11/03/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics.

I'll be bringing you up to speed

on all the political

comings and goings in

Westminster and beyond.

Coming up in today's programme.

As the investigation into the nerve

agent attack in Salisbury continues,

we'll be taking to the former

Home Secretary Jack Straw

and former Security Minister,

Pauline Neville Jones.

Is there room for more spending?

week, the Chancellor Philip Hammond

has hinted austerity could be over

as he said there was "light

at the end of the tunnel".

We join the Universities minister

Sam Gyimah on what's jokingly been

called a "punishment

tour" of the country -

trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

And coming up here...

Sammy Wilson is live

in the studio as reaction

continues to the NIO budget.

Plus, the chair of the Policing

Board on why she can't

properly supervise the PSNI.

All that coming up in the programme.

And as usual we've got three

Westminster insiders who will take

us behind the headlines and tell us

what's really going on.

Today I'm joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Dia Chakravarty and George Eaton.

The unfolding events over the past

week in the cathedral city

of Salisbury could have been taken

straight from the pages

of a spy thriller.

The poisoning of a Russian former

double agent who had passed secrets

to Britain and moved to Salisbury

after a 2010 spy swap, involved

the use of a sinister nerve agent.

It has shocked the country

with the finger of suspicion

pointing firmly at Moscow.

The big story of the week started

in Salisbury after a former

Russian double agent,

Sergei Skripal, and his daughter

Yulia and the policeman who went

to their aid all mysteriously fell

ill because an as yet

unidentified nerve agent.

12 years ago, Alexander Litvinenko

was killed by polonium 210.

Was this more Russian foul play?

Boris Johnson was quick

to retaliate, saying there could be

implications for this summer's

World Cup in Russia.

I think it will be very difficult

to imagine that UK representation

in that event could go ahead

in the normal way.

Did he mean the England team?

The Prime Minister explained.

The point the Foreign Secretary

was making yesterday was that,

depending on what comes out

in relation to the investigation

into the attack on the two

individuals that took place

in Salisbury, that it might be

appropriate for the government

to look at whether ministers

and other dignitaries should attend

the World Cup in Russia.

Russian state TV mocked the Foreign

Secretary for his comments,

but the government's

firm language persisted.

The use of a nerve agent on UK soil

is a brazen and reckless act.

This was attempted murder

in the most cruel and public way.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

as the Chancellor delivered

the latest big Brexit speech.

He's determined to get

a good deal for the city.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

So I'm clear not only

that it is possible to include

financial services within a trade

deal, but that it is very much

in our mutual interest to do so.

Perhaps unsurprisingly

the EU disagreed.

Also when it comes to financial

services, life will be

different after Brexit.

The EU had other things to worry

about, though, as Donald Trump put

forward his highly controversial

plan to make American steel

and aluminium great again.

Surrounded by metal workers,

the President signed proclamations

to impose a 25% tariff on steel

and a 10% tariff on aluminium

imports into the US.

The European Union has not treated

us well and it's been a very,

very unfair trade situation.

Claims of Parliamentary bullying

and sexual harassment hit

the headlines with some

of the allegations going

all the way to the top.

Back in 2010, a woman called

Kate Emms took up the position

as John Bercow's private secretary.

But she stood down from that post

after less than a year.

Her colleagues told Newsnight

that this is because Mr Bercow's

bullying left her unable to continue

in that job.

Theresa May enthusiastically

welcomed Saudi royalty

to Downing Street this week.

Mohammed bin Salman was even treated

to lunch at the Palace.

Billboards sprung up extolling

in the crown prince's virtues.

Supporters of the man

they call Mr Everything say

he is a great reformer.

But protests surrounding UK arms

sales were also highly visible

and with Saudi's intervention

in Yemen ongoing, the visit

angered Jeremy Corbyn.

British arms sales have sharply

increased and British military

advisers are directing the war.

It cannot be right

that her government...

Mr Speaker, it cannot be right

that her government is colluding

in what the United Nations says

is evidence of war crimes.

Clearly riled, Theresa May

got her own back, calling

Jeremy Corbyn out on the eve

of International Women's Day.

Can I thank the Right

Honourable Gentleman

for telling me that it is

International Women's Day tomorrow.

LAUGHTER.

I think that's what's

called "mansplaining".

Tom, Dia and George

were watching that with me.

Now some insight and analysis into

what's going on behind the

headlines. The big story of the week

is obviously the poisoning of Sergei

Skripal and whether or not Russia

was involved. A lot of people have

been quick to assume that President

Putin sanctioned this and it's a

Russian state operation but can we

be sure of that?

Reasonably sure,

yes, clearly there is no physical

proof to produce at the moment. I

think by the end of last week the

government were in no doubt that

this was ordered by the Russian

state and in particular Vladimir

Putin, who, under Russian state

rules, has to sign of all foreign

assassinations personally since rule

change in 2006. The reason I think

they are almost certain about this

is quite frankly no one else has a

motive to do that. Who would want to

do a better job in spite of analogy

on an old colonel living quietly in

Salisbury? Not the people have the

modes of delivery to do this, to

pass a nerve agent, chemical

weapons, on Britain's streets.

Thirdly, this will be the killer,

the scientific proof it was an

extremely rare nerve agent, used,

not one of the more widely available

once you see in things like Syria,

it's a rare particular type which

has only been known to be produced

in one or two laboratories in the

world, one of them is in Moscow. The

Moscow foreign spy service. What is

fascinating is not just was Vladimir

Putin responsible? It is why he

wanted us to know he was

responsible, because he left such a

massive calling card, and that has

been really bothering cabinet

ministers in the last week.

Dia, we

had from the Chief Medical Officer

who said traces of this nerve agent

has been found in the restaurant

where Sergei Skripal and his

daughter were eating and 500 people

were there at the same time and they

should wash their clothes and clean

their possessions that were with

them. There is a small rescue but

there is a risk. Frightening news

like that is what drives home to

people why it matters this is

happening in the UK.

Absolutely and

there are so many questions about

this, even before we do want to who

was doing this. That's very

important. This also questions about

how the whole thing has been

handled, seven days, and they are

now telling these terrified

residents to wash their clothes and

possessions. Is that going to be

enough? What exactly is this agent?

