14/02/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning folks and welcome to The Sunday Politics.

David Cameron says a manifesto shouldn't be a "wish list,

He says he's been ticking off the commitments his manifesto made,

Well, today we launch our own Manifesto Tracker and we'll be

talking to the minister responsible for implementing it.

The Government wants to crack down on the gender pay gap.

But is it really as bad as everyone seems to make out?

We'll be talking to TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady.

And we'll be asking who's wooing who

in the putative Tory leadership contest?

MLAs' expenses - has the Assembly Commission ignored

a ruling by Stormont's independent financial watchdog?

We'll hear from its chair, Pat McCartan.

And the row over renewables - we ask who's to blame.

And with me, as always, a match made in heaven.

Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Tim Shipman,

who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

First, this morning let's turn to the situation in Syria.

A nationwide "cessation of hostilities" is due

But, despite that agreement, the prospects for peace

The truce does not apply to the battle against what Russia

calls terrorist targets and means it will continue its heavy bombing

Meanwhile, Turkey has shelled Kurdish positions in Northern Syria

and the Turkish Foreign Minister has said his country is pondering

This morning, the Foreign Secretary said Russia had to begin complying

The situation in Aleppo is extremely worrying,

the Russians are using carpet-bombing

tactics, indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas

Yes, we demand that the Russians comply with their obligations under

international law and their obligations under the UN

Security Council resolutions that they have signed up to.

Nick, you get a feeling that given this deal was signed in Munich, it

it is living up to deal is signed in Munich reputations. When we hear the

Foreign Secretary saying we demand Russian do something when they are

creating facts on the ground and we are not, that will have a hollow

ring. Russia is now. President's Asad air force. They have ensured

that President Assad cannot lose this war but he cannot also win it.

They have the air force but no forces on the ground. Now that

President Assad cannot lose this war has changed the dynamics. We can

whistle in the wind as much as we like but Russia is the reality and

power. Sir Roderick Lyne, the former UK ambassador to Moscow was on radio

five this morning and he said we should not get too carried away with

quite how powerful Russia is, they don't have troops on the ground,

they have a faltering economy and they are nervous about going into

far because of the disaster of Afghanistan 35 years ago. They do

have some troops on the ground, they have proxy forces on the ground from

Hezbollah and the uranium National Guard. Although they can't take back

the whole of Syria, they will take back enough of it -- Iranians

National Guard. Making success in the south, the border with Turkey,

controlling the Mediterranean coastline. When they have done that,

they might be serious about peace talks. Then they are stuck with it.

It is not clear if Vladimir Putin thinks beyond tomorrow. It is not

clear what the long-term strategy could do. It could be like the

Russian invasion of Afghanistan, an absolute disaster. President Assad

is saying that they intend to take over the whole of the country,

entirely unrealistic. There will be some sort of partition. What is

happening is very frightening in the sense that everybody is fighting a

proxy war, the Iranians and Saudis. The one thing that people keep

saying is Barack Obama was so weak that it is quite unclear what he

could have done. Perhaps he could have given Syria's weapons to the

more moderate rebels. Hillary Clinton wanted him to do that in

July 2012. She put a plan together along with the general and he turned

it down. What would have happened is that they would be shooting down

Russian planes with American weapons. Or Russia might not have

gone to war. We don't know. Everything has a dynamic to it. This

dynamic is leaving the west pretty much as onlookers. It is clear that

at least in the short-term, Mr Putin will get back enough ground for

Assad to then say we have got rid of a lot of these "Terrorists" because

they are not Islamic state. It is now asked versus Islamic State.

Exactly, we sound like the mouse that squeaked this morning. I

disagree with Polly. One of the great powers in the world has now

got very involved in a situation and the other hasn't. President Obama

had options. He did not explore them to any sort of extent that it put

off the Russians. Britain is left on the sidelines, waiting for a new US

president, to get engaged in this issue and do something proactive.

What could have been done that would have been any use at all? Either

useless or worse than useless, stuck us in there... He did say he had

chemical weapons and it was an important red Line. And he let them

cross the red line. He totally ignored it. What would you have done

that would have been useful? You could have set up a humanitarian

safe haven and protected it with force and armed the rebels to deter

the Russians and make it a situation where Assad could not continue. We

now have a situation where Assad is now a fact of life, he is not going

anywhere. There is not much you can do without you were serious

involvement. I am glad we touched on Syria, it is an important developing

story. Now, what's black and white

and not read all over? Even if you did read it,

would you be able to remember all the promises and whether

the Government had delivered them? Today, we're launching our very

own Manifesto Tracker, which charts the progress

of the pledges Sort of like a blue virtual

Edstone, or maybe not! Over the next four years,

we'll be monitoring the Government's progress on all of the commitments

the Conservatives made ahead of the 2015 general election

in their manifesto, and a few big promises they made

during the campaign. So, we've identified 161 pledges,

and loaded them into our Manifesto We've grouped them into categories

covering all the major areas of Government policy,

from the constitution And we've given each

of the promises a colour rating. Red signalling little

or no progress so far. Amber when the Government

has made some progress. Let's start by looking

at the Conservative commitments As you can see they've made at least

some progress on all of them. Easily the party's biggest promise

here was to hold a referendum on Britain's membership

of the EU by December 2017. We've marked that amber,

to show that some progress The bill setting the vote has passed

through Parliament and it's looking likely the poll will

be held this year. The cornerstone of the Conservative

election campaign last May was how they would handle the economy,

and as you can see, that's where we've found the greatest

number of promises. Let's look at one of the policies

they identified as part of their plan to

eliminate the deficit. That was to reduce the welfare

bill by ?12 billion. Again, we've given

that an amber rating. The savings were outlined

in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement But it's too early to say

