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 19 of 20.
“I support this group of technical amendments: amendment Nos 5 and 6; Sinn Féin amendment Nos 9 and 10; and the effectively cross-party amendment No 11. <BR /> <BR />I commend in particular Miss McIlveen as the Committee Chair and her DUP colleagues for going the extra mile in trying to accommodate various sectors. While we would have liked different bits in the Bill, and people would have liked more community representatives on the authority, it is and was important that, given the time pressures, we achieved getting in an amendment that is acceptable to the majority in the House. That is where the pressure came in. I know that Mr Lunn is about to leave, but, after hearing his contribution, I was almost surprised to see his name put to the amendment.”
“Thankfully, I strike a slightly more positive note on this group, although I remind the Minister that it is for the Assembly to change the law if it sees fit. Members should table amendments. It is up to Departments to deal with those as best they can. I suggest that they accommodate them rather than row back from them. That is the purpose of this legislative stage. <BR /> <BR />In general, this is an example of why accelerated passage is not a particularly good idea, because without it you would have time to tease out much more of the issues. Miss McIlveen was keen to say that this is not quite the dog's dinner that I referred to. I am still not convinced that I can get my dog to eat this dinner, but we are where we are on the Bill.”
“I am grateful to the Minister. I have two points. In the previous Assembly term, David McNarry brought forward legislation, and it was dropped mainly because, at that time, it looked as if the Department was going to do something. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's wider point was that we have to be very careful when we are legislating. The point about making sure that the Department has a drive in shared education was exactly my intent; the point about making sure that the Department took seriously the community use of schools was exactly the point of putting it in. For years, we had a shadow education and skills authority, with no chance of getting the legislation to back it up. Millions of pounds was spent on it. How does that sit with his view on legislation?”
“However, those are my reasons and, around the community use of schools, I strongly urge Members to think carefully about whether we are almost writing in a protection for certain schools that, even though we collectively pay their way, we are letting them off the hook of engaging meaningfully over how we sweat the assets of premises that we all, as taxpayers, built. That is why I particularly urge Members to think carefully, because there is no plan B on the community use of schools. At least in shared education, the Minister has a plan for the community use of schools. Otherwise, there is no plan, and he is letting some sectors off the hook.”
“<BR /> <BR />On Mr Allister's broader points about the speed of the Bill's passage, it will be of no surprise to him that I spoke strongly against that. Probably, one of my highest-profile converts to that cause was none less than the First Minister of Northern Ireland, who questioned whether accelerated passage may have been a little rash and did not give all sectors time to participate as meaningfully as possible in the debate. <BR /> <BR />However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that he does not let us down on his shared education Bill. Otherwise, we will have to put in about five questions every day to ask him where it is and when it is coming.”
“However, in this instance, where the amendment is being lumped in with shared education, it is not appropriate. That is where I disagree. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister has resumed his seat, and where I disagree with him is in his argument that if we do not pass the Minister's amendments around shared education and community use of schools, we somehow leave a legal anomaly. The Minister is bringing a Bill, and that is sometimes almost the only way to get the Executive and this Department called to action. The Minister is bringing a Bill, and, at least from the perspective of the amendments having been passed at Consideration Stage, there is a collective view from the Assembly that shared education is a good thing and something that we as an Assembly should be moving forward on.”
“I do not agree with that. There are places where it will be desirable to keep schools open, such as Newtownhamilton High, where we need to share and want to keep a school in that area. I would always make the case for having a school in my constituency. Down High is an excellent school. It is effectively non-denominational, but to lose a school from that area could seriously damage community relations. You almost make a town a cold house for one section of the community. That is why sharing, where possible, driving up educational standards and extending the choice that any school can offer in its curriculum is what I want to see. <BR /> <BR />I had no disagreement with — indeed I supported at Consideration Stage — the Alliance Party amendments around integrated education.”
“I will certainly give way when I finish this point. <BR /> <BR />Educational outcomes have to be at the top of the list when we are talking about the point of shared education. From a societal perspective, I hope that other benefits flow from that for better community cohesion and harmony. However, the very essence of any education system is to produce the very best education for our kids across whatever sector they happen to be in, and the Minister should always be striving for that.”
