17/01/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Was former London Mayor Ken Livingstone booted off

Or, as Mr Livingstone claims, did he step down

because he is at one on all defence matters with this lady,

Labour's new Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry.

Like Mr Livingstone she's not a fan of Britain's

David Cameron has a plan to deliver some "rabbits from the hat"

Another campaign group has entered the fray on his side,

As the battle hots up we'll be talking to a man who wants out,

UKIP leader Nigel Farage, and a man who wants to stay in,

Donald Trump and his former chum Alex Salmond have spent

The wannabe American President thinks Mr Salmond's

an embarrassement to his country. pledged to demolish sink estates.

What will it mean to communities in the capital?

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

I won't have a nasty word said against them.

Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting

So first today let's talk about Jeremy Corbyn,

who gave a wide-ranging interview on the Marr show a little earlier.

My question, with respect, was about sympathy action

and whether you would remove that legislation.

Sympathy action is legal in most other countries and I think it

should also be legal here. But remember this...

So you would repeal those Tory laws?

Yes, of course. Nobody willingly goes on strike.

They go on strike as an ultimate weapon.

The number of strikes is actually very small.

It's an ultimate weapon that is used.

Anyone that is going on strike is making an enormous sacrifice.

They don't get paid, they suffer a great deal as a result

of it, so let's look at the causes of people being upset rather

A policy packed interview with Andrew Marr on the Falklands,

Islamic State, secondary striking, even on the idea maybe we could keep

Trident but not any missile warheads on the missiles. I felt nostalgic. I

was back to a teenager in the 1980s, I remember these arguments in the

1980s and Michael foot put them in the manifesto for the 1983 election.

He was robust on the Falkland Islands. He was. The point for

Jeremy Corbyn is he has a mandate from the party to put forward these

arguments. He had a 60% vote and it is clear what he thinks of nuclear

weapons. He has been a member of CND since 1966. The challenge for Jeremy

Corbyn is to put forward ideas in a way that appeals beyond new members

of the Labour Party to the electorate as a whole who have

concerns about security of the nation, for example, possibly having

successor submarines of the Trident system without nuclear weapons. That

is the Japanese system, they talk in Japan how they have what is known as

the bomb in the basement. They are a non-declared nuclear state but could

arm themselves with nuclear weapons within minutes if needed. That is

what he is talking about. Sounds good in the leg party but he needs

to sell it to the country as a whole. It is clear a lot of what

Jeremy Corbyn says has the support of the grassroots, particularly the

new ones who have joined the party. It is clear a lot of this does not

have the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That is

the constant problem yet to be squared. I cannot see a way it will

be squared. I do not think many Labour MPs can either. His problem

is admirable, it is he is determined not to remove himself from things

said in the past. On the Falklands he is consistent with what he said

in 2013, when it did not matter, and how he is now repeating those views.

The problem is now Jeremy Corbyn matters and if you look at the

Falklands, the last time there was a vote of those on the Falkland

Islands, only three voted to change the system of administration, so he

is out of step with people living there. He sets out his left-wing

stall on these issues. Bit by bit, he is taking his time, doing it

astutely. He is taking the lead party in his direction, part of the

purpose I would suggest of the interview will stop no one could

question that. If you go into a general election with a leader who

says something like, let's have the return of secondary picketing, and

that is not the worst idea in the manifesto, also talking about

renewing the vanguard submarines without warheads and I think he

floated the idea of reasonable accommodation with Argentina on the

Falklands, he would go to the election knowing you have a white,

working-class base, which is already flirting with Ukip. How low can

Labour Singh? Technically it is impossible to get rid of him but

maybe politics is like water and finds a way to go around obstacles.

And if his ideas turn out to be popular? I think they will be

popular with the membership at every general election since 1983 would

suggest to us these ideas are outside the mainstream. Jeremy

Corbyn says there is a new world out there, I tapped into that in the

campaign, with thousands packing up meetings. We have the electoral test

in May, let's see how the ideas go down outside the party. Should

written keep its nuclear deterrent? -- Great Britain.

