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 9 of 20.
“If a Minister disagrees with Government policy, they resign from the Government. That has to be the reality. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the schedule to the Bill. This is the list that we want the Assembly not only to pass today but to look seriously at if the Bill is referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Of course, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage are both chances to amend; but I highlight, Mr Speaker, that this is a carefully balanced package that, I think, delivers for us all. Paragraph 3 provides that:”
“That is what we have been so badly lacking in and served by, to the point where Mr Agnew has tabled a Bill, now heading for Further Consideration Stage, to get the Government to work together to deliver services for children. That is something that I want to see worked on. I want to see Government work on a collective policy and take collective Cabinet responsibility. It helps to get us away from the nonsense of one Minister taking another to court. We had that with the then Minister of Finance, Simon Hamilton, taking the Minister of Agriculture, Michelle O'Neill, to court over rural development payments, and with Minister Foster and Minister Durkan taking each other to court. That is something that we have to move away from. We have to get to a collective sense of responsibility. When one Minister speaks, they speak for the Government.”
“I anticipate making some amendments to this part of the Bill. However, the policy intent of this is to move away from the silo mentality of government to a single, collective government machine, where government and Ministers all put their shoulders to the wheel. That is the direction of travel, and every Minister and party in the Executive has signed up to it and must deliver on that policy intent.”
“That is something that Mr Cree has long campaigned for. He has talked, in virtually every debate concerning the Budget, about the fact that we need to improve our Budget process. I know that the Scottish Parliament uses a Budget Committee to look at the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) of every piece of legislation that comes before it. That is the type of level that we need to get to. We need to be lifting our game, quite frankly, on all that information. Daniel Greenberg, who was at one of our Assembly training events, would be quite critical — I put it politely — of the standard of EFMs in this Building. We have a long way to go to catch up with our Scottish counterparts. <BR /> <BR />The Departments are to be a single legal entity. I am still waiting for some legal advice on this, and I hope to have it very soon.”
“It adds to that sense when a Chair of a Committee can ask a question of the Health Minister, Employment Minister, Justice Minister or the First Ministers. All that is important. <BR /> <BR />The establishment of a Budget Committee would effectively, in my view, tie in nicely, if we complete the reform of the size and shape of government and the transfer of functions, with our Assembly Committee changing to mirror that. I accept that I need to amend it slightly, but the policy direction and intent that I have set out is very much about saying that we need to separate it from the Finance and Personnel Committee. We should keep with the Finance and Personnel Committee all the rating policy, the personnel matters, the voluntary exit scheme, and all the stuff that belongs there, but change the game of our Budget process.”
“If, at the end of this Bill, the Assembly, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and you, Mr Speaker, were to write and ask the Secretary of State to do that, the Secretary of State would know that, in this Assembly, all corners had given it support, lent their weight to it and said, by a majority, that they wanted to do it. In the Bill, we talk about the way that that motion should be tabled and call on AERC to give regular updates. <BR /> <BR />I have talked about "Formation of technical groups within the Opposition". I think it sensible and wise to set a threshold. Again, there should be topical questions from the Chairs of the Statutory Committees. All that adds up to a level of scrutiny that we might expect in other legislatures around the world.”
“The clause, "Salary for office holders of the Opposition", covers the need to amend slightly the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to allow for different salaries and allowances to include not only those of Ministers but those of office holders in opposition. <BR /> <BR />The "Assembly and Executive Reform Motion" is the part where we have an opportunity to ask Westminster to make changes. As I said earlier, Westminster will not do that without the assent of this Chamber. Personally, I think it right and proper that we, in the Assembly, should determine the way forward and the changes that we want to see in our Assembly, and that Westminster should stand ready to make the changes.”
“<BR /> <BR />The next clause is about membership of the Business Committee. It is right and proper that it should include members of the opposition and any technical groups represented in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The next clause covers financial assistance for political parties and asks the financial review panel to look at that and amend the Act to allow for an Assembly opposition to be included.”