If we see people in scary laboratory

suits walking around, doing what

they need to do, a quarantine going

on, is it enough to say go and wash

your clothes seven days later? The

communication around it, I

understand it is sensitive, that I

think it has been dire. Really quite

woeful. If I was living in Salisbury

I would be very, very worried.

George, the UK Government, once the

investigation has finished and they

decide whether this was a

state-sponsored assassination, they

need to decide how to respond. All

we have practically heard of so far

is some rubber mats might not go to

the World Cup in Russia, presumably

will have to do come up with

something better than that --

diplomats. What can we do that

Russia will care about?

The pressure

from some Labour Party and

Conservative MPs is to introduce a

version of the Magnitsky Act, which

means it's easier to freeze the

assets of Russians suspected of

human rights abuses or corruption,

and expel them, but Britain is

severely limited and I think it's

worth asking the question why did

Russia choose this moment to target

Britain? We are set to leave the

European Union, huge burdens on

governments, stretching the

government bandwidth to its limits,

and Donald Trump and the USA who we

supposedly have a special

relationship with, is imposing

tariffs on steel and has not made

any robust intervention over this,

despite the fact he normally rushes

to tweet when there is a terrorist

attack on British soil after making

unhelpful remarks. He has not been

standing shoulder to shoulder with

Britain in this instance.

There has

been a suggestion this should come

up at the next Nato summit in

Brussels, and they could be looking

for some kind of coordinated

response from international allies.

Is that likely?

It's difficult to

see at the moment. Russia's strength

here is significant and Vladimir

Putin, such a brazen act, clearly he

does not feel Britain has the

capacity to respond. Last December,

when we were short of gas, the one

country we turn to was Russia.

We

will be back to talk about the other

stories during the programme.

The poisoning of Sergei Skripal

and his daughter carries

echoes of the murder

of Alexander Litvinenko,

the ex KGB officer who died

after drinking tea laced

with radioactive polonium 210

in a London hotel in 2006.

And this morning, his widow,

Marina Litvinenko urged Theresa May

to adopt American-style laws that

are tougher on Russia.

You need to be very selective who

you are friends with. And when you

allow people with money to come to

your country and make a business,

you need to be sure what kind of

money these people try to bring to

your country because very often this

money is stolen from Russian people

and sometimes it is a very serious

crime behind it. I'm

crime behind it. I'm absolutely

asking this question to unite this

action already done in the United

States, in Europe. I think the UK

has to do the same steps.

Joining me now from Edinburgh

is the former Home and Foreign

Secretary, Jack Straw.

Thank you very much for joining us

this morning. Do you agree that the

UK needs to introduce tougher laws,

the likes of which the US has?

I do

think we should do this now. I think

have to take this very careful

step-by-step way, so I think the

approach of Amber Rudd and her

security minister, Ben Wallace, is

the right one. Jumping to

conclusions in this situation is not

a sensible way to proceed. The other

thing we have to think about very

carefully, when it comes to those

who are saying something must be

done and if you are in government,

you get this all the time, in

situations like this, something has

got to be done, is what happens when

you have to get back to normality? I

often reflect on the sanctions were

imposed to Zimbabwe for the

different situation but there are

parallels. In retrospect, Robert

Mugabe was a very bad man, but in

retrospect I often wonder if it was

a sensible thing to do. In the end

we had to get the troops down again.

It was very tricky so people need to

think very carefully indeed. This is

on the assumption the Russian state

was behind this, which has not yet

been approved or announced.

If we do

establish that and work on the

presumption for now and I understand

your reservations, would President

Putin care if we were to try and

institute some kind of sanctions or

punishments or does it just increase

the siege mentality Russia is under

threat from the rest of the world

which in many ways bolstered his

position in advance of the elections

coming up soon?

If we were to do it

unilaterally, just the UK, he

wouldn't careful stop with the EU,

and more other major allies

including the USA, he might take

notice but frankly, I think he

regarded as a medal if we were

simply to do it by ourselves and he

knows that, post the collapse of the

Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union in

the early 1990s, there is a huge

amount of Russian money in the UK,

particularly in London, and a

Magnitsky Act won't make that much

difference to the level of

dependence of some very highly

respectable British London based

financial institutions with Russian

money.

With the Alexander Litvinenko case,

an enquiry two tiers to get to the

bottom of what happened there, and

could only conclude that it was

probably orchestrated by the Russian

state. Can you take any sort of

action on the basis of something

probably being true?

People need to

bear in mind the example of Iraq.

The evidence against Saddam Hussein

having and continuing to have

biological weapons was overwhelming.

The question came up in United

Nations Security Council

resolutions, passed unanimously.

That is what Tony Blair and I used

almost 15 years ago to persuade

people to go to war against Iraq,

and it turned out to be completely

incorrect, so you've got to be

really careful. I have the scars

literally on my back in respect of

this. In the heat of the moment,

with people in the House of Commons

and the newspapers screeching,

something 's got to be done, being

non-explicit about what... Moreover,

we shouldn't descend to the level of

the criminal justice system in the

Russian Federation or other states

like that. There are demands today

from some Conservatives to ban the

Russia Today programme.

The Shadow

Chancellor said today that he

doesn't think Labour MPs will be

appearing on there in the future.

Will you do the same?

I have not

appeared on there for some time, but

I will make a decision on my own

terms. We have to be careful about

doing that in the absence of

evidence. Far better for Britain's

position in the world to have high

standards of probity. It's better to

bear in mind that well intentioned

people who do not lie at all,

including myself, and the House of

Commons by a huge majority, and

public opinion at the time, came to

the wrong decision with respect to

whether or not Saddam Hussein still

had biological weapons on the basis

of probabilities. That is the

difficulty here. People will of

course be very impatient indeed to

have a culprit here, and obviously

stacking it up on the basis of

circumstantial evidence, you can

make a very good case that it is the

Russian state, but we need a bit of

sobriety before we come to that

conclusion. Thank God that Amber

Rudd is the Home Secretary at the

moment. Someone else I could think

of in the British Cabinet, and she

is taking a very measured approach

to this.

Here with me now is Pauline Neville

Jones, who was Security

and Counter Terrorism Minister under

David Cameron, when Theresa May

was Home Secretary.

