demographic that is changing and has changed, particularly over the past 20 years, with migrant workers and now Syrian refugees coming to Northern Ireland. That will change over time. It is simply reflective of that. It is no different than if you had difficulty finding people from a more diverse socioeconomic background. It is only to say that you would take these factors into account; it is not to set quotas or limits, that you must have 10% or 20%, and so on.”
“Just on that point, would the Member not accept that funding could quite easily be set up and banded in a different way to manage that? Why, by burdening them financially, would you discourage schools that are doing it and that are a great example of where we want to get to?”
“If it had been introduced then, it could have been given the time and consideration that it merits. While it is a brief Bill, it has major consequences and should have been given time and space to develop. Despite all the challenges faced by the Assembly since I became a Member in March 2007, it has not had an early election yet, and I do not think that there is a major likelihood of having an early election in the next term with all the rebooted relationships that Fresh Start gave us. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to support the broad principles of the Bill.”