if they'll all be achieved. When it comes to the constitution,

the Government's made some progress But it promised to scrap

the Human Rights Act, and replace it That gets a red rating,

as although there have been reports something is in the pipeline,

as yet there is no sign of the legislation

required to introduce it. Some manifesto commitments have

already been delivered in full. Like the introduction of English

votes for English laws to give English MPs a veto over laws that

only affect England. Other changes promised in

the manifesto are less well known. Like the promise to recover

?500 million from migrants and overseas visitors who use

the NHS by the middle We will give that amber,

because some new charges have already been introduced,

and the Department of Health Let's add on the rest

of the promises in each of the policy areas and have a look

at how the government Taken together, of the 161

Conservative election commitments, we think ten are red,

111 are amber, and 40 are green. We'll be returning to the manifesto

tracker every few months, but in the meantime you can find

the full data on the politics And with us now the Cabinet Office

Minister and Paymaster General, Matt Hancock, he oversees

the implementation Welcome to the programme, do you

regard this manifesto as a contract with the British people and do you

intend to intimate it all? It is certainly the commitments on which

we were elected. We take it incredibly seriously -- goals to

implement it. That is the goal. We have got about a quarter delivered,

we have had less than a year. In fact, I really welcome this scrutiny

and this project you have been on. We will implement and publish our

own plans and make sure that each individual manifesto commitment has

an individual minister responsible for delivering it. And publish that.

We will nationalise you and this process. You will nationalise us? We

can't afford you, probably, but we will do this as a government. Let's

see if you still want to do that at the end of this interview. Your

manifesto promised to scrap Labour's Human Rights Act and replace it with

a British Bill of Rights, and abolition Bill would be drafted

within the first hundred days after the election. It didn't happen. Why?

The work is in progress. Internally, we will publish it. Why have you not

kept to the timetable? The timetable of the whole manifesto is to deliver

within the parliament. You said this would be done, the draft bill within

the first 100 days. Clearly, we will deliver against the commitment. I

thought it was a bit harsh to call that read, I would call that Amber.

It is not delivered yet. We called it red because the justice minister,

Mr Bove, said the consultation had been delayed yet again. The question

is what we deliver over the five-year parliament. -- Mr Gove. We

are less than a year in and we have got one quarter delivered and that

is one where there is work in progress but we are committed to

doing it. The manifesto promised to make the UK's Supreme Court "The

ultimate arbiter of human rights in the UK". That will not happen. This

is all part of the same package which we have committed to

delivering. We are less than a year in and we have a few years to go.

Whatever the package, the Supreme Court will not be "The ultimate

arbiter" on human rights, will it? That is part of the proposed

package, as part of the replacement of the Human Rights Act. We will get

to that. There is a bigger picture, which is making sure that we deliver

on the overall set of commitments in the manifesto where we are making

good progress. But, you can enhance the role of the Cyprian Court on

human rights, I understand that. Maybe the British Bill of Rights

will do their -- Supreme Court. But at the end of the day, the European

Court of Human Rights is the ultimate arbiter. That is the

factual legal situation. It all depends on the changes that you

make. We will bring forward a package of changes to be able to

deliver against these commitments in the Parliament. Mr Gove says we are

not planning to derogate from the European Court of Human Rights.

Let's see what happens when we published the proposals on this

particular package. Immigration, probably your biggest fail, I would

suggest. The 2050 manifesto repeated the pledge in the 2010 manifesto to

get annual net migration down to tens of thousands -- 2015. After

five years, far from getting it down, net migration reached a record

336,000 last year, that is a spectacular failure. Clearly, this

is a commitment. To get immigration down to tens of thousands, that

remains the goal. But we haven't yet reached it. Presumably you did not

call that green. No. It is red. That the commitment remains because we

think it is reasonable to control immigration in this country, so that

while some immigration can be very good for the economy and more

broadly, actually it has got to be done at a reasonable level.

It's not just that you didn't get it down enough, it's actually risen

since you came to power. Why would you promise what you have failed

dismally to deliver again? I think it is a reasonable goal. Clearly we

put it in the manifesto for a reason, to get immigration down. And

we are less than a year into the Parliament and we've got four years

to go. Is it a goal or a pledge? Do you pledge to the British people

today that net migration will be down to the tens of thousands by

2020? Well I pledge to fulfil what was in the manifesto on which I and

every other Conservative MPs was elected. Well that pledge was to get

it down to the tens of thousands. It was meant to be in the tens of

thousands by 2015, it is 346,000, is there a pledge that it will be down

to the tens of thousands by 2020? There is a whole series of actions

that we are taking, not least the EU renegotiation to try to tackle

immigration and make sure that it's brought down to a reasonable level.

Again there is a broader point, of the 160 odd commitments that you are

measuring, delivering an accord of them, of course some are quicker

than others to deliver on, it's fair to say. But the whole point of

having the manifesto and tracking it as we are doing is to make sure we

know where we are up to. Lets come onto the European negotiations, that

was in the manifesto. The manifesto promised several key things in the

renegotiation, a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in work benefits,