That was fascinating, listening to

Jack Straw drawing parallels with

Iraq and what was supposedly the

evidence of chemical and biological

weapons there, saying we have to be

very careful about pointing the

finger of blame. With your security

experience, will we ever be able to

establish whether this was

sanctioned by the Russians?

I doubt

the Russian state will admit it was

involved. In order to get absolute

proof, what we needed with

Litvinenko was to have a trial.

There hasn't been a trial because

the Russians wouldn't cooperate. I

think it's right for the government

to be cautious about saying anything

now, because it mustn't be seen to

lead the investigation and therefore

damage it, but once we have

established a degree of probability

about the cause, that is the time

for action. I think the chances of

it not being connected with Russia

in some way are very low.

The means

would point to that, but what is the

motive? This is a retired agent

who's been living here for years.

Came as part of the spy as well. The

unwritten rule of espionage is that

you don't touch spies. What dangers

does he pose to the Russian regime?

I think we simply don't know the

full story. There's plenty of

evidence that the Russian regime is

pretty vicious. Even if he was part

of a swap, I don't think you can

exclude the fact that the Russian

state might decide to take action

against him.

Looking at pictures of

him and his daughter there. It's

difficult to see what threat they

posed to the Russian state. Is it

not worth considering the

possibility that they may have been

involved in something else that

isn't technically state faction --

state sanctioned?

If possible. It is

possible that the Mafia was

involved. The question is, what lay

behind the Mafia and where did the

nerve agent come from? Is it

possible to come from elsewhere than

a state laboratory? It's difficult

to imagine that the threat isn't

going to go back to Russia somehow.

Is it possible to take action

against wealthy Russian oligarchs

living in London, even if we change

the laws and bring in something like

the Magnitsky act? Mrs Litvinenko

got a letter from Theresa May, Home

Secretary at the time, saying that

we want to make sure nothing like

this happens again in the UK, and

now it has.

There are already powers

which the government can use. One of

the reasons why there was an

argument in the Commons the other

day about this so-called Magnitsky

amendment was that the government

said, we've got the powers. You may

say, we need to use these powers,

for example to investigate people

who have unexplained wealth. There

are things we can do.

These are

people who are not necessarily

linked to Putin and the regime, so

these are two distinct things.

They

are. You have to be careful how you

do this, and it requires resources.

This is a complicated job. Jack

Straw put his finger on it when he

said, we need to act in concert with

allies. This is the thing that the

Russians really are going to take

notice of. At the moment, it's fair

to say that although we are Aljaz

overtime, we have gradually

increased the pressure. With

sanctions, and Nato have increased

measures on its borders, but we

still have a great deal of

harassment from the Russians. They

are taking action in people's

politics. They are conducting cyber

attacks. We need to act as an

alliance so that the Russians really

do believe, and they seek positive

evidence of it, that action against

one is an action against all, and

collective action follows. We need

to have a strategy that brings

together what we do militarily, what

we do to protect our citizens in the

cyber sphere, what we do in

broadcasting, so we have an all

encompassing way of dealing with

Russia.

Thank you very much for

coming to talk to us.

The new Universities Minister,

Sam Gyimah, has set himself

a rather ambitious task.

Travelling up and down the country,

he's trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

With just one in five voters aged

between 18 and 24 voting Tory

in the 2017 election,

it's been jokingly called

his "punishment tour".

Our reporter Elizabeth Glinka

joined Sam on his visit

to Canterbury Christ Church

University.

And just to warn you,

her report contains flashing images.

Was that a youth quake?

Reports of a massive

increase in young voters at

the last general election may

have been exaggerated.

# I got the big size

12s on my feet...

Nationally, the turnout didn't

really change, but of

the young people that did vote,

a whopping 67% went for Labour.

And in a place like

Canterbury, where there

are more than 30,000 students,

it's thought that their votes played

a big part in the city

electing its first ever Labour MP.

Canterbury.

This has been Conservative

since World War I.

An extraordinary surge

in their share, up 20% here.

In general, everyone just

always seems to think

that the Conservatives are always

doing something wrong,

so even if you don't know

about the Conservatives,

all you hear, you just think

negative things about it.

Most of my friends always slander

the Conservative name, saying,

"It's only for middle-aged men who

want the benefit from themselves."

Do you think you have

to be quite brave to

say, "I am a Conservative?"

Yeah.

At first, I was like,

OK, I'm not going

to say anything to my friends,

because they will just kick off.

One of my flatmates was like,

"If you are not a Labour

voter, don't talk to me."

Labour had a lot of backing.

They had people like

AJ Tracey jumping on.

So once they see that,

everyone kind of runs

to it, like, let's vote Labour.

# Tracksuit grey, black,

blue

# I was just a hope-filled kid

like you...

AJ Tracey is just one of any number

of current music acts who publicly

endorsed the Labour Party

at the last general election,

helping to build a brand

which was apparently three times

more attractive to young voters.

To be fair, it's not

as if there was some sort of golden

era of Conservative hipsters,

but the figures suggest

things are getting worse.

And that's why the new Universities

Minister, Sam Gyimah,

is currently on a nationwide tour,

including here in Canterbury,

where he is attempting to

at least start a conversation

with a generation of voters who see

his party as old, male and stale.

Minister, this seems

a good time to jump in.

This is an incredibly difficult job,

isn't it, convincing young people

to vote Conservative?

We do have our work cut out for us,

but I think the first thing to do

is actually to be on campus.

If we allow Jeremy Corbyn to be

the only one on campus, then we only

have ourselves to blame.

Many students will say to you, well,

it's fine, you're having

a review on student fees

and many other things.

The Labour Party's promising us

they're going to get rid of fees.

We know what happens when you

promised something for free.

Numbers are going to be capped,

which means fewer people

going to university.

It's the well off that

are going to do it.

That's not what we're about.

I'm not really worried

about Jeremy Corbyn's free

for all offer, because it's not

realistic, and he can't deliver it,

and we only need to look

at countries like Scotland to see

that it's not going to work.

And what reaction are you expecting

when you head in there?

Well, I thought it might

be rowdy like PMQs.

I've no idea.

I haven't had the mob treatment

anywhere yet so far.

# Your face ain't big for my boot

# Kick up the yout

# I know that I kick up the yout...

There might not have been

a youth quake nationally,

but there was a bit of a youth quake

in Canterbury, and I want to listen

and I want to understand.