“<BR /> <BR />The very point of the debate and where we are with shared education has to be that we are recognising that there are many different sectors and that, effectively, we are where we are in this education system. If you were starting from scratch, you would find that this Minister or, indeed, any other Minister, may not design the system that we have, but how do we make the best of it? How do we get community use of schools or schools from different sectors sharing without lifting any sector above another? How do we get that sharing that we want to see?”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to the Alliance amendments, I fear that there is a misunderstanding in Alliance and possibly the Green Party about what the definition of shared education could possibly be. I suggest that they should maybe read some of the work that has been carried out on shared education, as that is where this society is going. I realise that, certainly after getting his hair cut, Mr Agnew has maybe lost his radical edge. What more evidence do you need that he is becoming much more of a conservative and a reformist? The very point in what Mr Agnew was talking about is the argument to move to a single, secular education system, if that was what we were going with.”
“The reason for that, which I hope has been clarified, is that we will have that cross-sectoral representation to promote the community use of schools and, to a lesser extent, shared education. <BR /> <BR />If amendment Nos 4, 8 and 15 are made, my concern will have been proved warranted. I want to make sure that the standing committees to promote the community use of schools include all sectors in our education system. If amendment No 11 is not made, we would be left in a situation where a number of sectors are left out. That amendment may be agreed along with amendment No 4, which I fear could be a bad amendment, and that is why I am worried about how we get into that area. I want amendment No 11 and my other amendments to be made to make sure that we have that cross-sectoral representation.”
“Rather, they say that all schools are equal, but some schools are more equal than others. I therefore strongly oppose those amendments and urge the House to do likewise. I know that Mr Sheehan was getting complete agreement and that harmony was breaking out, so I will almost apologise for interrupting that. I hope that Members give serious consideration to those amendments. I believe that they ensure that virtually no difference will be made to the provision of the community use of schools. <BR /> <BR />The Minister questioned the merits of my amendments, and I think that, by his actions, he has proved their necessity. On a cross-party basis, I and colleagues tabled amendment No 11, which is in the next group of amendments for debate. If that amendment is made, I will not move amendment Nos 13 and 16.”
“As stated at Consideration Stage, all these schools are funded by taxpayers. Regardless of who owns the land that they are built on or who runs the school, they should at least recognise the duty to encourage, promote and facilitate community use of those facilities, which are paid for by all our citizens. What, in that example — or indeed who — is the Minister afraid of? <BR /> <BR />At least, with shared education, the Minister is promoting a plan to meet the will of the House through a set of amendments. He is saying that he will overrule. Amendment No 8 is another kicking-into-the-long-grass amendment, allowing the Minister to introduce the duty on only half of schools when he sees fit. I firmly believe that amendment Nos 4, 8 and 15 contradict the Minister's stated commitment to shared education.”
“I am of the opinion that, if we leave the Bill as amended by me and with the support of the House at Consideration Stage, much greater urgency will be placed on the Minister, the Department and the Executive to deliver a stand-alone shared education Bill in good time. That is why it is important not to make these amendments, and it is why I oppose them. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4, 8 and 15 deal with similar issues. However, I believe that, in all aspects, they are actually worse than the previous set. My reading of amendment No 4 is that it basically tells the new authority, "You have no business encouraging, facilitating or promoting the community use of schools in maintained, Irish-medium, voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools." That is a terrible message to send out, and it almost thwarts the will of the House.”
“It brings the proposed standing committee into line, making the work that it would carry out questionable. <BR /> <BR />The Minister tells us that the reason why he intends to do this is that he is bringing a stand-alone shared education Bill. I believe the Minister's intent; I just warn that an old adage is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have limited confidence in the Executive and in the Minister getting his Bill through the Executive and into the Chamber, and we need that to happen within in a very short time frame. He has already said that he will bring a paper, hopefully this side of Christmas, on his proposed Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Education and Skills Authority process began a number of years ago, and here we are today with a diminished Bill, which still has quite controversial elements.”
“Amendment Nos 1, 7 and 12 attempt to deal with this legal anomaly. My concern is that they allow the Minister and the Executive to kick shared education into the long grass. The House unanimously supported the amendments at Consideration Stage, and I fear that these new amendments diminish the previous ones and enable the Minister to put his plans on the long finger. We have a shared education document from an advisory group, and we have the Minister's statement of over a year ago on it. That is why I am reluctant about this. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6, in my opinion, certainly waters down the original amendment, basically affirming that the authority has no power in this area. Amendment No 7 allows the Minister to enact the reduced amendment at a time of his choosing, as does amendment No 12.”
“However, as the Minister stated, there is no current legal definition, and, as said by others, we risk the Education Authority, when established, being placed in an untenable position. It will have a statutory obligation to promote shared education, without there being a definition of that form of education that is acceptable to the Assembly.”
