02/02/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, we will have more Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. As the results of the unregulated transfer tests

are published, we ask is there any prospect of political agreement on

how children move from primary to secondary education? I think by

changing they have made it a more complicated and more stressful for

children. It is too much pressure on them. Parents are getting themselves

worked up about it and I see the children getting worked up. Also,

the Shankill's secret republican link to the Spanish Civil War. What

other surprises has our history got in store as the big centenaries

loom? And with me throughout, with their thoughts, the commentator,

Patricia McBride, and the newspaper editor, Jim Flanagan... Yesterday

was a red letter day for thousands of Primary 7 children in Northern

Ireland as the results of the transfer tests were published. It's

the fifth year of the unregulated transfer procedure and an agreed

transfer mechanism seems as far off as ever. Meanwhile, the BBC has

learned that the parents of Primary 6 pupils will receive a leaflet

advising them to report any school that's preparing children for the

tests. With me now are the DUP's Mervyn Storey, who chairs Stormont's

Education Committee, and Sinn Fein's Chris Hazzard, who sits on the

committee... Welcome to the programme. How concerned are you at

this latest turn of events with this publication that Primary 6 pupils

are getting repaired? The Department and the Minister or not facing up to

realities and using the circumstances of the situation to

create more uncertainty and more concerned. The facts are simple. The

majority of parents still choosing to have an unregulated system. It is

not ideal and there needs to be an agreement as to how we move forward,

but in the absence of their being an agreed position, organisations have

stepped into the frame and provided a process whereby the transition

from primary to post primary can still continue to be based on

academic assessment and I think that we need to have that as a debate. If

we look at what happened in England when they allegedly moved away from

transfer, it ended up becoming a system that was based on social

issues, the price of houses, how wealthy your parents were, as

opposed to the real core issue which is about ensuring transfers on the

basis of educational merit. I want to talk to you about this booklet.

Chris Hazzard. This booklet that the department's sending out to parents

is an attempt to 'up the ante', presumably? I did not think so. They

are guidelines which have been set down for transfer. We have a

situation where there is a common curriculum. Every school teaches the

exact same curriculum. You could have a selective grammar school

teaching its children one curriculum and across the road they are doing

exactly the same thing. We have the same curriculum, there is no need to

go through the transfer process. Some pupils may choose one school

over another and you have to find a way of determining which killed a go

too. Because a parent is forced to put their child through an exam, it

is not the same as indoor CNET. I think the leaders of the schools

have to face the music. They need to explain the rationale for selective

tests. We have the common curriculum, there is no need for

selection. What is the reason? We have lots of grammar schools which

are effectively comprehensives -- comprehensives. It is called

parental choice. It is not lots of grammar schools, it is a small

number. Parents were told by the then Education Minister that going

down this road would be a legal minefield. She was wrong and she

ended up in court. Parents make choices. Those choices are about

ensuring that they have the ability and the right to choose a school

which they believe is appropriate for their child. Do I believe that

it is grammar schools that are given a good education? That is not the

case. That is what it looks like to a lot of people. It is about

parental choice. Parents choose to have their children educated in

Catholic schools, that is their choice. This is not a sectarian

debate. The Catholic bishops have failed miserably to convince the

majority of Catholic grammar schools to move away from using academic

criteria. What is wrong with parental choice? It is not about

parental choice. He has demonstrated the complete failure of unionism to

tackle this. They have failed to name one benefit to this exam. There

are none. These schools, they cannot name one single educational

benefit. We have three Executive parties who are opposed to this.

This is not the Sinn Fein ideal. We have the trade union movement

opposed, we have the OECD and a growing number of Protestant

elements speaking against this. The Catholic bishops have said they are

opposed to selection. The Catholic principals are still in this. They

are calling for a harder line to implement this. In the meantime, the

principles of many Catholic grammar schools are not heeding what the

bishops say is the policy of the Catholic Church. They have to stand

up and say that this is the Russell Mall. They are failing to do that.