You know, we've had enough

of austerity politics.

We've had enough of student fees,

things like that, and we've seen

the NHS get less and less

funded over time.

And it's hard to

ignore those things.

You know, we are going to take

action against you.

# Bros in my ear saying

"Stormz, don't do it"

# Devil on my shoulder

I don't lack

# Hit 'em

with a crowbar, I don't scrap...

Well, lots of discussion,

some of it a bit feisty,

but did the Minister win any

hearts and minds?

He's really good at talking

to students, and he's

here to talk to everyone.

Would it make you feel differently

about voting Conservative?

I took from your comments that

you were not a Conservative voter.

Definitely not, but I did think

he made some good points,

and he was very measured.

It's quite clear that there

are a number of people here who have

been seduced by Jeremy Corbyn,

but I think the purpose of this

is to let them realise

that there is a Conservative voice,

there is a Conservative point

of view, and that as a minister

I am here to listen.

Clearly a smart man.

I'm not sure it's better

or worse to have a smart

Tory or a stupid Tory,

but he knew what he was

talking about, even though

I disagree with him.

Would it make you think twice

about voting Conservative?

No, I will never vote

Conservative in my life.

So as the sun sets in Canterbury,

there's still a long way to go.

And Universities Minister Sam

Gymiah joins me now.

A smart Tory. That is a compliment

from one of the students! Do you

think you persuaded many of them to

vote Tory?

The point of the exercise

was not to persuade people to vote

Conservative. As Universities

Minister, I'm very conscious that

students are investing a

considerable amount of money in

their education, so they should have

a voice in the corridors of power.

Gone are the days that the

Universities Minister 's spends time

with the chancellors and not the

students. Jeremy Corbyn has a voice

on the campus, and if we allow that

to continue, we only have ourselves

to blame. The starting point in the

process is listening and engaging,

rather than going in there to preach

to them about what their problems

and answers are.

You have a mountain

to climb with young people. Let's

have a look at the numbers. At the

last election, between 18 to

24-year-olds, 67% voted Labour.

Unless you can change those minds,

you have a generational problem with

voters, and you will not see

Conservative governments in the

future, unless people change their

minds.

What I am doing at the moment

is pressing, which is why the party

is beginning to engage with students

at this level. A number of things

have come up as I've travelled

around the country that we can

address. Austerity keeps coming up.

We stopped making the case for why

we had to reduce the deficit from

the extreme levels that we inherited

from the Labour Party. One man said

to me, all I have ever heard the

Conservatives talk

about is austerity. It must be your

ideology. That is clearly not the

case. It is a matter of necessity,

not ideology.

We have the spring

statement coming up next week. The

Chancellor has said this morning

that we are in a much better

financial position at the moment

then we have been, but it doesn't

sound like he's going to end

austerity. Would you encourage him

to do so?

This brings statement is

an update on the public finances.

But he is going to point further

ahead to the budget in the autumn,

and he doesn't seem to be talking

about the increased public spending

you think will attract people to the

Tories.

We are not going to say we

are going to return to discredited

economic policies of 40 years ago.

What he should be saying to young

people is that the balanced approach

that he is pursuing, in a world

where we have technological

challenge and a global market

economy, the Conservatives are

uniquely placed to deliver

prosperity for them. Another issue

that comes up is our motives. When

we talk about economic prosperity,

people feel it is for the few.

Sometimes I have to explain that the

top rate of tax has been higher

under the Conservatives, and that

the top 1% pay 20% of income tax.

They didn't know that. We need to

talk about -- we need to persuade

them that when we talk about

economic prosperity, it is their

future we are talking about.

You addressed tuition fees in the

film but look at maintenance grants

being cut by this government so the

poorer students to go to university

will lead with larger debt than

those from better off backgrounds.

When that is their experience right

now on campus, no wonder they keep

thinking you are looking after the

better off and not the

disadvantaged.

Canterbury has the

best proportion of students went

university for the first time in

their families. Many of those would

not be at university at all had we

pursue the Jeremy Corbyn policy.

Jeremy Corbyn is promising to

abolish tuition fees so that would

make it easier for students to go to

university.

Once you make university

free you can't have a current policy

we have which is that the numbers

who can go to university are capped.

At a time when the numbers were not

capped, our own history, very few

people went to university and mentor

very few poor people went

university. A consequence of the

Conservative policy is a lot of

disadvantaged people are giving to

university for the first time and we

have a student finance scheme where

you do not pay a penny as a first

burner unless you in over £25,000

and after 30 years, whatever you

have managed to pay, is written. I'm

not saying is perfect.

That very

system is replacing grants for

poorer students with loans. Why? If

you are so keen to get disadvantaged

students into universities, wide

takeaway maintenance grants?

There

is a review looking at the whole

system, but when many students

complain about the student finances,

they focus on accommodation.

Somewhere like London, landlords

want to get the years rent in

advance. That is a difficult

situation for them and the cost of

living issues, rather than assuming

we know...

There's an interest rate

on a student loan of over 6% which

is way in excess of what people are

borrowing on mortgages etc.

The cost

of living in University...

They must

be worried about it.

Whatever your

level of earnings, you pay 9% of

your income, which means higher rate

in graduates pay more to the system

but I also think to narrow the

debate on student fees, students

have a lot of interest, not all

students think student fees is their

big issue. Someone to see their

politicians care about making the

world a better place. What kind of

world they are going into, they will

get on the housing ladder, housing

is big issue for them but the

economy prospers, so I think that's

why you have got to listen and not

assume all students have the same

view and there is one answer that

deals with all the problems of every

18-21 -year-old.

Mental health keeps

cropping up. I'm sure the university

's lecturers strike came up as well.

Now students are paying £9,000 in

fees, they are consumers as well as

students, so should they get a

fees, they are consumers as well as

refund for the lessons they have

fees, they are consumers as well as

been taught?

Universities do not pay

lecturers on the day they strike,

they should not pocket those funds,

they should not pocket those funds,

but look at compensation for

students and there are real ways of

compensating students.

Would you

compel them to do that?

I'm not in a

position to compel them to do that.