Jeremy Corbyn doesn't think so and neither

does his new Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry,

who we'll be talking to in just a minute.

But first here's Adam on a multi-billion-pound question.

The Imperial War Museum is showing the work of artist Peter Kennard,

the creator of some of the starkest images of the campaign

This was in 1980, this is when cruise missiles were coming

to Britain and the idea was they were going to circulate

It's coming back into fashion because some time this year

the Government is expected to hold a Parliamentary vote

on whether to build a new generation of submarines to carry

The issue is dogging Labour, as Jeremy Corbyn made his first

speech of the year at the Fabian's campaign group conference.

I thank you very much for inviting me here today.

Jeremy Corbyn's speech focused on energy, Europe, rail prices...

no mention of Trident, which he has campaigned

The issue is - not all of his MPs agree with him.

My view at the moment is that the case in favour

of retaining is stronger than the case against,

but I think it's important we review this and look at all the options.

I'm in favour of keeping our nuclear deterrent.

I think it's important for keeping our country safe.

It's Labour Party policy, I hope it will stay that way.

Have you had an argument with Jeremy about it yet?

Definitely arguing with Jeremy this week, the boss of the GMB union,

who says building new subs will safeguard thousands of jobs

in places like Barrow, where they're built.

If anybody thinks that unions like the GMB are going to go quietly

into the night while tens of thousands of our members' jobs

are literally swaneed away by rhetoric, then they have

Meet the woman who's got to reconcile the two tribes,

the Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry, a critic

of Trident who's doing the party's defence review.

But it's turning into a row about how Labour makes policy.

On one side, the people who feel the decision should be made by

We have a national policy forum, we have a process where the papers

go to our conference and are voted on.

They involve trade unionists, they involve affiliated

John Landsman, who campaigns for a bigger role for party

activists and founded the Corbynite group Momentum,

I'm not convinced the Government has to have a vote at all,

but if it decides to have a vote we obviously need to have taken some

soundings among party members and affiliates about what they think

So, Labour Party policy on Trident could change by the summer?

We will have had some process to consider our policy

before the summer, yes, obviously, we have to.

So Labour Party policy, when it comes to a vote,

by the summer could be voting against the renewal of Trident?

Look, I know that you're trying to get me to say very briefly,

you know, something very quick about how policy is made

in our party, the trouble is it's quite a complex process.

Policy is ultimately decided by party conference

in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party but if we have to take quicker

decisions, we have to do it by other methods.

That might drive some Labour people into meltdown.

It could be war, not just over whether Labour supports the renewal

of Trident, but also who gets to make the decision.

And with me now, the Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry.

Welcome. Did you drop Ken Livingstone from the defence review?

No, it was going to be my review and when I spoke to Jeremy about it I

said it was an honour to take an extraordinary job, to be able to

shadow a department where people are prepared to put their lives on the

line. Was he part of the defence review already? I said I would lead

the review and it will be my review, and it will feed into international

policy commission, co-chaired by Ken Livingstone, which will feed into

the national policy forum which will then feed into party conference. Mr

Livingstone said on defence matters he had lunch with you and you agree

on everything on the defence side and so voluntarily stepped aside, is

that true? I am a big fan of Ken Livingstone, that is not a secret, I

am also against Trident. I come in as a sceptic and also with the

ambition to listen to what people say, to be not afraid to ask

difficult questions and to come to a view on policy on the basis of

evidence. Did he step aside because you broadly agreed on defence

matters? Jeremy Corbyn put me in charge of the review and that is

what happened. Did Mr Livingstone step aside as he said? He is chair

of the commission I will be feeding my review into. I understand. Do you

agree on everything when it comes to defence? I agree with a lot Ken

Livingstone says but I do not agree we should pull out of Nato and I

will not review this on the basis of us changing any international

agreements or organisations we are signed up to. The review will take

place within the context of our continued membership of Nato? That

is right. On Trident? Ken Livingstone is against renewing

Trident. That has been your position. I think the days of

unilateral, multilateral, all of this sort of thing is from the

1980s. We should look at what are the 21st-century threats to Britain

and how should we best address them? It seems that is the best way to do

it, look at the threats and what is the best way of addressing that.