“At the outset, I associate myself with the remarks that Mr Allister made and assure him that my thoughts and prayers are with his constituent. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the Bill, scarcely have I had such a build-up from every Member as to what the motivation and intent of some of my amendments are. I will hopefully address some of the concerns that I have around the Minister's amendments and why I feel that we should not go down that road in some of those instances. Under normal circumstances, if we were faced with a functioning Executive, amendment Nos 1, 7 and 12 might be deemed fairly reasonable to Members.”
“Will the deputy First Minister tell me whether he will build into the research that was done and the fresh look that is being taken the possibility that Scotland will receive the power to vary the rate of corporation tax? That could have a fundamental impact on the projection of 58,000 jobs and, indeed, on what rate we may set.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will know that, in the draft Budget, he is scheduled to lose a significant proportion of money. Does he have any ideological opposition to English-style academies in Northern Ireland? In addition to his earlier reply, they could receive support financially or in kind from personal donors or corporate sponsors. Does he have any objection to that?”
“The Minister will be aware that she replied to my question for written answer about her involvement in the efficiency reform process. To date, her Department has not delivered any efficiency savings. How does that sit with her call and demand for the orchestra to set out a new programme and efficiencies to make sure that it saves itself, which I hope we all support?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly should be scrutinising the Bill and scrutinising other legislation, other motions and the work of the Executive branch of government. That is why it is so important to take our time. Having wasted years, we are suddenly faced with doing this in a matter of weeks. I think that that is a matter of huge regret, and we are perhaps not doing the best job. We should all regret that state of affairs very much.”
“What gets us a bad name is when you try to do it and you do not have the integrity to come out of the Government. You do not have the collective responsibility; you do not have that part that says, "I do not agree with this; I will resign from the Government". That is it. That includes Sinn Féin's position on welfare reform. As the second largest party in the Government, there is a responsibility. We had to send the Finance Minister to get a £100 million loan to stop this thing going into the red. That is not good governance. I appreciate that —”
“— welfare reform or hold out. It would not be the terribly wise thing to do. Even former Minister McCausland made some advances in negotiating opt-outs on welfare reform. Yet, here we are caught in a crisis of Sinn Féin's own making. <BR /> <BR />I give way to the Member.”
“If he checks my voting record, he will find the type of opposition that I mean, which is that when you think that something is bad or there is poor legislation or poor governance, you vote against it, like accelerated passage. Oddly enough, it would have been very easy for me to vote against things like the Public Service Pensions Bill, but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. It would be very easy for me to join you guys and vote against —”
“I turn to other issues. Overall, we are making a mistake by rushing this legislation through. The Bill is not nearly as dramatic as the original ESA Bill was going to be. I am not going to vote against it tonight, simply because there is an overwhelming majority in favour of it. However, I think that this is something that should have gone through a proper scrutiny process with all of the benefits that that brings. Effectively, what we have done here today and acquiesced so much on is the Executive getting a rubber stamp from the Northern Ireland Assembly without the proper scrutiny. It will mean that there will probably be more amendments. It will mean that we will probably have it passed before a suitable business case is anywhere near DFP. <BR /> <BR />Mr Sheehan talked about opposition.”
“I am grateful for that, but that is at direct variance with what Mr Craig said, which was that we could not believe a press release coming out of OFMDFM. I know that, perhaps in DUP circles, the First Minister may not be the force that he once was, but, back in 2012, this was what you said: the Bill could not have left OFMDFM without your agreement and your hands effectively all over it, and you agreed it. Mr Craig almost denied that you had anything to do with it; the press release was nothing to do with you.”
“Mr Storey will maybe confirm that he knows because he is bound to have been involved in the talks at that point.”
“Although we might have established that Mr McCausland was not a member of the UUP when RPA started, he was a member of the Executive when that press release went out. He was the Minister for Social Development, and Mr Storey, the now Minister, was Chair of the Education Committee. A Bill cannot leave the Executive if OFMDFM does not give its approval, so this idea that the DUP somehow never supported the ESA Bill, never had its hands anywhere near it and would not be seen to support it has to be an absolute myth. You cannot —”
“Jointly, they went on to say that they were delighted to make announcements on a wide range of initiatives, including the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation; the Victims Commissioner; the Ilex chair; the investment strategy for Northern Ireland; the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy — that is going well; and the Education and Skills Authority. Now let us read what the press release says on it:”
“Mr Craig's comments highlight — as I keep warning, with all the charity that I can muster, my former colleagues in the UUP — that this is why you should not do unionist unity: you cannot believe a word that they tell you. A press release in July 2012 stated:”
“It is good to hear that Nelson got out slightly earlier than Peter.”