a new residency requirement for social housing, and no child benefit

for EU migrants if their children live abroad. The draft deal contains

none of these things. Well, firstly, as you say, the centrepiece of our

European policy was to have the referendum, and we will be having

the referendum. Although you call that Amber it is certainly going to

happen. I understand that but none of the things you said we would get

to vote on in this referendum have been delivered. We then sat out --

set out what we wanted to negotiate and that negotiation is not

complete. We have a lot of work to do this week to get the best

possible deal we can. I hope we will have a good deal and be able to vote

to stay in a reformed Europe. There is a version of the ban on EU

migrants benefits, there is not no child benefits, now there will be 28

different child benefits that Britain will pay but there is no

mention of residency requirement for social housing, no mention of that

in the deal, so that has gone? Look, we don't know the outcome of this

negotiation until the end of this week. There is a week of hard work

to get the deal. But there is a bigger picture here. Social housing

is not on the agenda? Let's see what we get in this deal over the next

week. But there's a bigger point here, which is that we said we'd

have the renegotiation, lots and lots of people said you are never

going to get these things on the table. A question of in work

benefits, child benefit, we were told you couldn't even put that on

the agenda. The discussion in Europe this week is exactly how far we go

on those. People said that we couldn't deliver anything in this

space and we've managed to deliver already the draft deal, and we will

see where we end up. But not what was in the manifesto. We will see

where we end up at the end of this week. We will indeed. Not

necessarily next week but in the weeks ahead we will be coming back

to go through this. Onto the economy, you put in place a charter

for budget responsibility which commits you to running a surplus, a

legal obligation as well as a policy. The in situ for fiscal

studies says that will require tax rises or spending cuts as yet

unannounced, do you agree? Not in the latest financial forecast put

out by the office for budget responsible to who independently

advise on these, and we have a budget in just over a month's time

so we will see what the figures say, then. Clearly in the latest forecast

from the government, yes, we have that surplus. You have not hit a

surplus. We have hit it in the forecast. And they change. They do,

as the economy changes. On that economic front there was an awful

lot in the manifesto on that, it is all about economic security,

generating jobs, in the same way that the national Security ones were

all about national security. And those were the two elements at the

heart of this manifesto that we were elected on. I would say that we are

delivering very strongly on both. In terms of the big picture of what you

are getting from the message that we said we were going to deliver. Let

me come down to the smaller but still very important picture. You

have a legal obligation to reach a surplus by 2020. If, to reach that

surplus, you had to raise taxes, would you? Look, much as I'd love

to, I'm not going to set out tax policy on Sunday morning. To meet

the legal obligation, if it required tax increases, would there be tax

increases? We've set out the plans and the plans hit a surplus. We did

that in the Autumn Statement in November. Clearly the economy

changes all the time, internationally, people have seen

falls in the stock market in the last few months. But we will have a

budget in more than a month's time. But I voted to have that surplus and

that is clearly what we will set out to do. You promised a lower tax

society. Yes. Yet on the forecast, the overall tax burden is rising as

a percentage of GDP and on the forecast, not the buoyancy but extra

tax that you have introduced will be ?50 billion higher. So you have

previous on this, you could raise taxes again because you already

have? Clearly there are some areas where we have tightened things up,

especially on tax avoidance. We took an extra ?5 billion from tax

avoidance measures. And what about the billions in addition to that? We

have reduced the tax burden especially on people in lower wage

jobs, they are going to get the national minimum wage but we are

well on the way to the manifesto commitment of making sure you don't

have to pay any income taxed until you make ?12,500. We have made

progress but there is more to do. The manifesto talks about reducing

the tax relief on pension contributions for people earning

more than ?150,000, people on 45%, the highest income tax band, you are

going to cut tax relief on their pension contributions. If you were

to also cut the tax relief of those on the 40% rate, that would be

breaching the manifesto? There we've done what we said we would do in the

manifesto. We've followed the manifesto clearly in terms of the

commitment that it made. Outside the manifesto there's always going to be

other things that you do. On pension tax review were explicit that it

would be those in the 45% wouldn't get it, you didn't mention any other

bracket, the imprecation is that it's only the 45%. If you took away

tax relief from the 40% taxpayers that would be broken manifesto

commitment? That's not how I see it, you can add things to the manifesto.

Look at the whole reform programme a massive reform programme which was

not in our manifesto because we've built it up as a proposal since

then. Likewise the Prime Ministerspeech on social mobility

and an tackling an just inequalities -- an just inequalities. We've done

a huge amount of that on the autumn. Delivering on the manifesto

commitments is absolutely essential. But it is not the only thing you do

in government because you respond to events. But the purpose of this

interview is to hold your manifesto to account. Hunting, when will you

give Parliament the chance to repeal the hunting act. We are committed to

doing that. When? In this Parliament. We looked at doing it

early on. You dropped that. We decided not to do it then, but we

are committed to its. You set a target of ?1 trillion of exports by

2020, most forecasters including your own oh BR say you will be at

least ?350 billion short. Can we agree that you will not hit that

target? It's fair to say that it is stretching target, but it remains

our target, our aspiration. But you will miss it. There is an awful lot

of work going into achieving it. Thank you for that, come back and we

will see the progress in the months ahead. Look forward to it.

And remember if you want to see how the government is doing

in detail our manifesto tracker is available for you to peruse

On Friday, new measures to tackle the pay gap between genders

From 2018, companies with more than 250 employees will have

to publish the differences in salary between men and women.

Businesses failing to address the problem will be named

Here's what Women and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan had to say.

Transparency about the gender pay gap in companies and public sector

organisations is going to be very important in driving behaviour.

So we are going to require companies, under the regulations,

companies of over 250 employees, to publish their gender pay gap

We, as a government, will then compile those league tables.

It will be two fold, one, companies will hopefully,

and we expect from the response we have,

to think a lot harder about where women are in their workforce.

How they are distributed, what they are being paid.

But it will also drive applications to work in certain

organisations because I think women will look and see what is the gender

pay gap in this organisation and is this somewhere

And with us now, General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O'Grady.