What I am more than anything is a moderniser. You voted against

renewal of Trident in 2007. Do you know what, in the 80s, I was in

favour of Trident because there were two macro sides, life was different,

but life has moved on since 2007. Certainly since the 1980s, and I

think the time has come for us to have a debate about what the

21st-century threats are, which includes whether or not it is the

appropriate response. What would change your mind? What could you be

told about Trident that would make you think we should keep it? Good

try. I have had this job a couple of days and want to go into it with an

open mind and look at evidence. You are against Trident? I am in favour

of making policy on the basis of evidence put before me and I have

had a large number of invitations to talk to people and pick their

brains. I want to be able to do that and bring the party with me. Are you

against drone strikes? No, I think in the future the role of drones is

likely to increase, under the sea and for air strikes. When you were

shadow Attorney General, did you question the legality under

international law? This is quite difficult, because the advice I gave

to the leaders... You have got that wrong. I was asking a question.

Have you questioned their legality or not? There is a difference

between their use and bare existence so therefore... I'm so sorry but

it's legally privileged and I cannot talk about advice I gave to the

leader. All right but you can talk to the electorate. Would you support

the use of drone strikes? I would support the use of whatever means

are necessary to keep the British people safe. Including drone

strikes? Yes, within the confines of the law. Do you have an end date

when you think you have got to have the review done by? No, I don't want

the strategic review to be anything like the Tories' which was very

short. They opened a website and only allowed people to put 200 words

in and in my view didn't look at it properly so it will take as long as

it takes. I have a lot to look at. I understand, we have a lot of ground

to cover and we don't have a lot of time this morning. In the meantime

it's almost certain there will be a major vote on Trident, which begins

the real spending on the renewal some time in the spring. What will

happen to Labour? Will you be whipped to vote in favour of current

party policy, which is pro-Trident? Will you be encouraging to -- people

to vote against it? The first question is, are they going to have

a vote, are they going to have a vote in the spring, and what will

the vote be? Will we have the Treasury and the MoD agreeing? If

there is a main gate proposal, comes forward to the Commons, how will you

vote? The rumour is they are not going to have anything more than

another vote in principle on whether or not we should renew Trident.

Pro-Trident people should be angry about that because we had a vote

about that in 2007, what have they been doing all this time? Labour

policy is to have a continual artsy deterrent but to have a review. We

are in the process of having a review, we need to look at when the

vote is, what it is about, then I will have a discussion with Jeremy

and the Chief Whip and did -- decision will be made. Jeremy has

said he wants macro to accommodate differences in views and I have said

my review has got to be done in an atmosphere of trust and respect. So

it will be a free vote. What do you say to those who say when it comes

to the Trident part of the defence review that it is a sham, that you

have replaced Maria Eagle who was pro-Trident. Your leader is a

lifelong unilateral disarmament. The party grass roots is increasingly

hostile to Trident, so the chances of this recommending anything other

than don't renew Trident is pretty impossible. I will begin this review

by looking at the threat to Britain because my overriding responsibility

is to make sure it is in line with what keeps Britain safe. We will

take it as the evidence takes us. That is how we will approach it.

Jeremy has already said, he said in the last few days that it may be

this won't be a binary decision, things are not must rarely black and

white any more, we are not going to the 1980s. What do you make of this

idea that he floated on the Andrew Marr Show this morning that we could

maybe renew Trident but not put warheads on the missiles? The

Japanese option, that is certainly one thing that needs to be looked

at. What would be the point? I'm not saying this is what we are going to

do, but the way that it works is that the Japanese have got the

capability to build a nuclear bomb if they need to, but you can then

use them in various delivery forms. That's a possibility, it is an

option. So you put the eventual warheads onto Trident submarines?