-- rationale. Why would you deny the privilege that you have to other

parents? You said it was elitism. You were able to value and benefit

as a result of having that education, but now you take the

position that somehow it is unfair for other parents and other young

people to have that. You said it is not about choosing the school, you

are making the argument for grammar schools. We get into the position

that there is a contradiction in that it is wrong to select according

to Chris and others children at 11 on the basis of the test, but when

it comes, the same cue ball and they are 16, the test that we set for

that child and the test we set for the school is that the school must

have five GCSEs at the top grade and if they do not attain that, Chris's

Minister sends in the Inspectorate on the basis and that school is

deemed to be a failure. If it is a common curriculum, name one benefit

of attending a grammar school over a secondary school, where the teaching

of the same subjects is the same, why should we continue to have

grammar schools? Parents have the right to make that choice. Wider

they want to choose that? -- why do they want. I had a different

provision in my area. My daughter was given in one school of very good

opportunity. I believe that was right that I have that opportunity.

Was it a gender issue? It can be. We are going to have grammar schools in

the future, they will not go away. We need to have a discussion around

how we make the transition from primary to post primary as seamless

as possible. Do you accept that grammar schools will not go away? I

accept that. I went to a grammar school. The question is about

admittance. I want all children to have the chance to go to a grammar

school, not a select school. Here is a question, what is a grammar school

in 2014 when the teacher exactly the same curriculum as other schools? --

when they teach. We make a fallacy that we believe that all our

children are identical, they are different. It is a one size fits all

tests. GCSEs are the same. There are young people who will not attain the

top grades, but yet they will be successful in a school which is best

suited to meet their educational needs. Thank you. Thank you both.

And joining us to discuss that are the editor of the Ballymena

Guardian, Jim Flanagan, and the commentator, Patricia MacBride.

There is no great meeting of minds. What do you think the way forward

needs to be? The grammar schools have done a fabulous public

relations job by creating this scenario that the children are going

to get a better education because they go to a grammar school, when in

reality they will learn the same curriculum as at a mentor named

school. The issue around the transfer test, what we are doing

with children, we are not selecting them, we are teaching them how to do

a test -- maintained school. It is not a true measure of their academic

ability. I am a fan of completely integrated education. Integrating in

terms of children of all faiths. We are a long way from that. That is

real life. That is what we need to prepare people for. The life they

will face when they go out into the workplace, when they meet people

from all faiths and of all levels of intelligence. Let us truly integrate

that. There is political paralysis over this. Parents are exasperated.

They would like our politicians to sort this out. Parents vote with

their feet and you cannot get away from the fact that by and large,

academic testing exists because there is support for it. If they did

not want their children to do it, they would not be there. All we get

is an agreement to disagree. All sides in this debate seem wedded to

their positions. We are not going anywhere. Next year, every child

doing GCSEs will set the unregulated tests. We have a whole generation of

children at the grammar school and doing that, . We have talked about

the problems, what needs to happen to move us forward so there is some

kind of political agreement on where we go from here? We now have a

document and advising parents on the processes. We see thousands of

children transferring from primary to post primary without the stress

of a test. We need to see those small minority of schools who

implement this test to tell us why. They educate 43% of the school

population. They have to be taken into the equation. We need a proper

discussion with the threats are removed, such as the guidance from

the department where people can have a discussion about the seamless

transition based on educational values, not on political ideology.

It will be intriguing to see how things unfold. Thank you both for

now. In a moment, the connection between Belfast's Shankill Road and

the Spanish Civil War, but first, a look back at the politics of the

last week in sixty seconds, with Gareth Gordon... The row over the

appointment of a new chief constable rumbles on with the Justice Minister

sensing a plot. It looks like it is more to do with the party that the

Minister comes from and the significance of the decision. They

have it in from the Alliance Party? You could believe this. He opened a

door that should have been kept closed. Once he opened that door a

little bit, then the DUP and Sinn Fein came charging through. A fiery

Stormont committee, an academic and the DUP fell out over an e-mail.