“He is clearly going to make another very relevant point.”
“I take issue with Mr Craig's point that, somehow, this was never supported by the DUP. He cast up that, because it was so long ago, I was still a member of the UUP. We have been doing the review of public administration for so long that Nelson McCausland and Peter Weir were members of the UUP at the start. It is so long in the grind of getting through this.”
“We should want to extend that to all our constituents and all our citizens. <BR /> <BR />Mr Rogers talked about road maps and certainty, but the problem with the Bill is that I am not quite sure that it provides the level of certainty, because it seems that we will need significant reform to go with this if we are to build up that level of savings. If we get this legislation wrong, it will not benefit anyone. If the Bill does not receive the proper scrutiny — the valued scrutiny that Miss McIlveen and the Committee could provide — I do not think that that would be good for anyone, let alone our representative democracy.”
“Surely we could do the preparatory work that Mr McCausland talked about while letting the Bill go through the Assembly processes. It is right and proper that the Bill should have gone through Committee. <BR /> <BR />I will pick up on some of the points that colleagues made. There was talk of minimal legislation but delivering maximum ESA savings. Is that a viable position to hold? Is that likely to happen? Michelle McIlveen, as Chair of the Committee, talked about the maximum amount of the budget going to children and front line services. The Executive should be striving for that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Hazzard made a point about educational excellence. I do not think that you will find any disagreement from anyone that we want to see excellence in every school in the land. We all strive for that and want it for our own family and children.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have something to say to the Alliance Party about integrated education. There is a lack of representation for the integrated sector in the Bill, and, let us face it, the Alliance Party probably considers itself the custodian of the integrated sector. I am amazed that it is allowing the Bill to pass by accelerated passage without giving the integrated sector, or the Irish-medium sector for that matter, an opportunity to come before the Committee, speak and present its concerns on the Bill. I am disappointed with that approach, and I will reiterate my concerns about accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />We are hearing arguments that this is a short and simple Bill. If it is short and simple, why do we not do the proper process? We spent £17 million or £18 million on a shadow form of ESA that never became relevant.”
“The Bill appears to me to consolidate the divide that they claim to hate so much. In fact, Mr McCausland, in his contribution, was almost congratulating himself on getting a place for the sector that he is most passionate about, but where does that sit with the move to a single education system? <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Minister is right in his approach to a shared education system. I think that it is a more realistic outcome of where we will get to, but it is important to have financial support for the controlled sector body in there. I do not quite understand how you can have a single education system that the DUP and the UUP talk about, only then suddenly to want all these sectoral interests, unless you have completely abandoned that approach. Or was it more about having a dig at the Catholic Church?”
“The Minister claims that he wants to give certainty to staff. As others have said — I will reiterate it — staff have been treated abysmally by the entire Executive for years now. We want the Bill to be more than just a stopgap, yet they are going to find significant savings over the next 10 years. It is hard to see where those will come from. If the Minister could give more clarity on the savings and the business case in his summing-up, I would be very grateful. <BR /> <BR />I ask DUP and UUP colleagues where the Bill leaves their stated policy. Perhaps, as Mr Craig would say, press releases do not mean anything. The stated policy of the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and, I am fairly certain, Mike Nesbitt on numerous occasions has been to move to a single education system.”
“He will be aware that, in preparation for ESA, the education and library boards shed more than 400 jobs. Considering that the Bill does not introduce any radical reform — rather, it is a reshuffling of the pack — I ask the Minister where these savings, without further significant reforms, are likely to come from. That brings me to the point that, at times, when listening to the debate, I felt that we almost seemed to have two Bills: one that the DUP thinks that it is talking about; and one that Sinn Féin thinks that it is talking about. I am not quite sure that we are all talking about the same Bill.”
“I also voted for Mr Dallat and for Mr Beggs, just to cover all the bases. <BR /> <BR />The Minister claimed that the Bill is likely to bring savings of between £180 million and £185 million. When he responds to the debate, I would like some detail on the foundation of that claim That is a lot of money to claim as savings, and it is over quite an extended period. The Minister had to admit to the Committee that the business case for the Bill and this model of reform had not been submitted to DFP. I am sure that he will want to comment on when he expects that business case to be ready. Are we likely to pass the legislation before the business case has even been presented to DFP? <BR /> <BR />The Minister claimed that this model will continue without any further reduction in posts.”