Trident missiles? I appreciate that you want me to speculate and I

understand that. Your leader spoke about it this morning. I have said

there are of options. When you file a ballistic missile at a country,

every early warning ballistic missile system will assume that is

an attack because ballistic missile is only carry nuclear weapons so we

will risk retaliation for something that is not using nuclear weapons,

isn't that very dangerous? You are welcome to take part in my review. I

am a kind of busy on the day job. Do you think the party membership

should determine Trident policy, not just be consulting on it, which I

know you'll want to do, but should they determined in the end such

important issue? Party conference will decide what our policy is. I

would like to have a review that will have party members feeding into

it, feeding into their views in a way we have not had before and I

will encourage that. You weren't in the end have a vote among party

members to determine your policy? Our rules are that party conference

decides our policy. Do you think you will have your ducks in a row by the

time of this year's party conference? If I can help the

national policy Forum by doing an interim report, I will do so. What

do you say to the trade union leaders who say you will put

thousands of jobs at risk if you don't renew Trident? I say I will

listen to what they say and I will look at whether there are other

alternatives. I understand, and I fully respect the concerns that have

been raised so we need to look at whether there are solutions to that.

You have taken substantial donations from a law firm that support clients

that took the British Army to court on what turned out to be deliberate

and miscalculated lies, holy and entirely without merit, where the

accusations against the army. Should you return that? What happened was

that Lee Day seconded people to my office because when your shadow

Attorney General you don't have any resources at all. You didn't get

?14,500 in donations? No, so I got very good bright lawyers and I have

returned all of them and they were very good and they helped us be a

good opposition. So there is no money to return? There is no money

to return and it was a pleasure to have them in my office, they were

very helpful to the Labour Party and interned to the country. We were

summarising legislation, helping with clauses, giving advice to the

leaders' office. Unfortunately the Government will now even cut the

money. Will you come back when your review is complete? Any time. We

will hold you to that. Now to the European Union

and Britain's membership of it. George Osborne appeared

quietly confident this week about the Government's chances

of impressing voters with the deal it gets from Brussels,

and even the European President, Jean-Claude Junker, appeared more

upbeat about the prospects Not good news for

those who want out? But they'll be buoyed by one poll

this morning that puts the "out" This morning there's news of another

group on the pro-EU campaign trail. The question may be fairly simple

but there are rather a lot of different campaigns

trying to bend our ears. On the side of those

who want us out of the EU, there's the Vote Leave campaign

headed by Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott,

who ran the successful They're also linked

to Business For Britain, which has the support of a number

of leading business figures, and to the groups Labour Leave

and Conservatives For Britain, Also campaigning for Brexit

is Leave.EU, which has links to Ukip and is funded by the Ukip donor

Arron Banks. They're vying with the Vote Leave

campaign to be the officially And to top it all, there is now Go,

a new grass-roots group made up of MPs including Kate Hoey

and David Davis which is designed to coordinate campaigning

on the ground. On the other side, the main group

is the Britain Stronger In Europe, headed by the former Marks

Spencer's boss Sir Stuart Rose. Then there's Business

For New Europe, led by Roland Rudd, Labour Yes, led by Alan Johnson,

and now there's a new group set up by the Tory MP Nick Herbert,

called Conservatives Even though some of the members

are Eurosceptics, they say they will support David Cameron's

renegotiation and will vote to remain inside the EU

if he's successful. Expect a few leaflets

through your door in the next And with us now is the Ukip

leader, Nigel Farage. With even staunch Eurosceptic MPs

like Nick Herbert campaigning to stay in, don't you worry the tide of

opinion is moving away from you and tour was David Cameron? I would

never regard Nick Herbert as a staunch Eurosceptic. He campaigned

to keep the pound, he was paid to do it. He has never once advocated

Britain should leave the EU so he is doing a job bolstering the Prime

Minister. There was lots of speculation, will Boris Johnson back

the outcome pain? What do you think? I don't know. Not Michael Gove, we

know now. I suspect lots of senior politicians will put their careers