Your opposition to this clause is more because of your prejudices

against the DUP. It is nothing of the sort. At the play they could not

ban, it proves there is no such thing as bad publicity. Because of

this, we sold out. I do not like being told what I can go to and what

I cannot go to. Garth Gordon reporting. Yesterday in the loyalist

heartland of Belfast's Shankill Road, a plaque was unveiled in

honour of seven men from the area who fought for the International

Brigade against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. While it's well

known that men from nationalist areas of the city volunteered to

travel to Spain and confront Franco's forces, the story of these

men has gone largely untold. As we enter a period when centenaries of

major events like the outbreak of the First World War, the Easter

Rising and the Somme will be marked, could we discover more surprises

about our divided past? Joining me now is the community worker Jackie

Redpath who was at yesterday's ceremony on the Shankill, and the

historian Eamon Phoenix... Thank you for joining us. Jackie, what impact

has this story, which has apparently been hidden, had on the Shankill? It

has not been known. It is beginning to come out. It is having a

significant impact. The Shankill seven as they are now being called,

their names were not known, apart from Harry McGrath because he has

two nephews still living in the area. As a result, the International

Brigades Commemoration Committee have uncovered the other six people.

It has struck a chord with people. The library in the Shankill was

packed. These men stepped up to the mark and went out. I called them the

few who went out to fight fascism. They were followed by the many in

the Second World War. It is important that we recognise them.

Whether they were head and we did not know about it, it does not

matter, the point is, this was a surprise to you. I knew men from

both traditions had fought in the Spanish Civil War. The Protestant

rector in the area was killed, other men from County Tyrone and the Falls

Road as well. People are recovering radical elements of the past. This

was very important. This was when fascism corrupted and it all opposed

democracy in Spain. Those men from Britain and America joined the

International Brigades and fought against fascism. It is important it

is remembered. People from a national background would have been

known to have fought for the International Brigades, but it is

worth making the point that there were Irish men fighting for Franco.

Socialists and republicans fought against Franco. You had about 500

men who went to fight for what they thought was a Catholic Crusade. They

did not last long. These men are being remembered. It recalls along

Protestant socialist tradition in working-class parts of Belfast until

the troubles. -- Troubles. That is an interesting point. We need to

recognise our history. It is important we do that. There has

always been that radical tradition in east Belfast and the Shankill

because it is about issues like you were talking about earlier, about

families. That is what concerns people. It is important that we

recognise the past, but more important that we learn from it.

What about the challenge of the other centenary is? That will be a

big issue. You are on the advisory panel for the Taoiseach. We have got

the Easter Rising, the Somme, plenty of room for controversy. This has

been handled well by community relations and local community

groups. We had a great series of lectures in Belfast remembering the

past. They have brought in principles which are being reflected

across the country in local events, drama has been introduced, a play on

the Somme. Sticking to the facts, looking at various perspectives and

there are surprises. We have the East Belfast loyalist who witnessed

the Easter Rising and kept a Gary. Things like this are cropping up.

They open them up to both communities -- kept a diary.