There is the

position to compel them to do that.

university who has a wide-ranging

remit. I'm encouraged some

university who has a wide-ranging

universities are taking this

seriously. Kings College London will

offer financial compensation. I

think they should look at this very

seriously. I am disappointed I

think they should look at this very

seeing lots

think they should look at this very

from Durham University, a petition

of 5000 students, asking for

compensation. I want to university

to respond constructively, because

we are in the age of the student and

we are in the age of the student and

we are there to serve.

One quick

question, talking about Russia on

the programme so far this morning, a

story this

the programme so far this morning, a

saying over £800 million has been

the programme so far this morning, a

donated to the Tory party from

donated to the Tory party from

Russian link to donors

donated to the Tory party from

May took over, even notice that you

wanted an arms length relationship.

Is that something that should be

discouraged in the future and should

the money be returned now?

To make a

donation to a political

the money be returned now?

To make a

this country you have to be

the money be returned now?

To make a

citizen Dungannon

citizen Dungannon -- and betting

needs to be taken place. Modern

Britain is made up by people from

all sorts of places. Some groups of

people cannot participate in Aber

Democratic life to the fall, and we

people cannot participate in Aber

have got to be clear, these are

British citizens from Russia. Not

have got to be clear, these are

the Kremlin donating to the

Conservative Party.

Of course not,

but there could be a question of

Conservative Party.

Of course not,

where those funds came from in the

first place for the wedding

where those funds came from in the

on the front page of a Sunday

newspaper saying this much money has

been donated to the Conservative

newspaper saying this much money has

Party, maybe it would be better to

newspaper saying this much money has

think again where you receive your

large donations from?

It's not just

the letter of the law but

large donations from?

It's not just

should be thorough.

Sam Gyimah,

thank you very much for

It's coming up to 11.40.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Still to come, we'll be

discussing the economy.

Is it time to end austerity?

Will

Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics.

At last we have a budget

but will it be left to civil

servants to decide how to spend it

or will the DUP be pulling

the strings behind the scenes?

The party's East Antrim MP

Sammy Wilson joins us live and -

caught in the political

cross fire.

The policing board

with no power.

Does that mean we no

longer have a fully

accountable police service?

I've been speaking to the chair

of the board who has real fears

about the future of policing

in a political vacuum.

I do not want to see all the good in

policing fall.

The longer it goes

on...

And

with their thoughts,

our commentators Andree Murphy

and Professor Peter Shirlow.

All that coming up in a moment,

but to tee it all up,

in the week of a budget,

more Brexit and even more blame over

the failed negotiations,

here's Stephen Walker.

Sinn Fein and the DUP went to

Brussels to tour Brexit with Michel

Barnier but the fallout from the

field box made the headlines.

I have

no knowledge of that. They were not

doing it on behalf of me.

A judge

ruled Arlene Foster's decision to

block Legacy funding was not lawful.

A former justice minister welcomed

the ruling. It should have been

speeded up by the provision of

money.

money.

Westminster set our Ajit and

the DUP took credit for an extra

£400 million. -- set our budget.

Not

everyone was happy. Some of us were

naive.

Mairtin O Muilleoir ending that

Stephen Walker's week in 60 seconds.

Sammy Wilson from the DUP joins

us now in the studio.

There is no doubt that we are in a

better place today because of the

deal that Julie go she did with the

Conservative Party but it has to be

said there is real pain in this

budget.

budget. -- because of the deal that

you negotiated.

you negotiated. Scotland and Wales

is also trying to balance the books

after years of unbridled spending by

the Labour Party. It is important to

get borrowing under control but we

need a special case for Northern

Ireland. We had fever pitch at that

stage and we succeeded in using that

leverage. We have got 4% more than

our budget than what we would have

had had that not been for the

influence of the DUP.

Seven Stormont departments are

facing big cats, but will have big

implications, but is difficult to

defend.

The last Assembly wanted

more money spent on health and

education. The public had indicated

that those were the priorities. £110

million of the additional funding

which we were able to obtain for the

budget in Northern Ireland has gone

to those two departments, £72

million to the Department of Health,

£38 million to the Department for

Education.

Good you not have used in

to ease the pressure on that Block

Grant? You money will come and go

but as long as that Block Grant

keeps reducing the pain will

continue to be felt.

The Block Grant

consists of the money that would

have been voted by Parliament as

part of the normal procedure plus

the additional money which has been

put into it, £410 million. The

pressure has been eased on the Block

Grant. Look at the reaction in

Scotland and Wales, the fact that we

were able to get additional

resources for Northern Ireland while

MPs for those two parts of the UK

were not able to do so.

That is not

comfort to those families out there

who will face £22 per month average

increase in regional rates, where

you are aware that was coming down

the track, where you consulted?

Everybody was where. The proposal in

December was that the increase in

rates for businesses and households

would be in the region of 10% as a

result of the negotiations we had

with the Government, and also

pointing out where additional money

could be found and where savings

could be made, we succeeded in

having the increase for businesses

maintained at 1.5% and four

households at less than half of 10%.

But still a lot of people will feel

let down. The Secretary of State has

gone be on the executive policy, the

increase is hefty, £22 is a lot of

money.

It has £22 over the new, less

than £1 per week.

But this only half

of the equation.

There is council

rates as well. If you look at the

increase in the regional rate that

is commencing that with what

councils felt they had to do with

inflation. Households ought to look

at where the starting off point was,

that was for businesses, which would

have been a tragedy, 10%, and for

households, 10%, businesses will

face 1.5% increase, households, 4.5%

increase. The other important thing

is that the small business rates

relief scheme introduced when I was

finance minister and set to end this

year will now be continued.

As the

ship of things to come? This is left

to Westminster there will be more

pain for the people of Northern

Ireland, charges on lots of things?

Is that what we can expect? The last

Sinn Fein minister did not bring

through a budget at all. Descartes

from the sidelines but at least

there is now a budget available.

Sinn Finn failed. The issue is this

budget and how it will affect

people.

What is in this particular

budget is first of all, additional

money, scrutiny of the kinds of tax

increases that the Government had

been contemplating and which have

not materialise, but as a result of

the direct input which my party has

had in negotiations with ministers,

discussion with several servants,

that leverage we have used because

of our voting ability in the House

of Commons.

Let us talk about the

additional money, infrastructure,

£200 million, who will decide where

that goes?

that goes?