“That is more as a safety mechanism for a situation in which we had a very active Executive with a very active legislative programme. I am not sure whether any of us are anticipating that, but that sets a minimum that would have to happen. <BR /> <BR />I will also table an amendment on speaking rights to make them more distinct. Our speaking rights here should be given out by d'Hondt on the basis of party strength. When the Government and the opposition are established, the speaking rights of opposition parties would be lifted by 20% above their d'Hondt calculation at the expense of the Government parties. That, too, is to enhance the level of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I talked earlier about the right of the opposition to hold the posts of Chair and Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, as is the case around the world.”
“Mr Kennedy is keen to put some distance between him and me. <BR /> <BR />The next clause deals with topical questions from the leader and deputy leader of the opposition to the Office of the First Ministers, as it would be then known, and would give them each the first two topical questions. There was concern that that would eat into too much of topical Question Time, but I remind Members that the First Ministers are up for questioning twice as often as Ministers of every other Department. Also built into that is that the Chairs of Committees would get the first topical question at their departmental Question Time. <BR /> <BR />The next clause deals with enhanced speaking rights for the opposition. In clause 8(2), I have built in an entitlement of a minimum of 15 days.”
“It sets out that the opposition would fall if the Executive fell. <BR /> <BR />The next clause relates to creating the leader and deputy leader of the opposition. Under the current numbers, the leader of the largest party in opposition, Mr Nesbitt, would qualify to be leader of the opposition. The deputy leader would have to come from another group. If the six of us could agree, one of us could be deputy Leader. Who knows? Mr Nesbitt might be leader of the opposition, and I might be deputy leader — it will be just like old times.”
“Those are fundamental changes proposed in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will go through the various clauses very quickly. The Bill opens with the formation of an opposition, how an opposition is formed and the timing of creating it. I stress that, in clause 2, the definition of "qualifying party" needs a slight amendment, but I am working on that so that every party that is above the 5% threshold of six Members, but is not in government and does not have a ministerial seat, qualifies to be in opposition. It also deals with the size of party. We then create the legal mechanism on which to hang the rights that those parties are entitled to. The Bill clearly sets out the membership of the opposition. It also excludes you, Mr Speaker, from being in opposition or in government in order to maintain the neutrality of your role.”
“I spoke out against that. I did not support that. I did not want to bring in prescription charges. I was against water charging. I was against welfare reform." It would let us off all the hook. We would never have any difficult decisions to make. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister's second point was on moving to a permanent state of weighted majority voting. That would build in permanently the idea that we are not normal. I only want to see weighted majority voting used in exceptional circumstances. It is also only about excluding one party. As I said before, I say to Sinn Féin, I respect your mandate. I would love to lead a party that has 29 seats in the Assembly. I respect it. I get your right to be in government with that size of a mandate. It is right and proper that you should be there.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Allister is not in for this part of the discussion, but I have issues with two things that Mr Allister suggested at the end of last week. One was the Westminster Government taking back Executive power and the Assembly becoming just a sort of scrutinising body. That might be fine on a very short, temporary basis, but all that it would do is move every single Member of the Chamber into permanent opposition. The one thing that we would unite around is that old saying of, "Ulster says no." We would be saying no to everything. We would say no to just about every proposal or cut that involved any level of pain. We would be saying yes to more money. That is the only thing that we would be saying yes to. Actually, that would let each and every one of us off the hook. I could go back to South Down and say, "Oh, yes.”
“The case for changing the petition of concern and setting a higher bar for such a mechanism to be tabled is well and truly made by looking at the facts from this mandate. <BR /> <BR />Removing community designation and changing the petition of concern are fundamental. We currently have effectively two tiers of MLAs when it comes to a cross-community vote. The votes of the eight Members from the Alliance Party and Mr Agnew do not count in a cross-community vote. Therefore, the people who elected them are disenfranchised in cross-community votes. It is time to normalise the process by using qualified majority voting and setting a threshold of around 60% for it. I am open to people wanting to increase that limit, but I think that 60% would have to be the minimum. That is a key point.”