before their conscience and back the Prime Minister. I am beginning to

see this referendum as the people versus the politicians, it might not

matter. Except your own side continues to be riven by

factionalism. We have vote to leave, Leave.EU, and they seem to be

spending more time attacking each other than the common enemy. You

have these groups vying to be the official bumbler group. I've been

trying to support both of the organisations, though I have to say

when I listen to Dominic Cummings on Friday... Who is on Vote Leave I

believe. Yes, and suddenly they are talking about a two referendum

strategy which I don't like the look of one little bit. Why not? The

argue was, we can vote to come out and then Europe will panic and make

us an offer which will be effectively associated membership

and we could vote on that. We effectively have that now, we had

that since the euro was created. Dan Harmon has criticised every

government that has lost a referendum. After the interview I

saw the other day I wasn't sure. There is now a third group called

Go. It does lend itself to jokes about the Judaean people's struggle.

The point about Go is that it is there to break the deadlock, and

next Saturday there will be Conservatives, Labour, Ukip and DUP

sharing a public platform. There's a big auditorium with 2000 people

coming and we will start the ground campaign in earnest. Should Vote

Leave and Leave.EU amalgamate? Of course. Leave.EU are brilliant at

mass-marketing. Vote Leave are Westminster -based group of people

with some fantastic links to the business community, some great

academic back-up. They would be complimentary, not contradictory.

Meanwhile, as you still struggle to get a united front, if I can put it

like that, perhaps the United front of the Judaean people's struggle...

I would suggest from the better together project, which proved so

effective in the Scottish referendum, shouldn't you fear

Project Fear? Even Project Fear has a problem because a Scottish

minister said all of the big businesses would leave Britain, but

we would maintain our manufacturing bases. Even though if we stay in

there will be some uncertainty as the euro zone becomes more united

and we are likely to be part of that, so you cannot be sure of the

future, no one on your side can tell us if we come out what will our

status beach? What will our relationship be? Because you have

lots of differences. We have a whole range of options. There are

countries all over the world with different relationships, the Swiss

have bilateral relationships the Norwegians have a relationship with

the economic area. We are the biggest trading partner the has in

the world, trading at a vast trading deficit. We want a British deal

based on trade, cooperation and nothing more.

There is still the uncertainty as to whether you can deliver. Every

German car manufacturer, every producer, will insist we do that

deal as quickly as possible. You hold that but it is uncertain. Under

the terms of the treaties, on day one nothing would change, we would

have access to markets during the time we renegotiate the British

deal. Do you feel the ground moving on to you as the forces of the

British state, Alex Salmond felt the same with the Scottish referendum,

it is a formidable force and you are up against it? In terms of our

political class, yes, I think the chances of many people currently in

senior positions in politics, perhaps they diminish, inevitably,

but you cannot take away from ordinary folk scene such as Cologne

and saying to themselves, in three years, all of these people will have

EU passports and be able to come to Britain. This campaign will be the

people against the politicians and the more the politicians clubbed

together, perhaps more the people will choose to vote against them. In

any possibility of a relationship with the EU out, will almost

certainly involve continued free movement and these people may well

still be able to come to this country under any deal you reach? We

have free trade deals all over the world that don't involve the free

movement of people, it is only in Europe we have the free -- pretence

that we have to have free movement of people. I want to control our

borders and have an Australian style points system where we can judge

whether people will make a positive contribution to society and I cannot

do that as a member of the EU. You have not had the best of times,

since the election. It culminated in what you designated a car breakdown

as an assassination attempt. Has that undermined, as the most famous

person on the outcome paying, has it undermined your credibility? I do

not think it does. To say we have had a tough time, it is interesting,

Ukip has been written off by every commentator in Fleet Street but the

latest poll had us at 17%. The most important issue, immigration, we are

the most trusted party on 29% and we go into this year with the

expectation of winning seats in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

and playing a big role in this referendum.