Welcome back. We know there is a gender pay gap. In some age groups,

not all, but still in some age groups. Where is the evidence that

it is a result of dissemination, of employers not paying properly, as

opposed to lifestyle and choices? We still do have this pretty crazy

situation where women have Giroud and 80p for everyone pound that men

do across the economy. -- where women earn 80p for every pound that

men do. This is a welcome step, this initiative, but it is a very small

step. It is about reporting, not about telling us why this is going

on, not coming up with actions to deal with it. When you dig down from

the headline figure, and you have just used one, you begin to see some

quite deep-seated cultural issues, not just a matter of economics. The

labour market study shows that men tend to work in occupations that pay

more, that's been a historic thing. And women in jobs that pay less. For

example men in construction, women in retail. Men in computer

programming, women in nursing. That is one of the explanations for the

page gap. There is certainly still big job separation, but one of the

questions we must ask is, is it case of equal values? People paying for

the work of equal value. It is illegal to pay anybody less than a

man is getting or vice versa, equal pay for equal jobs. For example, why

is looking after children considered to be less valuable than mending a

car? The problem is, in order for women to prove it, they've got to be

able to take employment tribunal claims, and of course we've seen

this government introduce very significant fees that have massively

reduced the number of women being able to take pay and six

dissemination claims. Is on the gender pay gap really a generational

matter, and it might be resolving itself? I'd like to show you this

chart, here, which looks at different age groups. For women aged

40 to 49, there is a gap, it's coming down but there is still a

substantial gap. For younger women in the 22 to 29, there is no pay

gap, indeed there is some evidence now that the gender pay gap is the

other way among younger people than it is amongst men. What I think it

shows you is that the real problem kicks in when women have babies.

Yes. That's when women are much more likely to work part-time, much more

likely to need nurseries, and as we get older and we are looking after

elderly parents, too. Elder care as well. Some of those public service

cuts are hitting our sure start centres and care for the elderly. I

think you hit on something, there. You can begin to see the return of

the gender pay gap as women hit their late 20s or early 30s, because

the average age that women have their first child is 28 and a half.

So that suggests that the policy response will have to be quite

sophisticated to get rid of a later developing pay gap. Stopping cuts on

this is would help but also helping dads as well. A lot of men nowadays

want to be more involved with their children but they need more paid

paternity to be able to do that. I want to show you another chart that

suggests there are developers. This shows you a figure that is not

widely known, there are now every year 100,000 more women applying for

university than men. 100,000 more. Women from poor backgrounds are 50%

more likely to go to university than men. Women now take most of the

first in medicine and law, two professions that are pretty well

paid. Again, isn't this sense that, even in the later years, now, the

gender pay gap could begin to resolve itself?

I really hope so the TUC analysis shows that at this rate of change it

would take another 45 years. No, I looked at these figures. Frances

O'Grady, you took one year of the pay gap, which strode it came down

by 0.2%. Dodt which showed. If you had taken the last ten years it

still takes too long but it is not 47 years, that was a propaganda

figure. You can't do a trend on one year. Most people agree we need bold

action to change it. Given we have agreed that it is a complicated

picture and now becomes an issue primarily for women who have taken

time off and then go back into the workforce again, get me one thing

that the government could do that would stop this gender pay gap

re-emerging in their 30s and 40s? Stop cuts to nurseries. Provide a

proper system of care for old people, that allows women and men to

combine those caring responsibilities with a responsible

job. That is what would really make... I can see how it would help.

It is about progression and people feeling they can go for that

promotion or training course that would get them a better job. And

having the confidence to do it, that their life won't fall apart if they

tried. If the TUC wanted to be ahead of the curve, should you not now be

giving a lot more attention to the growing underperformance of young

males, particularly from poorer backgrounds in education and the

workforce? That is a looming problem. Believe you me, we do, we

do. We've been fighting very hard for not just more apprenticeships

but real quality apprenticeships. Equal opportunities for all. That

would help. There are a lot of young men who want to be as involved in

bringing up their children as their partners do. Why doesn't the TUC

practice what it preaches when it comes to gender equality? Only three

of the largest ten unions are led by women even though most unions have a

female majority membership. Being a national offices in the unions are

lower than the percentage of the night union members. Eight out of

ten. And seven out of ten unions have women where they are

significantly underrepresented on the national executive. Of the TUC

delegation is. Even though women are majority membership. As you know,

the picture has changed dramatically over the last few years. We do just

have over the last few years. We do just

have three in ten union leaders elected on average. That is a big

change, it is a lot better than the board room and a hell of a lot

better than many sat around the Cabinet table. It is still not that

great. 74% female membership. Only 70% full time. 75% TUC delegation

and only 28 on the TUC. Led by a woman general secretary. You have a

way to go. For the first time in history it is 50-50. We are

committed. We want to work with businesses who want to make that

change. I am delighted to say. He loves unions. Thank you.

It's just gone 11:30am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

The Assembly Commission clears Sinn Fein

of any wrongdoing over expenses claims -

but Stormont's independent watchdog isn't happy.

We'll hear from the chair of the Independent Financial Review Panel.

Plus a row over renewables - why is a green energy incentive

scheme set to burn such a large hole in the Economy Minister's budget?

And with their thoughts on all of that and much more,

my guests of the day are Newton Emerson and Allison Morris.

The Assembly Commission has found Sinn Fein MLAs

who claimed almost ?700,000 in expenses for research

from a company run by the party's finance managers did nothing wrong.

The expense claims were one of a number of issues highlighted

set up to make determinations on MLAs' salaries and allowances

says he's concerned by the the findings.

We'll hear from Pat McCartan in just a moment,

but first here's our political correspondent, Stephen Walker.

The Spotlight programmes work broadcast in November 20 14. One of

the ABC programmes reported that Sinn Fein MLA 's kind about ?700,000

in total through Stormont expenses to pay a research service, RSI, over

a 10-year period. The programme makers were not able to find any

research carried out by RSI and one Sinn Fein MLA was reported to have

said they had never heard of the company until they saw it on the

annual expenses. TUV leader Jim Allister asked the SMB commission

how much of the money had been recovered. In response, the

commission said its review confirmed that payments for research services,

as reported in the programme, were made for admissible X-Men which are

up to and including the 20 12th-13 financial year. -- the 2012-2013

financial year. So no recovery has been sought. There has been no

serious effort to recall the ?700,000. Whether that is because of

the political inconvenience of doing those things or not is a matter of

speculation. But it is appalling that nothing has been done. Jim

Allister also asked about the disclosure that former DUP speaker

William Hay's office claimed money for heating oil in one year.