Some of the capital

projects have already been through

all the process, business cases,

authorisation, procurement, etc,

those projects will benefit from

this infrastructure money. There are

some infrastructure projects which

are not yet have that approval and I

understand that your Street

interchange might be one of them and

that will require further.

that will require further. -- York

Street interchange.

There are areas of expenditure which

still need ministerial approval. In

the absence of a minister in the

Assembly then the Government in the

budget statement has committed that

that will take whatever action is

required to fulfil its

responsibilities to the people of

Northern Ireland.

Are you saying

behind the scenes you will have a

big say in that? People think you

may look after pet DUP projects.

Look at our record to date. When we

had the leverage with the Government

we did not go after pet food Mac

projects. We did not go after things

which would give Nat -- give narrow

political gain.

Can you ensure some

kind of transparency around this

process? It is not good to be a case

of the Treasury and the DUP

disappearing behind a door?

There

has been total transparency so far,

everybody knows where the additional

money obtained will be spent. We

know which department that is going

on. It is going to go on health

transformation, education budget,

infrastructure, mental health, all

of that has been highlighted. There

has been total transparency, zero

secrets behind the door deals. This

is the important thing, our guiding

principle, and all of those big or

she shoulds with the Government we

will be looking at how that

expenditure can be best spent with

the people of Northern Ireland.

And

the pay of MLAs?

We have had

discussions with her. We supported

the report. We have said that you

cannot, because MLAs are not

fulfilling all of the functions

which the ought to be fulfilling,

because of no fault of their own,

the fault of Sinn Fein, you cannot

at the same time keep being Sinn

Fein members at Westminster as they

were fulfilling all the duties. She

also knows that Westminster is

giving millions of pounds to Sinn

Fein MPs who are not doing their job

and if we are going to have any

balance in this we have got to see

those two things.

Sammy Wilson, thank you.

Let's turn to our commentators

Andree Murphy and Peter Shirlow.

What is your assessment of the

budget? In the long-term it is a key

crease in real terms. The extra

money that the DUP has got is

welcome. There has been a series of

cuts over time. 400 billion has gone

out of policing. One of the

disappointing things with the

budget, clearly we have social care

responsibilities, health and

educational responsibilities. Ibiza

to see a budget of except

entrepreneurship, the economy, those

sectors in the economy that start to

stability growth. As much as I am

concerned about hostility I am also

concerned how can we have political

thinking about the economy?

How

worried should we be that the

Secretary of State went further than

executive policy in terms of raising

the regional rate and leaving some

families facing a hike of £22?

You

need to put that in the context of

severe pressures on working families

and people relying on benefits. You

are talking about cruel Tory

policies in terms of capping child

benefit, in terms of many of the

other things that have been

mitigated in the past after fresh

start, I be good to see the

continuation of that mitigation for

those on the most income? That is a

time-limited policy. We are not sure

about that. All of society is going

to be looking now and wondering, who

is going to be taking responsibility

in the absence of ministers? Are the

DUP going to be benefiting? If that

happens there will be a political

cost around that. But there is a

wider societal impact as the Irish

Government going to have some impact

on the devolved issues as well?

There is that accountability now as

to who is good to be making these

decisions behind the scenes and food

to to if they get it wrong?

This is

a period that the DUP this with the

Government, they will have an

influence, Sammy has said he

believes that as an influence for

the entire society. The media and

others in society can comment on

that. What is also important is that

we understand that this is a point

in civic society, we need people

more than politicians to talk about

mental health issues and how we

build the economy and build more

diverse economic sectors, it is not

just politicians that are

responsible, what we also want to do

as a society.

Thanks to you both for now.

Well, while there may be a degree

of greater certainty around funding

it doesn't solve the problems

in the Policing Board.

While Stormont doesn't sit,

the board's MLAs can't

play their part which essentially

means the board can't

effectively oversee the PSNI.

It's been that way for a year and

set to continue for some time yet.

I asked the chair of the board

Anne Connolly what it was like to be

in charge of a powerless board.

It is disgraceful that we are in

this situation. The police budget is

732 million approximately, but is a

lot of public money to be spent in

one year. What other service would

not have proper oversight and

accountability structures in place?

It is not acceptable. That is wrong.

We do not hear a lot about it.

People may be to not understand that

that is what is happening. I find it

very distressing that here we are,

doing our best, but we have no legal

mandate. We are not doing the job

that the board should be doing.

There's the problem that is the

public probably have not noticed

over the past 14 months that there

has been normal Policing Board in

operation because the face of

policing has not changed for them?

In some respect that is right, they

have not noticed, that is because

the nine members have got together

and kept the ship running. We have

had a number of public seminars

which have been very successful.

We

have an average 70 people attending

each seminar. Have you been shouting

from the rooftops about that?

We

have been making noises but members

of the public tend to pick and

choose areas that the think, there

are other issues, the policing plan,

that must be approved by the board,

we cannot do that. We have two

brought over from last year. The

board has responsibility in terms of

estates management, financial and

human resources, senior appointments

of police officers, senior staff, we

cannot do that.

What in practical

terms will not be happening because

we do not have a board?

We do not

have a policing plan for this year.

We should be looking at what are the

current issues for policing. We

cannot plan ahead with the Chief

Constable and discuss how we might

do things. We cannot have monthly

board meetings. We do not have

committee meetings which are the

areas where we really get into the

detail around various different

alias. What about appointments?

We

cannot do that at senior level. Are

there high ranking policing

positions which remain and fills

because we give have a fully

constituted board?

No. At the board

we have one key post on the staff

side which has been vacant for

nearly two years? That is the head

of resources. That is a very key

role. We have a cedar officer who is

on secondment, who should be coming

back, and probably will come back,

but that has to be agreed by the

board, but we cannot take a decision

around that post. If another post

comes up in the near future we

cannot deal with that either.

In

terms of what the Secretary of State

could do to alleviate this what are

you telling her? What are the

options facing her? It looks as if,

according to the DUP, we may not

have our institutions back this year

or maybe even next year.