Let's talk now to former Conservative Chancellor,

Are you in any doubt the Prime Minister is going to be the

enthusiastic leader of the campaign to remain in the EU? I think you

will, because all the news, although it is not really news, a lot of it

is rumoured, is he will come back with a reasonable deal. He has

already got the things he first talked about in the bag when he

first announced he was going to have a referendum and seek reforms. He

has added one or two more. Nobody knows the final deal but they are

close to getting one and the debate is getting more serious and I think

David will advocate staying in. He will put it, a reformed European

union. Given this was the predictable outcome, is the

referendum process, promoted by David Cameron, worth the candle? We

shall see. You can see now, is it or not? Wait for the outcome, which

will determine the effect of the referendum on British politics and

the economy. All politicians of my generation did not think a

referendum was a good way to run a modern, sophisticated country. You

wish she had not done it? I do not think anybody thinks... I was in

favour of calling a referendum. Margaret Thatcher denounced

referendums in stronger terms than I have and they are a gamble and I do

not think the Scottish one has resolved the Scottish independence

issue. Let me come on to Scotland. It seems clear that the in campaign

will draw heavily on the better together project. We have been

briefed on fear of Russian aggression. Who will be happy if

they leave? President Putin will be happy. It will put the positive case

of Britain in Europe? I shall try to put the positive case, I hope Damian

Greene will put the positive case. We are in the EU because we think it

strengthens our voice in the modern world and it is good for the economy

and we think that this is the right place, in what is a complicated

world, with nations interdependent. We will be a modern and more modern

and more successful if we are in. The campaign exaggerates things.

Nigel Farage is a parody of a right-wing nationalists. People are

inclined to say there will be calamity if we stay in or calamity

if we leave. They will be huge uncertainty if we leave. I believe

that my children and grandchildren will discover that we would be

losing political influence. We know you want to stay in. If we vote to

remain, should membership of the euro come back onto the agenda? I do

not think it will in my lifetime. The British have decided not to join

the euro. The euro has to be reformed. The eurozone still has not

sorted out its crisis. Should it come back onto the British agenda? I

am not going to forecast the future when we are fighting this

referendum. I was asking for an opinion. I believe that if you have

the single market, not a trade deal, a single market, usually you have a

single means of exchange, but they made a mess of the euro and did not

run it properly. I would not join at the moment. You don't rule it out?

Maybe one day the next generation of politicians find we do want to have

the same currency, but I cannot tell. You are pro-European, you know

its failings. You can be critical of it. Do you worry, the future, even

if we stay in, the future of the EU will be on what takes place inside

the eurozone and we will be on the periphery, increasingly a country

club member, does it worry you? It worried me when we started. With

great respect you are talking about one of the most serious issues,

there was an issue that needed to be addressed. We are almost there, what

we did not want is the decision of the British and some others, who

will not join in the foreseeable future, not to join the single

currency, that it would make a second-class citizens and the

eurozone group should not decide things that adversely affected us.

We negotiated that before the referendum came up. I think George

is almost there. My understanding is, but I am not directly involved.

I think that is the most important point and it will not feature in

this campaign. Deregulation, and other important things, reforms even

a pro-European like me wanted. Thank you for your short interview and we

will come back to you as the debate and referendum progresses.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

After two the main English exam board announced they will no longer

offer GCSE courses here in Northern Ireland. He claims what he called

the folly of the ministers in flexibility could put schools and

pupils at a disadvantage. The Education Minister John O'Dowd is

with me now. Thank you for joining us. You decided not to change the

grading system back in November. And now two of the biggest exam boards

are pulling out. You were once that would happen. Head teachers are not

heavy. Some of the unions are not happy.