And Pat McCartan, who chairs the watchdog, the IFRP,

Welcome to the programme. Thank you for joining us. Where do you think

the commission has got it wrong? In the 12-13 year we made enquiries

into the like RSI. It appears from our information that payments have

been made after the end of December of that year. That is contrary to

the determination, and the commission, if it thinks these were

OK, is quite wrong. So the commission, in your view, has got it

wrong. You believe that your watchdog body was crystal clear

about what was allowable and what was not allowable. Where does this

leave us question at these are matters for the commission. Our

panel doesn't have the same panels as the panel in Westminster,

otherwise they would be matters for us and we would have dealt with them

long ago. These issues are only coming to light now, which is of

concern to the panel because we are about to launch our determination

for the next Assembly. We must be assured that there is no way in

which what we determine is going to be circumvented. Stephen Walker

talked their about ?700,000 over ten years that had been claimed. In

terms of the nine months that you're talking about, where claims were

allowed, which should not have been allowed. From April to December

2012, how much was claimed that should not have been claimed? It

could be ?150,000 which went to RSI in that period. Wrongly. And that

?150,000 has come from the public purse? It has come from office costs

expenses drawn down by individual members of the Assembly. Yes, it is

out of public money is for an entirely different purpose. They

fought running constituency offices or providing and 70 member with a

secretarial service. And that is being paid to Sinn Fein MLA 's

graduate that is paid to Sinn Fein MLA 's and something like ?5,000

appears to have been paid from that money to RSI in the nine months from

the 1st of April 20 12th to the 1st of December 2012. I do not have the

full details but I'm awaiting those from the emission. You have made it

clear that this money ought not to have been removed from the topic

purse, it was not allowable in your view. Does it suggest that the

Assembly commission appears to have pulled rank on your body? It does

not accept your finding? It has effectively ignored it, is that

right question what if it has done that, it is acting contrary to the

law. The law is clear. It has given us power to determine these matters

and we did do the first determination from the 1st of April

20 12. It is explicit. So it will be for the commission to explain if any

payments have been made wrongly in that period. We have asked for a

representative of the commission to take part in today's programme. We

were told that nobody was available. We had again that some of what the

commission has said, defending the payments that were made, that on a

technicality, or for whatever reason, it does not accept your view

of the world. The question people at home will be wondering is, what

happens next? Will be making our determination for the next Assembly.

We are very careful to ensure that there is no every of ambiguity or

problem of interpretation of our findings. They are, under the 2011

act, part of the law in relation to the payment of expenses. And that is

the way they should be treated. Now, in other jurisdictions, where people

have been prosecuted for wrongful claims, we have no such powers as a

panel yet. We are not given the same powers as they have in Westminster

on a double. If we were, we would be able to take care of these matters

at source. And there will be no persecutions in Northern Ireland.

That is not even on the agenda. I'm not aware of anything, other than by

particular case involving expenses for fuel. As far as the broader RSI

claims, there is no suggestion that there is an issue as far as that is

concerned. Do you feel undermined by this situation? I certainly feel

that the panel has been treated wrongly that it is for the

Commission to satisfy us. They will adhere to our findings, as per their

legislation setting is up. That is what we would expect in the new

determination. Jim Allister, that UV leader, referred in that short

report to the political inconvenience. It could have been

behind the decision not to attempt to recover any of the money paid to

RSI. The think political inconvenience could be a factor in

all of this? I don't know. I would think that that is, somewhere along

the line, some pressure has been brought to their on the Secretariat

to make payments contrary to the determination. Pressure from whom?

From politicians saying that they need the money. I have no evidence

other than what we have seen in a recent report, carried out by an

independent IBSA, that some out of determination has gone on. It is a

complicated situation because you have got politicians making up the

Assembly, commission. They are putting pressure on the secretariat,

you imagine. At the end of the day, it is the Assembly Commission who

have the final say, and that is politicians. That is what is wrong

with the system. That is why the Independent Financial Review Panel

did ask for the legislation to be reviewed. We are disappointed in

what has been said. They wish to continue with the present system. In

the meantime, Wendy you publish your next determination, and what is it

likely to say of significance, given the conversation we have just had?

It is likely to make it very exquisite as to what is or is not

allowed. It is likely to ensure that there is clarity in each of the

allowances and how they will be paid. It is likely to recommend, if

we cannot act ourselves, on a range of these issues to ensure that

public bodies are properly accounted for. You will make that

determination, but we still do not have the power, the legislative

power, for you to enforce your view on the Assembly Commission as things

stand question what we do have that power but it is for the Commission

to enact it. If it is not enacting it, that is a matter for the

Commission. That is what cannot be followed up question that is the

issue currently. Of course we are concerned for the general public to

ensure that the legislation is absolutely clear that there is a

full independent body that is was possible for policing and paying out

these matters. That is what is being rejected by the fresh start. Thank

you for coming in. Let's see what my

guests make of that. Newton Emerson and Allison

Morris are with me. What do you make of that question

what it is absolutely startling. I think most people will be shocked

that there is nothing that can be done. If this had been at West Mr,

able would be committed for prosecutions but we have a situation

where politicians are regulated themselves. The rules were clearly

wrong. ?150,000 outside of when the rules were changed. That should be

paid back immediately. There is no question. With regards to the fact

that there is no power for anyone to include any prosecutions, I think

now we are living in times of austerity, that probably won't win

these games wait ten years ago, I don't think many numbers of the

public will look on them in the same way as they would have then. We are

hearing that politicians are paying themselves outside of the rules. I

think it is fair to say that the frustration was apparent there. On

the face of it, it looks like an astonishing situation. Pat McCartan

has identified payments after the rules which range -- were changed in

2012. It is also ludicrous that they were allowed before that. Clear

evidence was broadcast on the whole of Northern Ireland and the

Commission response was that it was admissible, without exhalation, and

that it should not be processed. That only raises more questions than

answers. If you're talking about expenses claims for heating system

is being run around the clock. There is absolutely a clear case that must

be set out of how, if this was not wrong, how was it not wrong? You

cannot say it is admissible and drop the paperwork down the back of the

radiator and forget about it. To be clear, what we're talking about,

what is still outstanding, what Pat McCartan was referring to, was the

?100,000 between April and December 20 12. That is the issue. The point

is that the Assembly Commission is effectively leasing itself. It is

policing itself will stop if they do not choose to rip accepted the

recommendations, there is nothing anybody can do. The Nice to be some

sort of enforcement here. We will speak to you both later.