“Up until what happened in March, the lead parties in government had effectively agreed on a policy on welfare reform. When they agreed on a policy, they could push that through. Had the smaller parties in government at that time been able to call on some of these and block the Budget, we would have been in an even worse position. You might well debate whether or not we have much of a Budget at the minute, but we could not have passed the Budget. That is why I would like to change it to a simple majority vote. A Government that cannot pass their Budget falls. That is the democratic norm around the world. If you cannot get supply, your Government falls and you immediately go to an election.”
“Examples of subjects on which they have been tabled include the Criminal Justice Bill, the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on welfare reform, and the National Crime Agency. The National Crime Agency is a useful example. A Minister was asked to think again about something and then negotiate a deal and get, primarily, the SDLP over the line. Given the allegations about the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the role that the National Crime Agency is playing in that, many parties in the House are now glad to have the National Crime Agency here and welcome it. There was also a petition of concern in relation to the A5 dual carriageway project. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the list, so many were tabled to amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill.”
“If you want to build in a community protection mechanism, get broad support. That also ties in with the broad package of measures in this Bill. It ties in with the fact that you will have an agreed Government. Your most likely outcome could be a DUP/Sinn Féin Government, and they should not be submitting petitions of concern or asking for a different vote on their own policy. If you have agreed Government policy, they should not be signing petitions of concern. <BR /> <BR />The reason why the Bill builds it in is to stop any opposition tabling these things at will. You will have to have a broad coalition of support for a petition of concern. That very much provides the safeguards that we all want to see but does not make it so easy that we table petitions of concern on just anything.”
“In many of the things that they are tabled on, you have to ask where the community protection was. <BR /> <BR />I give Sinn Féin some credit on signing petitions of concern in that, because they needed to, they sought as wide a coalition as possible. One of the last ones that they signed was on mandatory minimum sentencing, which Sinn Féin signed, as did the SDLP, NI21, the Greens and Ms Sugden. So, you had a broad coalition to do that. I made the point that you did not actually need to do it because, of the 55 petition of concern votes, in two thirds it did not change the result. Of the 100 petitions of concern we used, only 19 changed the result. That is easy for me to do the percentages on, and is a pretty poor strike rate. <BR /> <BR />What are we protecting but something that has become a matter of public scorn?”
“I am also proposing to make the petition of concern much more accountable with the need for broader support to trigger. I want to change its name to a "minority community protection mechanism". I want it to need 30 signatures, as at the minute, but for them to come from three different groupings or parties. The reason for that is that we have a tremendous track record of using and abusing petitions of concern throughout this mandate. One party can use it on its own, and that is a problem. In this mandate, from May 2011, at a rough count we tabled about 100 petitions of concern. That is close to double what we used in the preceding 13 years, so they are becoming very common. In 45 of the 100 tabled, the amendment was never moved or a division held. You are down to a 19% strike rate on this.”
“Therefore, the need for community designation has outlived any sense of purpose. It is now dividing us along sectarian lines where it does not need to, and its end should be welcomed. I say to Members that d'Hondt is your key into government. Community designation on this and other occasions serves no purpose whatsoever.”
“It is no longer used for that. The largest party now gets to select the First Minister. I want to rename that. Therefore, the only things that we now use community designation for is cross-community votes and to determine who can run an event in the Assembly. That is all we need it for. My personal view on running events in the Assembly is that this is our Parliament and it should be open to all, even those who do not like it and do not want it here. It should be open to a free and democratic debate.”
