05/05/2013 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

The fallout from that U-turn on closing care homes. We hear from the

Ulster Unionist leader, Mike Nesbitt.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2224 seconds

And on the rise of UKIP, the party's Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. The problem was the process, not the policy, so said

the Health Minister Edwin Poots as he called a halt to the closure of

care homes. We will hear from the cold -- politician who called for

his resignation and economist with a wider impact on that decision. Nigel

Farage lead UKIP to major gains in England's elections.

The parties only MLA will hope for some company on the dangers. Sheila

Davidson and Steven McCaffery join me also.

First came the announcement one by one that health trusts here revealed

plans to close their homes. Then came the backlash is elderly

residents and their families revealed the extent of their

distress. Finally the Health Minister who had apologised for that

distress and branded the handling of the decision disastrous took drastic

action. We are discontinuing the current consultation process. It

will be organised shortly. We will do everything we can to deal with

the elderly care. The current process and consultation that is

taking process will no longer continue. What does that mean for

the public, what happens now? The implementation of the policy has

changed. I have said from the outset I was not happy with this. It has

caused stress to elderly people and the last thing we want to do is

cause distress to them. We must provide better quality care for

elderly people and that is what we will continue to engage in. Edwin

Poots speaking to our health correspondent Mike Louise Connolly

on Friday. Mike Nesbitt and the economist John

Simpson join me. On one point on Friday, before you give that

interview, you called for the Minister 's resignation.

Did you think he should go? There are two issues, one with the policy

and the other with the implementation of it. Although he

says he has fixed that, I do not think he has gone far enough. No

current resident has been given a guaranteed that they will not be

forced out of their home. Given the unnecessary distress it has caused,

that is believed he owes those people and families. The bigger

issue is the policy which has now been corrupted by this episode.

People are looking at transforming care and wondering is this about

delivering better health service or about saving money? He has, I am

afraid, corrupted the system, he must go. He said it has never been

about saving money. But the public no wonder what it has been about, it

has been a shambolic episode. a commissioner who said it was

shameful and this was due to a abject la leadership. Older people

are looking for politicians and people like Edwin Poots to see how

much store they are putting in the opinion of the champion. I be going

to listen to him? That is the big question. He says he has listened to

what residents and their families have said and that no resident will

be forced out of their home. Mark, this is about devolution, which we

were told would be better than direct ruled government. Can you

imagine how the DUP would react if a direct rule minister had flown in

and presided over the last two weeks, reducing a 92-year-old woman

into tears on television because she feared she would be turfed out of

her home? He went back and spoke to that women and reassured her.

not good enough. There is no guarantee that in the future she

will not be forced out. We need a guarantee. John Simpson. I've been

in a different direction to make in this argument. I think what we have

seen in the last week... He is correct to say it has been a

distortion of transformation of care. There are issues we must be

and we're not because of this. This is a very small part. Given what has

happened, there has been a certain failure of communication. Do I blame

the media, the press or do I blame the officials involved? For example,

the different boards came up with proposals that were reported to say

that they would close all of the residential care homes, . Full is

the that was never going to be true. There are always going to have to be

consulted. There was going to have the ministers permission and that

was never going to happen. Legally, the minister was still in charge and

he was being badly served by reporting that he would not be able

to fill his promise. He did not look like he was in charge. That is

slightly unfair. When he was asked he contributed to the discussion.

You and I may have used more forceful language, but he did

ultimately see that no one would be forced out against their will. John,

he told me on Thursday night that he did not know the trust were going to

announce 100% closures at that point in time. The trusts were not

announcing a decision for 100% closures. They were announcing a

recommendation that would go to the Minister. Surely we should still

have discussed it with him beforehand? Just one minute.Are the

trusts just guess men or people who can't think for themselves? At the

trusts came up with recommendations which were not what the minister at

originally thought, and there is a question that they read the

instruction book, as they read the instruction book, is taken up with

different recommendations, thank goodness the trusts have the ability

to think independently and the Minister then has the ability to say

stop. Mike, you do not agree? No, not at all. The Minister should have

looked at that and outline the sensitive parts and said not to do

anything without his seasonal. buck stops with him. In the

Southeast one care home says they will maintain at least one care home

in the area. That is part of the communications problem. It is very

easy to fix the communication problem. Two words from the

Minister, "I quit." He has been given advice from his trusts and he

has said that this device is unacceptable. He has said that they

have not read the instructions properly. He's had said that more

than 50%... Of course, it was never meant to include 100%. The Minister

has a rightful complaint to the general philosophy of the trusts. He

should say to them to put him in his place that they were just

recommending and not deciding. Poots has had �75 million on

monitoring grounds. Health should not benefit from monitoring rates.