Now, millions of pounds worth of work will be lost

and jobs are at risk if a green energy scheme is scrapped -

that's the claim from renewables companies

after the Enterprise Minister, Jonathan Bell,

has announced his intention to close the renewable heat incentive scheme.

Here's what the Minister had to say last week.

My department faces a huge budgetary pressure, given the decision of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer to limit the amount of money paid to Northern

Ireland out of the UK part for renewable heat. Now, that is why I

signalled my intention last week to ease that financial pressure. Which

could amount to over ?27 million. By announcing an immediate closure to

the scheme and by bringing Ford and order to suspend the scheme, as soon

as possible. I want to make every one know that I'm listening to the

industry and I'm listening to individuals who are currently

installing renewable heat boilers. I will come back and try to give that

clarity at the early possible date. Now I'm joined by the chair of the

DETI committee, Patsy McGlone, Welcome to you both. In the Autumn

Statement, George Osborne announced cuts to the funding for real for

schemes. If Northern Ireland goes over its limit, it comes out of the

DETI budget. This is an issue that goes back to the Exchequer in

London, rather than the door of Jonathan Bell. Yes and no. It has

emerged since that back as far as June 2014, it was anticipated that

we would have 300 applications under the scheme within that financial

year. Up to March 20 15. In November, it had already reached

308. As of last Tuesday, they told us that concerns were raised about

it last March. Concerns were raised in July. What we have here is a

situation where this mess that has arrived, that has put individuals

who wanted to install systems to the home, who took out loans on the foot

of that, it has put them in problems. It has put businesses into

trouble. They had invested in the scheme which they thought would last

until the end of March. Another ?100,000 of equipment and 25 jobs

being at risk in one case. It is estimated that this could jeopardise

jobs. We have a mess at the Department. We have a mess at the

Department in your view. If the department should have been aware of

these issues, so should your committee. You were aware of this as

well but in actual fact, this announcement was released Friday a

week ago. It was an attempt to bury the story. People got on the phones

to us and immediately I acted as chair of the committee. This is

seriously jeopardising jobs. I'm sure the department will deny

burying the story. We did ask Jonathan Bell to take part in the

story but he is not available today. Do you think that Department has

mishandled the situation? I think this was a good idea as a scheme

when it was launched. It took some time for people who could denture

use it and benefit from it to appreciate it. What has happened is

that the economics of the scheme have changed. What has happened is

the Chancellor of the Exchequer setup the warning sign on the ward

when -- in the Autumn Statement. I did not notice it then and Patsy is

saying that his committee has only just begun to look at it carefully.

Jonathan Bell in how did the scheme. I think he was already on the skids

on the day he took up office. There is certain ambiguity about that. The

critical question is that the scheme is proving to successful, in the

sense that it is getting too many people making bids, it will cost the

taxpayer a lot of money, and the question is, how well have they

handled acting out of the scheme? I think this is where Patsy is making

his case. Backing out of the scheme has been handled badly and too

slowly. His point is that dumb bunnies are going to suffer, they

are going to lose out and people will potentially lose jobs. --

companies are going to suffer. There came the rush. People have given us

the figures where the potential bidders have gone up or stop they

are heading for an impossible position for any minister and for

the taxpayer. The minister wanted to close it down as big as possible. He

may be moved to slowly and he is now caught with a possible legal

nightmare because he has announced this closure with braided notice. So

what happens next? -- with braided full very little notice. They are

potentially in a limo situation? The officials say they became aware of

the scale of the problem last March. They do it to the minister's

attention in July. There is a mechanism used which is demand led

so that terrorists are adjusted up and down to reduce the heat in the

system and reduce the demand for the scheme. That mechanism exists.

Unfortunately, we did not have it here. That is another question that

will have to be asked. The difficulty is the suddenness of this

scheme. The actual legislation and tariffs set for the scheme rock up

until the 31st of March. People made projections on that, business

projections, people took out loans on the foot of that. He is only

bringing it to a close a few weeks earlier. If it was going to the end

of March and year is closing it at the end of February, what is the

fuss estimate if you are developing a scheme, if you're putting in these

biomass oilers and the like, 03 weeks, countries were working to

that date. You were taking orders for equipped, working to that date.

They have been installing this in homes and we had the farmers union

with us. They were working to that date. They had a project in mind of

around upwards of 50 farms. If they do not cancel this, they are going

to lose ?30 million. But it was staring him in the face last year.

He is caught in between a rock and a hard place. Having been caught in

that position, he now has to move, presumably in a way that is legal,

in bringing this scheme to a close was what does he have to do? No

schemes will be approved after the 29th of February, which is coming

forward a month. There is a human doubt there. Some people who saw the

way in which the scheme is expanding rapidly may well have said, this

will not keep going, we had better get in now. That business of getting

in now as given rise to a discussion, is this use or abuse of

the system? Just in a sentence, it comes before the Assembly tomorrow,

I think. What happens but it comes before the rule extended sheen the

attention of the scheme, until the 29th of February. It may be extended

beyond the short time they gave us. It does before the semi tomorrow and

it will come to a vote. It is whether they vote in favour of that.