The options

needs to be presented to her. The

option of simply bringing back the

MLAs is not there any more without

change in legislation. My belief is

the board has been around for 16

years, we should be looking at what

works well and what does not work

well, what other organisation would

not be reviewed and 16 years

Christmas the police has undergone

major change in 16 years but the

board has not. We need to look at

the options, somebody needs to draw

that up. It is not my responsibility

to tell her what to do this to what

I am telling her to do is get a

properly constituted board so that

we can get on with it. What could

that look like? It could look like

what it looked like before and I

would have no problem about, members

from the Assembly were good

hard-working members, we work well

together. It could be a combination.

Are you saying MLAs sitting on a

board without an executive at

Stormont?

That was an option in the

past, it is not at the moment, I do

not think that is a good option.

Policing has progressed and matured

and I would hate to see the police

board become a place for MLAs to

have their arguments. I do not think

that would be right. It is for the

Secretary of State to determine

whether it is a combination of MLAs

and MPs or whatever.

Our politicians

making enough noise about the fact

that there is not a fully costed

cheated Policing Board?

One or two

who have made a noise have blamed

the nine of us who are doing our

best and saying why are we not doing

this or that? We have to follow the

legislation. The Chief Executive is

the accounting officer, they cannot

go out side public finance and

accountability rules. Generally

speaking they have been fairly

quiet. There has not been a major

storm and that has been wrong

because we have been keeping it

going but it is not satisfactory. We

have reports sitting there that have

not been advances, recommendations

not taken forward.

If you are still

sitting in this cheer in one year

and we still do not have the

institutions back and you are

effectively running a toothless

board, Simon Hamilton has suggested

it would be maybe two years, what

impact would that have on policing?

It has already had a negative

impact. The police are wanting

accountability. Anything we have

asked them to do they have done that

we can't make big decisions so do

you really believe that?

In a sense

they have nobody looking over their

shoulder, they could be in a good

place.

They could be in a good place

but that is what they tell us. It

has a responsibility, the

responsibility of Government, to

ensure that there is properly

accountability for all public

servants. The police should not be

any different. The police spent a

lot of public money. I don't leave

it would be satisfactory to be

sitting like this in one year. As

time goes on more and more posts

become vacant, you end up with a

service that is having more and more

people acting up into positions,

that is not satisfactory for long

term change and moving things

forward.

You are off to Washington

this week along with the Chief

Constable, what message will you be

bringing across the Atlantic about

the state of policing here in light

of the challenges ahead?

I do not

want to see all of the good in

policing fall and it could do. The

longer this goes on the more likely

the police are to get carefully

about the entire issue, there is not

the board to come to. I do not want

to see that, my message would be, we

need a board up and running as soon

as possible, not some makeshift

arrangement, something sustainable

that will drive forward the issues

that we need to drive.

Do you think

that the good work could

that the good work could unravel in

a sense this mumble continues?

Of

course it can. Any organisation

which is left without having to

report openly and unaccountably to

the board and to the public will

eventually more and more people will

start to do their own thing and that

gets very difficult. It is not

acceptable in a democracy that we

have public money being spent and

not properly accounted for.

Anne Connolly, chair

of the Policing Board,

speaking to me on Friday.

Our guests are still with us.

How worried should we be that a key

plank in the reform of policing

here has been allowed to drift?

National confidence was already. The

Policing Board and the police

ombudsman 's office, first of the

police ombudsman has been under

resourced, and this rearguard

action, and now the Policing Board,

there are strategic issues around

nationalists confidence in policing

and that for the overall Peace

Process is worrying.

How surprised I

knew that this has been allowed?

It

is not surprising. The status at the

moment is the inability to deliver

the Belfast Agreement. This is

critically important because we are

in the fees of fresh start, the

process about tackling

paramilitaries, and alternatively to

deliver justice, already things that

are positives are not going to

happen. An example of the Belfast

Agreement being slightly eroded.

We

will be put there. Fine too. Plenty

of food for thought for the coming

will be put there. Fine too. Plenty

week. Now it is

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Susan Kramer, Siobhan

McDonagh and to Bob Blackman.

And with that it's back to Sarah.

Welcome back.

The Chancellor's been out

and about this morning,

setting out his stall ahead

of the Spring Statement on Tuesday.

Here's what he told Andrew Marr.

There is light at the end

of the tunnel because what we are

about to see is debt starting

to fall after it's been growing

for 17 continuous years.

That's a very important moment

for us, but we are still

in the tunnel at the moment.

We have to get debt down.

We have got all sorts of other

things we want to do.

We've taken a balanced approach over

the last couple of fiscal events.

Using flexibility that we had

to continue paying down debt,

but also to provide additional

support to our public services,

to invest in Britain's future

and to reduce taxes for families

and small businesses

who are feeling the pressure.

Also appearing on the Andrew Marr

programme, the Shadow Chancellor

John McDonnell called

on the government to end

its austerity programme.

One thing he has done is he has

shifted the deficit onto the

shoulders of NHS managers, onto

shoulders of head teachers, and onto

the shoulders of local government

leaders and these Conservative

council leaders now are saying that

they are facing a financial crisis

because the government have had

cutbacks. This is not a matter of

celebration. I think he should come

into the real world because the

resolution foundation said in their

report today, 11 million people now,

not just the poorest but those just

about managing, will be hit next

month by the cuts in support they

get to the benefit system, so this

is not a matter for celebration by

any means.

To unpick what we can

expect in the spring statement and

other stories next week, the panel

are still with me. We had the

Chancellor saying there is light at

the end of the tunnel. How much

pressure does is put on him from his

own side let alone from the

opposition to spend some more money?

There's an interesting split in the

Conservatives, those who say now we

have a lemonade of the current

budget deficit on day-to-day

spending, we should take a chance to

invest heavily in infrastructure to

give the NHS more money, to spend

money on schools, and then you have

the fiscal conservatives like Philip

Hammond to say actually debt is

still 84% of GDP, we have got to

start delivering overall surplus is

not borrowing money to get it down

because we face economic economic

risks from Brexit. We know Philip

Hammond does not look optimistically

at that. And an ageing population on

those pressures, so when things

start to seem as if they are

improving, you can't reduce the

momentum.

It was interesting early

on the programme, talking to Sam

Gyimah, he said students thought

austerity was the ideological

position of the Conservative Party,

not a practical necessity. So if now

we are reaching a point where there

is potentially more money to spend,

politically would be wise?