“Let me be the first to congratulate Ms Sugden on her maiden speech. I declare an interest. My wife is a teacher in the employment of the South Eastern Education and Library Board, and she is also from east Londonderry originally. In case you try to stop me speaking, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I voted for you yesterday.”
“If the Member was in his place when I spoke during the debate on accelerated passage, he will know that I drew attention to the fact that an OFMDFM press release from 18 July 2012 announced agreement on about 10 areas, including the Maze and the ESA. It should not be that surprising to anyone in the House that we were under the impression that you guys had all agreed when you announced it in your own press release.”
“The point that I was making on accelerated passage was that we are five and a half months away from the start of April. There is time for this to go through a normal process, working closely with the Committee on its standard six-week scrutiny of the Bill. There is plenty of time to do that.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to say that I am surprised that so many parties in the Assembly, particularly some of the smaller ones that sometimes count themselves as having a more oppositional role, are going along with this. They should reflect and think about how and why we are granting this procedure. The Bill has some controversy in it. It is time that the Assembly stopped writing blank cheques for the bankrupt Executive and started to stand up to them and robustly defend representative democracy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister has more than adequate time, and I am quite sure that the Chair of the Committee would be willing to have extra meetings, with the time limit set for the start of April to coincide with the new councils, to work hard on that scrutiny. The Minister would have a better Bill at the end of it. So, why the Assembly has to pick up the mistakes and failures of our Executive is beyond me. Why so many Members have willingly coalesced on that, I have no idea. At times, the Assembly should stand up in robust opposition to the Executive and say, "We are not going to be treated like that. We are not going to be used as a rubber stamp when you mess up and cannot get your act together. If you cannot get your legislation into this Building in time, you pick up the problems." The Assembly should be very strong.”
“<BR /> <BR />I sat on the Education Committee for over a year with the current Minister and other Members here. Ms Ruane brought the first ESA Bill to Committee, then we had a second one and now we have a carve-up deal cobbled together at the last minute to get us over the line. It has been quite obvious for months, and even years, that you were not going to get your way on the ESA Bill. The Assembly, led by many colleagues in here, was broadly saying no. Then you cobbled together this Bill and are proceeding to bypass the legitimacy of the Assembly in having a scrutinising role. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful. We should not use accelerated passage unless we are absolutely convinced that there are no options and that we need emergency legislation.”
“The Committee worked at that Bill. The Committee held extra meetings to get the Bill through. The Committee worked and engaged with the Department to pass the Bill. I believe that we had a better Bill at the end of it. <BR /> <BR />So, why are the Minister, the Committee and so many Members ganging up and saying that it is right to do this? Why not let the Bill go through the normal processes? This is a failure because we could not agree on the ESA. I refer Members to OFMDFM's statement in July 2012. It stated that discussions had been successfully concluded and that the Bill would be brought to the next meeting of the Executive in order to commence its passage in the Assembly. It is over two years since those discussions were, supposedly, successfully concluded.”
“If it is short and simple, why on earth would we do it by accelerated passage? The two do not sit together. <BR /> <BR />I have been critical of other parties that brought forward accelerated passage. I have been critical of the UUP bringing the Road Races (Amendment) Bill by accelerated passage. I have been critical of the DUP bringing Bills by accelerated passage when it was clearly unnecessary to do so. I refer Members to the Planning Bill, which Mr Kinahan will have experience of. The Planning Bill was introduced to the House on 6 December 2010. I think that Edwin Poots was the then Minister of the Environment. He did not ask for accelerated passage. That Bill had 248 clauses, seven schedules and 205 pages, and it went to Final Stage before the Assembly was dissolved on 23 March, just over three months later.”
“I am somewhat surprised that so many Members seem willing to go along with whatever the Executive arm of government demands of us. Are we nothing more than a seldom-used rubber stamp for the Executive? Has the Assembly no aspirations to be something more and be the primary legislative body for Northern Ireland? That is what is at stake here. We should grant accelerated passage only in the most extreme circumstances. <BR /> <BR />On the one hand, we hear from Mr Lunn, who says that we are so ground down by this that we would accept almost anything at this stage. Effectively, we can write the Executive a blank cheque — a blank cheque to an already bankrupt Executive. That is why the House should oppose accelerated passage. We are told by Mr Lunn that it is a relatively short and simple Bill.”