Would you vote in favour question on no, I have had firms in touch with

me saying it is an unrealisable deal. They were led up the garden

path, basically, they feel. It will be interesting to see what happens

tomorrow. Thank you. Let's take a look back

at the political week in 60 seconds The issue of abortion dominated the

headlines, and one MLA told his personal story. I don't like talking

about this because I get emotional but, believe me, that decision to

give us to this day. The Justice Minister revealed what courthouses

were -- would close. Jim Wells provoked a controversy.

The Secretary of State warned about people rewriting the past. In

certain isolated cases, the state was at Fort but it would be entirely

wrong to say that it was endemic. The chief cos the ball -- Chief

Constable says we need to talk about the past.

Just time for a final word from Allison and Newton.

I wonder what you make of the legacy inquest unit, and us by the Lord

Chief Justice on Friday? There are still the gauche Asians going on

about how the past will be dealt with. -- skilled negotiations going

on. It indicates that it is revealing about where that debate is

going on. The British governor did looking confident, I think was that

is that a constructive contributing? It was very hurtful to the victims

who think there will be an attempt to get a line drawn in the sand

before there is any justice. That's it - now back

to Andrew in London. MPs are on their half term holiday

at the moment, so you might be forgiven for thinking we'll be

in for a quiet time next week. On Thursday, David Cameron heads

to Brussels where he hopes to finalise his deal on Britain's

membership of the EU at what's been dubbed the "crunch"

European summit. We will see how crunchy it is. Tim,

Mr Hammond, the Foreign Secretary this morning, Matthew Hancock on

this programme, they both said, let's see what the final deal is

because there could be more in it than the draft settlement, more for

the British government. I would suggest that the draft settlement

for Mr Cameron is as good as it gets. That may well be the case,

journalists have been seeking rabbits from hats for many weeks,

taking them out, and Eurosceptics have been shooting them long before

David Cameron got anywhere near it. One thing I understand David Cameron

will do before next weekend, he can explain what he means by this

sovereignty lock, the sovereign Parliament will be... That is all

smoke and mirrors. It is but it is the one thing he has got left. It is

something they can do in domestic law and explain how the Supreme

Court here will hold the European Court to the letter of the European

treaty. It is effectively getting a British court to say that the

European Court is not adhering to its own treaties. If the summit

finishes on Friday I suspect he will unveil that either at a press

conference or we will see him doing Andrew Marr next Sunday and telling

the world all about it. He is going to do Andrew Marr next Sunday.

Politically the Prime Minister would be in trouble with his own party if

this deal was further watered down, wouldn't he? He needed to be

strengthened. I'm hearing stories coming out of Brussels saying there

is a rabbit or two, but whether they are tiny little rabbits or great big

ones I don't know. I think this is a campaign that will be won by fear,

not by terrific bribes and isn't the deal wonderful? What Philip Hammond

said this morning was very important, that if we vote to leave,

Europe will make sure our conditions are as bad as possible for fear of

the whole thing falling apart, other countries peeling off. That's the

serious threat. The idea that we will get a wonderful deal out of

Europe or that France will go on being our border guards and look

after our camp in Calais, I think it's those sorts of fears that will

win it. If Mr Sarkozy wins in France, it could change the camp

whether we are in or outcome he is campaigning on that. He could,

that's true. Next year is next year. The problem with all these things,

like the out campaign saying if in, Europe will react like this, none of

that is provable until it happens. We had a close colleague of Angela

Merkel today warning that it would be bloody, our terms, if we leave.

And why shouldn't they say that? There's no point in issuing the

threat afterwards. If they want to threaten, now is the time. Doesn't

mean he's not a good man just because we haven't heard from him,

but we haven't. It seems, I was suggesting, that Michael Gove, in

terms of which Cabinet ministers are going to go with remain and which

ones are going to go without, it seems that Michael Gove is becoming

the pivotal figure, here. Suggestions that if he decides to go

out, and apparently he is incredibly anguished about this, Boris Johnson

could well follow. If he doesn't, they might not. Michael Gove is

genuinely torn. Downing Street were very confident at the beginning of

this year that Michael Gove would be with the Prime Minister. But anybody

that has no Michael Gove, and are used to be his colleague, he will

know that in his heart of hearts he would like to get Britain out of the

European Union, it is as simple as that. At he knows that if he

campaigns to take Britain out of Europe, what he is essentially doing

is joining a campaign which, if successful, will destroy David

Cameron's Korea, and George Osborne's and hand the Tory

leadership to the two people in the Conservative Party he loathes more

than anybody else, Theresa May and Boris Johnson. So he is torn. The

thing about Boris Johnson, in his heart of hearts, believes Britain

should be in the European Union. But there is one thing Boris Johnson

believes more than that, which is that Boris Johnson should be Prime

Minister. Therefore he needs to do what is best for that, which is why

he needs this sort of thing. Grateful for that blinding

revelation that Boris Johnson wants to be Prime Minister. If Cameron can

keep Michael Gove on board, there will be fewer defections other than

the usual suspects? I think that's right. Somebody described him to me

as the big Domino and if he falls, others could. Cameron is trying

quite hard. He had Gove in last week trying to persuade him. What they

think they've got is an enlargement from Gove that if he does opt to

follow his conscience and vote out he will not do much campaigning. I

suspect he would do one interview and sit the thing out, and they

think if he is not out there leading it, that will not do quite as much

damage. We know Alan Johnson is heading up the labour effort to stay

in, but is Jeremy Corbyn really going to campaign hard to stay in?

Is the Labour Party going to spend money on this campaign? I very much

doubt it. It's not in his heart. His instincts are to pick up the wrong

issue, today there he is saying that he thinks Cameron is wrong on

immigration, we should have much easier immigration, he shouldn't be

trying to cut back the number of EU migrants coming into the country.