“It would also build in opposition-day debates and changes to the Budget committee. <BR /> <BR />I have also built into the Bill — this is a hugely important line — that it would remove community designation from the Northern Ireland Act. I understand the reasons that community designation was there in 1998. We were trying to move from conflict to consensus and to build up trust. I am not suggesting that we are entirely there in building up trust, but further changes in the St Andrews Agreement have rendered community designation almost pointless. <BR />In the original agreement, community designation was important in determining who got to be First Minister and deputy First Minister. As I said earlier, that is a phoney war, if you want to describe it as that, over who gets the First Minister and deputy First Minister positions.”
“It may be of interest to some Members to note that the salaries of all Ministers are paid by the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is somewhat strange that Departments do not pay their Ministers' salaries. Part of a Minister's salary should come from a Department. It may also interest you to know that it costs the Assembly around £750,000 per year by the time you add in salary, national insurance and pension contributions. I am not saying that all of that would have to come from Departments, but we should certainly look at whether it should be incumbent on Departments to pay their own ministerial salaries. There is scope to see what money could be reviewed and what money, under our financial assistance to political parties, should move from the Government to opposition.”
“That also gave us no ability to change our Government; too many people ended up being returned here completely unopposed for too long. That is not good for engagement in a democratic system, and that is why not having an opposition did a huge disservice to Northern Ireland and to the body politic and is why these changes are essential now. Forming technical groups can be a huge part of that. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the ability to ask topical questions and financial support. For example, looking at financial support, I have written into the Bill that we would move and allow the independent review panel to look not only at salaries for leader and deputy leader of the opposition but at all the allowances that are given to political parties.”
“If you set a base of, say, 5%, as I am proposing, that is six Members. It may just be convenient that there happen to be six of us in this corner, but I can assure the Speaker that that is purely coincidental. Between us, we would exercise those rights. At the minute, the six Members here cannot table motions in the Assembly and cannot have speaking rights or access to the Business Committee in that way. That would help our democracy and would help to give real meaning and substance. <BR /> <BR />I have often said that my main criticism of the old Stormont Parliament is that you did not have an effective opposition and so had no ability of choice or change. The electoral system was changed at the 1929 election mainly to keep down that dangerous notion of independent unionists and to stop them getting too many seats.”
“<BR /> <BR />Indeed, having the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee as members of the opposition, just about every academic quoted in the research paper, from Derek Burrell to Yvonne Gilligan to Cathy Gormley-Heenan, talked about that change, which, I think, would be very welcome. It is common practice in the Dáil, Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay — all the Parliaments that you could mention. <BR /> <BR />Again, the right to form a technical group is common practice in the Dáil. There are something like 23 or 24 Independent Members in Dáil Éireann currently. I think that it is right and proper to set some threshold on that, so that the leader of a single party does not automatically, by some electoral fluke, end up being the leader or deputy leader of the opposition.”
“That is something that I would seek to avoid. <BR /> <BR />Turning to other changes under the opposition and Assembly reforms, I think that having a leader and deputy leader of the opposition is key. That is the key in saying to people, "There is a huge role for parties in opposition". We have a mindset here that the only thing that you need to get great power is one seat in the Executive. There is huge benefit in having an opposition. Remember this: today's opposition is tomorrow's Government. The hope is to have an opposition that is working and functioning well.”
“I, therefore, think that the way to do it is to have the Speaker lifted, effectively, out of party and constituency politics, and the party of the Speaker, who has been removed from that, would then be able to co-opt. <BR /> <BR />You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that, in Dáil Éireann, the number of seats in the Speaker's constituency is reduced and the Speaker is automatically returned. In Westminster, the Speaker faces virtually no real opposition from the main parties. I think that, in 2010, John Bercow faced somebody who was campaigning for representation of Buckingham, which is his constituency. That somewhat limited and disenfranchised constituents living in Buckingham, because, as one example put it, if you were going to concrete over all of Buckingham, the Speaker of the House of Commons could do very little about it.”