It looks like you got this wrong. Some headteachers were not happy.

Some teachers are not happy. There are a mixed views around the trade

unions. It is worth pointing out what is known as the English exams

body is irrelevant. In this regard. They are following changes made in

the Department for Education, England, to change their curriculum

in England to upgrade or change their examination system in England

so English are following those changes, changes to suit the English

education system. I consulted on this matter. I believe that the

changes are staying. No one will be disadvantaged as a result of staying

with the system we currently have. Except that it makes it more

difficult for our schoolchildren to transfer those grades across to the

UK system. It is a confusing system because we are staying as we are and

it is changing across the water. There was no evidence to support

that. What is the UK system? Scotland has its own examination is

body so therefore Scottish tutors that Scottish exams. England now

sits a different type of GCSE but GCSEs all the same. Wales have

followed staying with a start. So what is the UK system? We're dealing

now with changes that a devolved level. I can assure your viewers

that I've made changes only after careful consideration and

consultation and at each have ensure that our examinations will remain

and portable. The concern that some people have is

that the Northern Ireland exams body will now have a monopoly in the

system currently providing 75% of GCSEs but the point is that 25% are

provided by these other bodies. There will be a monopoly. If it

doesn't do a particular course then it is going to be virtually

impossible for schools to teach that in future.

I can assure schools that we will ensure that whatever courses are not

available currently, are to the Welsh examination body. We will

allow a period of transition for exams were there is no equivalent

currently on our curriculum and I will be setting out advice and

information to schools in the week ahead to ensure they have full

information and will be a translation period for a small

number of exams which currently we do not provide.

It is confusing. We will have another bet the system sitting side

by side with a numerical system. I have been dealing with schools and

principles and boards are governments of the last five years

and they are not as easily confuse some of the media may suggest they

are. Your point for staying with this

system is to keep it simple because you do not want to confuse people by

bringing in a numerical system. Now you are telling you that everyone is

big enough and able enough to understand what could be at a

confusing system. I'm talking about a very small

minority of subjects, perhaps in terms of some of the minority

languages. There was a very small range of subjects which may not be

provided immediately by us. It is going to be a bureaucratic

nightmare to sort this one out. It will not. It is not expensive. It is

not a bureaucratic nightmare. Exam boards including those referred to

as English exam boards over the next three years were changing the

specifications of their exams. We're changing the content of exams.

Schools were going through a period of change of the next three years

regardless of my decision. Examination bodies on a regular

basis will change content to ensure their exams are up to date and

robust. So programmes of change such as this, schools have went through

in the past. Peter where, who chairs the education committee, has called

on you to show common sense and make the necessary changes to help rescue

the situation. Why are you impervious to those

things that come from some of your political opponents and others?

Colourful language news we backed up. If Peter has evidence as to why

we should simply follow what is happening in the Department for

Education in England then he needs to produce it. I am concerned that

some are suggesting simply follow the changes in the Department for

Education in England because that is the way it has always happen.

You had you don't think the Department for England is thought

this through? They can their system if they

choose. I made changes and stayed with certain aspects of GCSEs in our

own system after cable consideration, after consultation

and ensuring that are exam system is robust and portable. Our GCSEs are

as worthwhile as any other part of England or Wales.

Are you in fact privately quite relaxed that saying the relaxing the

departure of the Bush boards from the stage?

No. The geographical location of what is known as the English wadding

borrowed these is immaterial. They could be located anywhere, the fact

of the matter is that for commercial reasons, they have decided to leave

our system because it no longer commercially suits them. That is

regrettable but it is not a disaster. They have not got us on

the hop and plans are in place. We will leave it there.

Thank you very much for joining us. Let's take a look at the political

week in 60 seconds. It was musical ministerial chairs at

Stormont this week as Peter Robinson stepped aside.

I hear Barry resigned the office of First Minister.

To make way for Arlene Foster who chaired an executive meeting with

ministers anxious to find solutions to the flooding problems.