It is

because if the Conservatives failed

to establish this narrative which

they have been trying to form long

time, under Theresa May they have

abandoned it, this idea that living

within 1's means as a country is an

end to itself, I'm not sure what

will separate them from the Labour

ideology. If they absolutely abandon

the point they have to be careful

about how they spend their money,

they could pledge 10 billion to one

sector, and the Labour Party will

pledge 100. If they cannot make that

case it is responsible to be

spending money responsibly because

otherwise if you don't pay off your

debt, it will mean higher taxes on

future generations, these students

and their children have lost that

political argument already.

The

defining political argument of this

premiership of Theresa May for the

many and not for the few, are the

fiscal messages we are hearing from

the Chancellor, do they relate to

that?

Not in the slightest. You

heard on the Andrew Marr programme,

giving a receptacle slap in the

face, the author of the just about

managing speech, Mick Timothy is

going to try to beat up the

Chancellor on behalf of the Prime

Minister's behalf, so those tensions

will remain. I think the Chancellor

is even more anal-retentive on the

purse strings at the moment simply

because of the government, the

Tories don't have a majority. That

means any single minority interest

who can scrape together ten or 12

Tory MPs, you can force the

government to do a U-turn and they

are piling up from defence spending,

a strong Tory bid coming down the

line on Universal Credit, putting

back 3 billion into it. IDS, the

socially conservative touchy-feely

end of the party, to the NHS,

tuition fees, every single one of

those minority interests will want

some sort of salvation. Now the

Chancellor announces bigger that £10

million -- £10 billion a year more

yet to play with.

Now usually at

this point we are talking about the

word Brexit and it does not come up

yet and we can't

yet and we can't ignore it it has

been a big Brexit week.

Yes, we've

heard Philip Hammond tell us

financial services will have to form

the ultimate deal we get from the

EU, and we've also heard the EU's

guidelines. They are,

unsurprisingly, taking a hard line.

Those two things have happened.

Another interesting thing, there was

an interesting appointment that

happened in the EU last

happened in the EU last week,

Jean-Claude Juncker's write man

became secretary-general of the

commission. There is a lot of

disquiet amongst the MPs about this

from across the European Union, but

also political divides within the

EU, and tomorrow they are demanding

some answers in the European

Parliament about this particular

appointment and we, the Brexit

nerds, we'll look at it very

carefully. It raises some

interesting questions and

transparency and accountability

within the European framework.

The

international trade Secretary Liam

Fox is off to Washington at the very

time the US president is threatening

tariffs on steel and aluminium and

it's an interesting one for British

government because Trump has said

allies can come and make their case

to be exempted from this and Canada

and Mexico have been, but we should

not be going separately as the UK

because we are part of the European

Union at the moment, but if we can

cut a deal, how would that go down

in Brussels?

Conservatives like Liam

Fox said for years once we are

outside the EU the advantages is we

can get beneficial trade deals with

major economies like the USA, and

now he has the chance to test Donald

Trump's words, so there's been lots

of rhetoric about Donald Trump about

you guys will get a big trade deal,

but in reality he's always been a

protectionist on trade. Will you

make an exception for Britain? Does

he think we are a significant and

economy to make that case? If Liam

Fox could get something, it would be

a win for the Brexiteers. The

government postponed the boat on a

customs union because they were

worried about losing it on the floor

of the Commons after the Labour

shift full support they can get a

concession, it would help.

A

potential windfall Liam Fox but

fraught with danger. If he gets a

deal, the EU will be furious and

that could affect the Brexit

negotiations. If he doesn't come it

will be rather embarrassing.

He

can't get a deal until 2021, an

awful long time away. We remain

within the EU's tariffs regime until

2021 because that is what we wanted.

New Year's Eve 2020. There ain't a

huge amount the government can do.

If the government could broker a

deal, there's talk of doing this,

not country by country, but the Port

Talbot manufacturers, high-density

steel used to warships, he could try

to broker some sort of exemption

with that, but it will interview

read the EU and give us an

read the EU and give us an even

worse deal. I don't think Liam Fox

I'm afraid we'll win this debate.

The big story with the Labour Party

the moment of course is the election

for their new general secretary. The

founder of momentum standing against

Jennie Formby from Unite. This is

not the left and right battle we

have been used within the Labour

Party the two very strong

significance figures from the left

of the party battling it out to take

over general secretary. Does it

matter which one of them wins and

how this proceeds for the Labour

Party?

It matters because you have

two rival conceptions about the

Labour Party should be. The view of

momentum is you need more power is

transferred to members giving

members greater influence over

policy and the trade unions still

have half of the boat on Labour

Party policy which act as a block

and gives the general secretary huge

power and then you have the Labour

Party founded by the trade unions,

we are nothing without the trade

unions, of course they have to be at

the centre of the Labour Party and

therefore it is entirely appropriate

Jennie Formby should become the new

party general secretary, but this is

a fascinating element and the left

have defeated all of the internal

opponents and it is now the split

within the new party establishment

that is playing out and some will

draw comparisons with the Blairites

and Brown Knights of the past. The

two rival visions of what Corbin is

should mean for Labour.

With policy

and vocations? Will make a

difference to the of the Labour

Party or is it about who it is?

Small policy implications. Momentum

are about as far left as you can

possibly get at the moment in terms

of selling up nationalisation is.

Len McCluskey, unite, not perhaps

quite as hard left as momentum. I

think it is more the culture who

runs the party, who has controls and

what's fascinating is watching the

Labour moderates this week. There's

a few of them around. One of them

described it as predator versus

alien for the two terrible enemies

eating each other as the revolution

always eats its children will be a

great battle my feeling is the union

will win it. They have the muscle

and bigger numbers than momentum at

the moment.

Labour moderates, it's

been suggested Harriet Harman could

be interested in being the next

Speaker of the House of Commons. The

second ever female speaker of

course, but John Bercow has been

there for a long time although there

are allegations about bullying in

his office which have resurfaced

this week. Is there an opportunity

do you think?

Yes, would be

interesting is how these bullying

allegations, which are only

allegations at this stage, play out.

It's been talked about quite a lot

and we have talked about this in the

Green room actually, when John

Bercow to go but he set himself a

limit, coming to an end, the middle

of this year. Does that mean he's

now leaving his job? I think he has

immensely enjoyed it but the MPs

perhaps not so much on both sides.

It will be interesting to see how