“I certainly do not have any personal dispute with you, but I think that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the speakership is seen as being and is completely, totally politically independent. <BR />I think that it would be difficult for a Speaker of whatever political party or background to have to go back to seek election in their constituency while not being able to write to Ministers and have the same level of contact even in the local press. It is also difficult for a Speaker to do all the things that we as constituency Members do and to take definitive positions, whether on planning or other Government policies, and maintain neutrality.”
“I touched on the issue of the threshold. I think that it is important that we do not have an automatic entitlement to ministerial power and being in office. If you want to get an agreed Programme for Government that truly means something, you will have to put in some limits, and people will have to sign up to that. Of course, parties falling below the threshold could negotiate their way into the Government, but they would be bound by collective responsibility. <BR /> <BR />Turning to key reforms for the Assembly — this is included in the schedule — I would like to see the way in which we elect our Speaker changed. I would like to see that being very much within the gift of the Assembly and Assembly Members. During your election, Mr Speaker, I think that I said that it should be within the gift of the Assembly.”
“I suspect that that may ring some bells when people observe the Northern Ireland Assembly and how it has worked in recent times. Collective responsibility, moving to a unitary Government, is absolutely vital to ensuring delivery and to the Government speaking as one voice.”
“If anyone ran any business in such a manner — one partner does one thing and the other goes off in a completely different direction — it would not survive the test of time. <BR /> <BR />On the subject of building in collective Cabinet responsibility, let me quote Eoin Daly from an article in 'The Irish Times' in April 2014:”
“This has to be about delivery, whether that is in South Down, Foyle or East Belfast, and whatever the issues are that we are tackling. It has to be about an effective Government moving to a unitary model; not endlessly having departmental silos that do not speak to each other. <BR /> <BR />I am setting out a vision for genuine power-sharing, not shared-out power. What we have at the moment is not power-sharing; it is shared-out power whereby Ministers can gang up and vote in the same way in the Executive and be at a picket line later that day, denouncing their ministerial colleagues. That cannot and should not be allowed to continue. All that it has achieved for us is absolute public scorn. The public see, know and think "dysfunctionality".”
“The notion of renaming OFMDFM the Office of the First Ministers has become one of the most divisive political issues, but for what reason? Everyone knows that it is a co-joined, co-equal office and that, in theory, one cannot order a cup of coffee without the other, so why do we not call it what it is — the Office of the First Ministers? It is a joint Administration and they are joint holders. Everything about it is joint. One cannot sign off on something without the other — that is built in. <BR /> <BR />Key to that is that the parties that want to be in government should have to agree a Programme for Government with broad Budget headlines. That is absolutely vital. For too long, as the First Minister has pointed out, we have just about survived.”
“That will be their right, but it is also their responsibility to step up and be the Government.”
“That is the reason for staying with d'Hondt and committing to it. I am not about excluding from government any parties that reach a large mandate.”
“In fact, I suspect that there is only one party leader here who would not like to get 29 Members elected at a 2016 Assembly election. That is a tremendous mandate. I am not about excluding or trying to exclude one party from the Government if their electorate wishes it to be there. You might well ask, "Then, why the threshold?" It is about ensuring that those parties in government agree a Government and act responsibly, and also that you reach a certain level to get that automatic right into government. I know that some parties will have concerns about that. I will quote from Robert Dahl back in 1966. The example in the research pack is good. It states that:”
“Sometimes, I look back over the last six or seven weeks and wonder how on earth we did what we did in 1998, because we seem to have lost any capacity for moving forward or spirit of generosity in our politics. <BR /> <BR />The reason why I am sticking absolutely with d'Hondt is that it respects the parties that are getting mandates. I am not about saying to parties that have strong mandates that they should not be part of the Government of Northern Ireland. The big challenge for them is to step up and be the Government of Northern Ireland and to act responsibly as that Government. That is why I have stuck with d'Hondt. <BR /> <BR />We know that Sinn Féin has a mandate. I respect its mandate and that it had 29 Members elected here in 2011.”