Waiting lists have grown since he took over. Thousands of people

having to read more than 12 hours since last March. The target of 95%

under four hours was not met. These were pressures that your colleague

Michael McGimpsey faced when he was the Health Minister. Mr Poots has

failed to deliver. How would the DUP have reacted if a direct rule

minister at the edge is gaining the-year-old woman into tears? The

personal pain of a 90-year-old is obviously, that, but hard cases do

not make good law. The fact is there is a general consensus that we are

going to change the emphasis from residential care too other times. Is

that the correct policy in your view? I believe that is a good

policy provided the alternatives are in place. The trans from your clear

policies will be discussed over the next 12 months. What is happening is

a big report on how to deal with the major issues get swallowed up

because of one bad decision. It is one issue that has been handled

badly but I do not want to blame the Minister, I want to blame those

responsible for the communications system. I want to give the Minister

credit because he has tried to put an end to this. Use the buck stops

with the Minister and have called for his resignation. The one way to

guarantee in politics that someone will not go is they sometimes call

for his resignation. Because you have done this and he has had a

tough time, Peter Robinson may well throw his arms around him and make

sure he stays. He does not want you to set the agenda. That sends out a

message that suggests that the opinion of the Commissioner has no

value whatsoever. We must take account of the proposed shift. The

Commissioner rejected this shift? She will say that there is room for

improvement here. I believe that she will say that.

Let us hear from our two commentators today. PR consultant

Sheila Davidson and Steven McCaffery from The Detail. Sheila,

Communications is the business you are involved in. Our previous guests

sat said whatever the issues they disagree with, they agree that the

communications has been poor in this instance. Do you agree? That is

absolutely correct. In the fall of the public sector there is a

perception that any investment in communications is a waste of money,

it is spin doctoring, it is trying to bite people astray. When in

actual fact, if you get your communications right, at the very

point where you are making decisions and talking to people, it is not

about what is going into the media, it is about how you are

communicating decisions for the people who are affected. It is not

about that. It is about the communication of the Trust to the

people in its care. They got that horrifically wrong. They did not

even begin to factor in what the level of communication was. Let us

take this down to its lowest common denominator. The person who sat in

front of the Commissioner and said you will have to find somewhere else

to go. Where was the communications thought process that went down at

that level? We are debating better policies, we are debating everything

except the thing that actually went wrong here. At the end of the day,

perhaps the thing we should be talking about for a population the

size that we have, we have all of these trust boards, I health and

social care board, the department, and the level of opportunity there

is for all of that communication to go wrong is terrific. We are talking

about saving money? Maybe we should be looking at taking up this chain

of command and delivery and charting its to a point where what we are

delivering to ordinary people are something we want and we need and

the accountability line is very clear. Stephen, is it about

communications, policy or the implementation of the policy?

know from what the minister said on Friday it is not about policy.

has just pulled responsibility for that into his office. The other big

issue that spins off from this and it was back to what they had been

talking about in terms of the work of the government, Mr McGuinness is

preparing to present Northern Ireland on a bigger stage. I hope

that these decisions will show the executive and a good light and that

they are quietly working away in the background to and mental welfare

reform, Ruislip policies that will affect huge numbers of people, much

more than the affected by the care home issues will stop this had --

this has muddied the water and the angry finger-pointing to words

Stormont. Is this made life more difficult for the executive and

you're part of the executive, your party? I was at a rally last night

to stop the DUP are not popular in that area. Stephen Cazlake to

identify welfare reform. We were told by the Minister that if we did

not get this done and dusted by the end of March the sky would fall in

and the social funding would collapse. Here we are in the still

waiting for the Minister to bring it to the House for a debate. The

fundamental problem is that he has cut and pasted the legislation of

Westminster. They will idea of devolution is that you reshape it to

sit this part of the kingdom. were to discuss the measure Minister

is made of the A5, we would expect that the DUP would be angry with you

and your party this morning? That was an executive decision, not a

ministerial one. The serious issue here is about legal hearings of the

executive. I go back to the point that the communications that went

wrong here have had a much wider rippling out effect. We do not

appreciate yet how great that effect will be. That is an issue that did

not need to go the way it went. The instructions made it clear to reduce

within five years by 50%. That is a policy that is not in dispute. When

you notice that over the week that actual policy is not what people are

trying to throw it, we are talking about the speed when we should not

have been down that road at all. Does this kind of political crisis

which seems to be all absorbing, will switch people onto politics or

turn them off? It encourages the kind of policies that we saw

recently when, I think we may not was Peggy Dewey, people do not care

whether I am laughing or crying. Here more of those kind of comments

at times like this and that is what is profiting UKIP across the water.