Centenary is have already taken place. -- centenary is. 30,000

people, 10,000 people involved. These have been done well. I do not

see why that cannot be repeated. In the last few months, the UVF and the

Irish volunteers have been working together. That can happen. The

important thing is to remember, but learn. Jackie Redpath and Eamon

Phoenix thank you. Let's hear the final thoughts of my guests of the

day - Patricia McBride and Jim Flanagan... You have spent a lot of

time thinking about the past and how we deal with it. What was your view

of the commemoration on the Shankill yesterday? There was a very worthy

acknowledgement of the sacrifice of citizens of the Shankill community

who fought against fascism. Were I would like to see that go is to

perhaps look at that definition of republicanism. These were men who

fought on the republican side in the Spanish Civil War. It creates a

space to debate the nature of republicanism outside of an Irish

context. That could be something about learning from the past. We

look at the nature of what that means and how it has impacted on

communities, so it is a wider debate. Moving forward over the next

ten years or so, as we look at the nature of what that means and how it

has impacted on communities, so it is a wider debate. Moving forward

over the next ten years or so, as the market these events, we have

this opportunity to re-examine the history of the past in a

multidimensional way. Is this an interesting and important

contribution? The common to nominate is respect for the past. We need to

learn from our past. It takes an independently minded person to go

against what is perceived as the norm and fight for the other side,

as people would see it. Sometimes it is at great personal cost for

people. I think the key point is that we learn from the past and so

far, the commemorations have been held in a respectful fashion. I want

to touch on one thing. It is relevant. We had George Chittick

saying yesterday a word of warning to Protestants who go to learn

Irish, it is part of the republican agenda, that does not tie in with

what you were talking about. I think that he might need to re-examine the

history of his own organisation and look more deeply into the use of the

Irish language by his predecessor and continuing use on banners. What

do you think? Certain people did raise their eyebrows over those

remarks. There are banners with Irish on them. He needs to go and

put a bit of context to the whole thing. Thank you. That is it from

ours. Back to Not a complete denial! Hopefully a

Conservative mayor again. Not a good week for David Cameron on

the tricky European front last week. President Hollande said he was not

interested in major treaty reform for 2017. That is when Mr Cameron

hopes to hold his in-out referendum. And the private member's bill to put

that referendum on the statute bill was killed by Labour and Lib Dem

peers in the Lords. James Wharton was the Tory MP behind the bill, and

he joins me now. What happens now? It is out of my hands what happens

now, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats conspired in the Lords to

kill off my bill. One of the options is for another private member to

bring a bill forward when they have the next private member's bill at,

and we can try again. The prime minister has indicated that he will

support that. But whatever happens, it will be in the Conservative

manifesto at the next election. Do you accept that cost this is Tory

policy and not government policy that the government policy elite

macro cannot bring forward a bill? That is the problem. The Liberal

Democrats, despite having promised a referendum in their manifesto at the

last election, now will not allow government time for a bill to

enshrine that in law. That was why I brought it forward as a private

member's bill. David Cameron and the Conservative Party through

everything behind that. To many people's surprise, we got it through

all the House of Commons stages. Sadly, to their discredit, Labour

and Liberal Democrat peers, doing the bidding of their masters in the

Commons, is conspired to kill it. Do you accept that it is Conservative

policy, but not government policy, that you could not use the

Parliament act to get this through the Lords? That is not the case. The

Parliament act is clear that if a public bill passes through the House

of Commons twice in one Parliamentary period, there is a

certain amount of time that has to be between both bills being

presented. There are some procedural steps to be overcome, but there is

no legal reason why the Parliament act could not come into effect. I

was talking about you not having a majority in this case. That remains

to be seen. We saw previously that Labour and the Liberal Democrats

sent enough people to frustrate its progress to make it as difficult as

possible, but not huge numbers to vote against it. On a Friday, huge

numbers of MPs do not attend normally. Getting that number might

prove difficult. The Parliament act, which is a bit of an atomic bomb in

constitutional terms, if that was used, they would turn up to vote

against you. Is it not the case that after the countryside Alliance tried

to involve the courts in the hunting ban that it was made clear that the

Parliament act was not to be used for constitutional issues? I don't

think we know how many would turn up and we don't know how they would

vote. One of the things that has been revealed as I have gone through

the process of getting this bill to get a referendum through the Commons

is that there are big splits in the Labour Party. One of the reasons we

did not see them turning up in large numbers to stop this bill from

happening was that Ed Miliband knew that if he tried to lead his own MPs

through the lobbies to block a bill, the only purpose of which is

to let Britain decides to give people a say on membership of the

union, a lot of his MPs may not have followed him. It is all fantasy

politics anyway. The French president has made clear that he has

no interest in treaty change this side of 2017. He would need a

referendum as well . And he needs that like a hole and had. Merkel is

not keen, as she is in coalition with the social Democrats. Without

the French or the Germans, it will not happen, end of story. The policy

is that we will try to negotiate on getting a better deal. I hear what

you are saying, but I don't recognise it as reality. We have a

strong bargaining position. But whatever the result of that

negotiation, it will be put in an in-out vote to the Britain people.

It is time people were allowed to decide. It has been over a

generation since we last had a say. David Cameron has committed to

delivering that referendum. The Conservative Party will have it in

our next manifesto for the election. Whatever happens to my bill or any

other of the bill that comes forward. If people want a

referendum, the only party that can deliver that in British politics is

the Conservatives. Let me bring the panel in. Nick, where is this going?