“There is a chance for parties to put commitments in their manifestos and put them before the people, possibly on 5 May 2016. People will want to go out and vote on the basis that they will get something up and running with a functional Executive, a functional Government and a robust opposition to hold that Government to account. <BR /> <BR />I will look at some of the key points in the Bill. First of all, there may be criticisms from some that I have not sought to change any of d'Hondt. Quite frankly, we are not at a place where we are ready to give up on d'Hondt in its entirety. In the past 17 and a half years, we have not made the type of progress to normal politics that we needed to make. In fact, it is well and truly argued that we are possibly more divided than we were 17 and a half years ago.”
“On that point, I disagree with the Member from the perspective of the functions of this House and the way in which the Executive, our Government, should do their business. I do not think that it is necessary to go to a referendum. The Good Friday Agreement was at the end of a troubled, difficult and turbulent time in Northern Ireland's history, when over 3,500 people lost their lives. It was different. There was sea change. There was also constitutional change for those in the Republic of Ireland. This is about saying to the people of Northern Ireland that we hear the message that they want a functional Government. I truly believe that people want to see this place work. They want to see it do more than just survive.”
“That is why I am taking the approach that I am with the Bill, and bringing it with an Assembly and Executive reform motion attached to it.”
“Those comments were made during the debates in the House of Lords when Lord Empey tabled the amendments. I ask the House to bear in mind two things. Lord Empey voiced genuine concern about a future Executive being able to take away or change Standing Orders. This legislation makes that very, very difficult to do; doing it in the way that I am proposing would make it very difficult for a future Executive to do that. It is also abundantly clear that Westminster will not act on this without the Assembly or Executive making the first move. <BR /> <BR />I will also read from correspondence I had from the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP; it is a response to a letter from me on 15 December 2014. I will briefly quote from the final paragraph. She said:”
“That gives you a flavour of what was said in the House of Lords throughout the debate. In a further debate, Baroness Randerson said:”
“Baroness Randerson makes it quite clear. She said:”
“In further debates in which this was moved, Lord Alderdice referred to the issue of whether Westminster or we in the Assembly act first as a bit of a catch-22. Those were the challenges that I faced in looking at the possibility of this legislation. It was almost a chicken-and-egg situation as to which came first. The position was very clear in the House of Lords debate. Lord McAvoy said:”
“Lord Empey referred to "grace and favour" opposition. The Bill would make it very, very difficult for a future Executive to, at some point, take away the rights, powers and role of an opposition. That would become very difficult to do. <BR /> <BR />In rejecting doing it in the House of Lords — this is why it comes back very much to the structure of the Bill — Lord McAvoy spoke on behalf of the Labour Opposition and Baroness Randerson on behalf of the coalition Government back in 2014. Lord McAvoy said:”
“If we enshrine them in primary legislation, they are very hard to become the gift of any Executive.”
“There is endless — actually, ample — opportunity to debate, not only in Committee, should the Bill be approved by the House today, but at Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and so on. <BR /> <BR />I want to take on some of the issues about doing it in legislation. I know that Members have followed the debate on having an opposition for some time. I refer Members to the Research and Information Service's pack on the Bill, which shows that, in moving amendments in the House of Lords, Lord Empey makes the case and sets out the agenda that he would also be worried about anything that could take away from the powers — should the Assembly do this by Standing Orders — that would make it easy for those powers to be removed again. A Bill makes it much harder to remove such powers.”
“An opposition to hold them to account and to provide our voters with an alternative Administration, should they so wish, because power in an elected and representative democracy comes from the people. We should never forget that. <BR /> <BR />I want to turn to some of the approaches to the Bill. In looking at this, several things came to mind early on. Could we do this without legislation? Could we do it just by Standing Orders? Can we do it all or, as some have suggested, should Westminster not lead on this issue? I want to tackle that. The Bill's structure is somewhat unusual, to say the least, in that it has the parts that we can do and, built into that, there is an Assembly and Executive reform motion that we would also want to have debated.”