Thank you for joining us. It has been a week dominated by that care

homes controversy. There is Mark Devenport 's the in 60 Seconds.

The disaster speak for Edwin Poots is elderly people had back at

planned home closures. Over the past few days I have been horrified at

how it has translated. The Secretary of State promises economic gain at

Stormont delivers a shared future. They are thinking and ambitious ways

about how to bridge long-standing secretarial issues and I welcome the

issues and policies they are introducing. There is still plenty

of division when it comes to legislation on same-sex marriage.

It is not an issue of equality but redefining marriage.

Who is responsible for removing flies, the police said, "not us."

Gerald Kelly said it was not acceptable. Was this a fraudulent --

was this a shut from Martin McGuinness?

Mark Devenport reporting. David Cameron once things are said,

"fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". But if the results of the

local elections in England are anything to go bike might

reconsidering that view. UKIP polled strongly shown it can cause upsets

in Tory and Lib Dem heartlands. David McNarry is with me. Thank you

for joining me. Is this a staging post on the road to the aligning

British policies or just a blip? I do not think it is a blip. I have

just arrived on the scene. Mike Nesbitt who was sitting in the seat

was trying to accommodate and lead to my expulsion from the Ulster

Unionists party. It put me on a journey as to where I was going to

go. I must say, I seem to have made a good choice. The reason for that

is that I detect that it is the same in Northern Ireland. They are fed up

like the other people in the UK. They are fed up with an inefficient

government and we have reached an extent that the blip is eradicated.

This is quite a since Asian woman by UKIP, 25% of the overall vote. The

difficulty is going to be in getting Westminster seats. In between that

they have the European election. If people get accustomed to voting one

way and they have shown that and we will show it in Europe, they will

continue that way. I do not think the blip as a matter of fact. I do a

one trick pony? That is what a lot of the leaders have been seeing in

the papers. They say that people voted for UKIP on one issue only and

that was immigration. From my point of view, I am not a one trick pony

and not interested in one trick pony politics. UKIP have been accused of

being sectarian and racist when neither play no part in any thing

that we do. What we are developing now... Very interestingly, it is

about the connection and I think that is an important word in

politics today. It is the connection with UKIP and the public. Even over

another issue which is pretty interesting and Northern Ireland

Terence. I am making waves and always have in my support for

grammar schools. It is a big interest. That might be an issue in

Northern Ireland. You do not believe UKIP voted for -- you do not believe

people voted for UKIP on that issue alone? No, but you cannot take away

that UKIP penetrated the Conservatives. They have also

penetrated the Lib Dems and push them into fourth place again. They

came seventh in a by-election. UKIP are also drawing support from Labour

supporters. They are tapping into people who are fed up with the

delivery of government, just as people, and you heard it in your

earlier debate, just as people here are fed up with the delivery of

government. The executive we have in Northern Ireland is lamentable and

his performance. What about this realigning of British politics.

as long as I can remember people have talked about a 2-party state

becoming a three or four party state. It has never really happened.

I know the coalition government has slightly changed it. But there is no

real evidence that this electoral result is fundamentally going to

change the landscape. I think you are correct. At this stage you could

not make that claim. Some within UKIP are making that claim. Your

point about the coalition government is extremely interesting. It looks

like we are going to have another form of coalition. It could be a

voluntary as opposed to a mandatory coalition that we are forced to

have. You only really have Nick Clegg turning around and seeing that

he might go into power and equality with Ed Miliband. You have the

lamentable David Cameron said after the abuse that he gave to UKIP

people and voters then seeing that we must treat them with respect.

That is a result! Yes. But no one believes the Prime Minister any

more. You are neither a fruitcake, nor a loony or a closet racist?

not at the! I have had a great run in the last few days visiting

different parts of Northern Ireland. Thank you for Johnny, David. Sheila

and Stephen are still with me. I use a prize at this UKIP success?

No, I am not surprised and it should not be taken that seriously in terms

of the effect on Labour and the Tories.

I think that it has a bigger effect on the Lib Dems and that UKIP

appeared to be filling their protest gap. I do not think it is a big fear

for the Labour or Conservative Party. Time will tell. At the moment

it seems to be a manifestation of frustration with conventional

politics and the same things that people see between political parties

and that kind of frustration that people feel regarding delivery by

politicians. We have had is uprising week in politics. AQAP portal crisis

in Northern Ireland and this big UKIP surprise. Hasn't had a big

impact on the political debate? think what has been really good