That is no way to win it, I presume he knows it. It's very important

that Labour voters are brought on board. Mr Cameron needs them, too.

Cameron really needs Labour voters. It ought to be the great, strong,

uniting message for Labour. Virtually all Labour MPs are

strongly in favour part from a maverick hand. Quite the clear

majority of the Parliamentary party. It should have been a big contrast,

Labour pro-European, Tories all over the place. I'm afraid Jeremy Corbyn

will muddy that. final debate when he laid into the

European Union. He hates the new free trade area. He said he would

support our membership but push four reform from within. A few days

before the big summit which is meant to clinch it one way or the other

are we heading for a June 23 referendum? Almost certainly and

thank God. So we can plan our summer holidays and ministers and advisers

feel the same. Never mind about the needs of the nation. It looks like

there will be some kind of deal and they may give him a bit more in some

areas. Cameron is determined to press on with this, he does not want

this hanging over his government. Every Monday he

Will have backed out of the referendum, that is a factor in

several politicians cut relations right now. As I discovered, the

front runners have been very coy about it all. What is this about? A

programme about the Tory leadership. What on earth is the

relevance of that to your many millions of viewers

when you consider that there is no, thankfully, thankfully,

and there is no vacancy Nor is there going to be one

for a very long time. Oh well, maybe I'll get lucky

with some of the other Apparently, Health Secretary,

Jeremy Hunt, might Speculation surrounds

the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb, Education

Secretary Nicky Morgan once a female candidate,

preferably her. Defra Secretary, Liz Truss

is repeated to be ambitious. There are mutterings

about Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, but is he really

angling to be the next And is a leadership bid

while Michael Gove is swinging over which side to back

in the referendum. Energy Minister, Andrea Leadsom

is holding surgeries in the Commons tearoom and a mystery member

of the 2015 intake is rumoured to have big plans and

Employment Minister and arch Eurosceptic Priti Patel is expected

to have a profile-boosting role in the Out Campaign

and then there is Liam Fox. This week, a poll

on the website run by Paul Goodman found that the former

Defence Secretary was favourite If you speculate that the hard right

of Conservative Party membership, is about a fifth of it,

that sounds fair enough. What was remarkable about his score

was in fact how low it was, it was the joint-lowest

score for a leading A lot of this is total

nonsense, but it presages potentially three years of Tory

leadership gossip for the people The Tory party would be in a

leadership crisis but the country would be in a huge political crisis.

It would go on for years. It would take at least smack years of very

painful negotiations, maybe longer, to get us out of these treaties.

Nobody has done it before, nobody knows what it would look like.

Cameron would have to go. The humiliation would be appalling.

Osborne's chances would be shot to pieces. By then, the country might

have changed its mind and be upset by having narrowly voted against for

getting out. They might regret it. Where does that leave whoever the

future leader is? Do you agree? This whole contest will boil down to

several binary choices, in and out of Europe, George Osborne and not

George Osborne. Boris Johnson Atmos Boris Johnson. Woman and man. -- or

not Boris Johnson. Depending on the circumstances we will find a leader.

The young and old. 2015 intake are getting bored about George Osborne

is nearly inevitable and if not him, Boris Johnson. They are thinking

about running one of their own. There are names that we haven't even

considered that may enter the fray. David Cameron might not go

immediately but if he has to go he would be the walking wounded through

the summer and into the autumn. Mr George Osborne probably the same. He

kind of throws everything open. It stars. There is a lot of chat

amongst ministers about what happens if we vote to leave -- it does. The

Prime Minister says we trigger at ago 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, two

years negotiation and I should do that -- at Article 50. One school of

thought is that the prime and will bring in David Davies as the Deputy

Prime Minister and lead the exit negotiations but I can't see that. I

think that will be a leadership contest and the defining feature is

who is the best person to lead those exit negotiations. And you would

assume that a minister who has said we should leave would be best

placed. Maybe it will be possible to have administered through said we

should be in but maybe not wholly involved in the remaining campaign.

A good Eurosceptic track record. Boris Johnson? Theresa May Possibly.

Do you want Boris Johnson negotiating the future of the treaty

over two years? I think Boris Johnson's position will be weaker

than anyone things because of the dithering. It is so transparent and

nakedly ambitious. Whether he is fought in or out. Anybody who is

interested in politics feels passionately in or out and he can't

pretend to be waiting for these minor negotiations on this

fundamental issue that he has tackled all his life. Even if we

wrote to remain, what is your view on what is sometimes called even if

we vote to remain, the Conservatives, whose heart would not

have been in remaining, will want someone to lead them after Mr

Cameron, much later, who was Brexit? There is a strong case for that.

Most of the polls suggest that 70% of the conservative grassroot is a

Brexitier. There are polls which show, to speak up for Boris, that he

is wildly more popular than any other conservative. There are

conservative MPs who will look at those polls, the one in the

Independent this morning he is the only main stream politician who has

a positive rating. This is a 2-stage process, the MPs put you on the

ballot paper, the grassroots people select you. Only two names go

forward. You need to get past the MPs and then make your case to the

wider. If Boris gets through, to being one of the final two, given

his popularity with the Tory grassroots, could change, it could

be skin deep, I don't know, but wouldn't he be an unstoppable? He

doesn't have a huge backing at Westminster, a lot of MPs don't know

him. Will he survive the rigours of a campaign? The interview on the

Andrew Marr show, he faced awkward questions about one of his friends.

You assume he will get through that process. We are talking about a

contest after we have voted to stay in. Important lesson from 1975,

Harold Wilson was a massively strengthened after that win. He

moved Tony Benn at the crucial post of industry because he was very

strong. The Prime Minister will pretty strong on that.

Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.