It is clear to me and anyone who follows European politics that there

is no appetite for major treaty change in the short run,

particularly for the kind of major changes that Vista Cameron says he

is going to get, and yet the Tories are talking about Europe again when

they should be talking about the economy. And Francois Hollande is

looking at 2017, the year we are meant to have this referendum. There

will be a French presidential election going on, and Nicolas

Sarkozy will be back in play by then. But James has an interesting

point, which is that it is down to Angela Merkel. She would be more

receptive to David Cameron's ideas of reform than people assume. She

has looked over the edge at a Europe without the UK and said, that is not

acceptable, and I am willing to pay a price, not any price, but a price

to keep the UK in the European Union. And the French, because the

UK and France are the only serious military powers in Europe, will

eventually come to that position. So there is more support for David

Cameron than people assume. The French are also not a strong

position in terms of the euro and French economy. The Foreign Office

seem a bit more optimistic about it. Of course they are. Douglas Hurd

once told me, we are winning the arguments on the single currency. Of

course anything from the Foreign Office comes with a health warning,

but if David Cameron had won a majority and was determined to

renegotiate, he is in a strong position with Merkel. There is a

possibility that the French could eventually be talked around. So it

is not entirely bleak on that front for Cameron. When do the Tory party

managers say, look, stop banging on about Europe again? The economy is

going away. We still have an electoral mountain to climb. Let's

just talk about that and not be divided. They should have done that

some time ago. It is already too late. The Tories need a seven point

lead in the polls to get image are tea. The way things are, that would

require a huge change from where we are now . It is very unlikely to

happen. So all this is happening in some bizarre imaginary space with

wonderful rainbows and sunshine. But we can detect the beginnings of a

shift in the last couple of weeks. If you talk to Tory backbenchers,

Douglas Carswell is now saying in public that it is time to stop the

fighting. If they are to get even close to winning the election, they

can't do it if they are all against each other. I don't think it is an

imaginary space. It is likely that David Cameron will have the largest

party in the election. If it is a hung parliament and it is the

Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party, David Cameron

will save to Nick Clegg we gave you an AV referendum, I am having this

referendum. And it will be difficult for Nick to say no. Let me go back

to Mr Wharton. You are going to get a referendum in the manifesto. Other

than Ken Clarke, everybody wants it. So why don't you just banked that

and get behind the leadership Institute causing endless problems

and coming across as a Europe accessed, divided party? I am

absolutely behind the leadership. David Cameron announced the policy I

am trying to bring forward in this bill. It is in line with the speech

he gave this time last year. But getting that commitment into law

will help to kick-start the negotiation process and mean

everyone will know where we stand. But whatever happens, the

Conservatives are committed to delivering a referendum. And to

address the point that we talk about Europe too much, that is not the

case. We have a good message on the economy, on tackling immigration and

reforming welfare. There is more to do, but this is also an important

part of policy. But at a time when the economic news seems to be

turning in your direction, you are talking about the European

referendum. Your backbench colleagues are trying to change the

Immigration Bill every which way. Dominic Rather is putting in an

amendment is and Mr Nigel Mills has been on this programme, putting in

amendments that are clearly illegal. How is that helpful? The fact is

that we are in a coalition, so there are areas of policy where

Conservatives might want to go further and we are not able to do

that. In other areas, we are delivering good reforms. But this is

not a matter of going further. The mill 's amendment was clearly a

contravention of the Treaty of Rome. That is where you get the headlines

from. Some of your colleagues have a death wish? Would they rather have a

Miliband government if the choice is an impure Cameron one instead? I

don't think anyone in their right mind would rather have a Miliband

government. Then why are they behaving that way? We have had some

disagreements into the leak and debate within the party, but it was

talked about on the panel just now. The Conservative Party is behind

David Cameron and focused on winning the next election. Europe is one

part of that. We have policies in a range of areas, but we are getting

back on range of areas, but we are getting

back on the right track. Thank you for being patient with us.

Is this ghost story going to go somewhere? Mr Laws is talking

through surrogates at the moment, but there is a strategy by the Lib

Dems make these differential points now. I think it is fantastic

coalition sports and entertaining, but in terms of out there, it has

almost no traction whatsoever. I don't think any voters know who

Baroness Morgan is and it sounds like one but politicians shouting at

another bunch of politicians about their ability to give each other

jobs. There is a larger point about the way Michael Gove runs his

government. He is notoriously a very polite man surrounded by Rottweiler

is, his advisers. He has made enemies of a lot of people in the

media, and some of that will come back on him in the next 18 months.

We shall see if Mr Laws himself sticks his head above the parapet.

That is it for this week. The Daily Politics is on throughout the week

at midday on BBC Two, except on Wednesdays, when we are on at

11:30am. I will be back next week at the same time. Remember, if it is

Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.