I suggest that we should extend the hardship payments to nondomestic

properties. Martin McGuinness played the name

game. And is wondering what is coming

next. The First Minister says people have other concerns.

I don't think anybody is focused on what my relationship is with Martin

McGuinness. I think of August on what I'm doing people for Northern

Ireland. Join with me in helping that history

reflects that was the peak of the DUP's electoral successes.

The speaker had the last word. Wishful thinking.

Peter Robinson going out on a big laugh there. Let's hear the thoughts

of my guests, Patricia MacBride and Alex Kane. Let's talk about Arlene

Foster. She's had almost one week on the job of First Minister. Early

days obviously but how would you rate her performance so far?

It is worth bearing in mind she is entirely different to Ian Paisley

and Peter Robinson. I think that will help the DUP and make it easier

on the election campaign against the Ulster Unionists. But how big

problem remains the same problem that Paisley and Robinson had. It is

turning the better let -- turning the rhetoric into hard reality. They

failed to do that. Her opening speech and McGuinness's response to

that was we will work together if the people want us to work together.

We are but one to tetchy moment since then. That is what everyone is

now looking for. Can she make the difference that Robinson and Paisley

could not? It is interesting because never you

speak to her, she wants to play down the importance of that relationship

with Martin McGuinness at her success as First Minister will have

an off a lot to do with the success of that relationship.

That is a fact. The success of the relationship between the two parties

in terms of managing Government needs to be continued but the

dynamic of the relationship will change. In her interviews this week

she mentioned on a number of occasions the fact that she has

infinite patience and those traits that she will need. The other thing

about an Irish mother, as patient as she may be, she will also be fierce

when her patience is tried so it will be interesting to see who or

what drives her patience and how she reacts to it.

Do you think she can pick our way through the difficult territory that

is the decade I think it is a slightly stupid

response. The willingness to say she will talk about it. She has to put

good election results. If she does not nothing else matters.

We will talk to you later. Thanks very much indeed.

It is meant to be a flagship project to tackle unemployment. Now there is

confusion this week over which department is going to take charge

of it. You are both welcome to the programme. This programme is a

programme for Government commitment and you were a special adviser at

the time it was set up. You are one of its biggest champions. What has

gone wrong? I think there has been a lot of

negativity and criticism will stop I don't know if that is actually fair.

There is a lot of good news to be told about the social investment

fund programme. It has taken longer. The first thing to be clear about is

that it has taken longer than what politicians would have hoped for and

the First Minister would have hoped for but there is a good news story

in there. Whenever we were developing the fund we looked to

other countries for the types of programmes that can bring about

social change and one of the big things coming across was around

using programmes that were entirely community led and for the first time

it has not been done in Scotland or Ireland or England, Northern Ireland

is leading the way with this innovative programme which is

entirely community led. The problems identified with the community and

solutions are identified by the community.

It is fine in theory but the reality is very different. This is an ?80

million bun. It is all supposed to have been spent by now but you have

spent only 4 million. By the end of March you will spend 7 million so in

five years you will have spent less than 10% of what you should have

spent. That headline doesn't reveal the

true picture. ?60 million has been committed. What we need to

understand dot-mac it is a contractual commitment. At least

have the programme, runs over two to three years so at least have the

programme is funded. In my own constituency, employability south,

that is not a one-year programme. We don't want all that money spent

Ayrshire so it is a three-year programme. But that money is cool

fractionally committed. That is what community organisations want and

people on the ground want. It should've been spent on three

years up to now. It should not be starting to be spent at this point.

That is the whole thing. We talked to community workers on the ground

and they are pretty disenchanted with the whole system and feel like

they have been forced through hoops time and time again and the money is

in filtering through to them. It is an ambitious project and I

worked week on week talking to community organisations and talking

to people on the ground and I understand their frustration.

Politicians are being frustrated about the length of time it takes

but unfortunately there are a number of mechanisms that we need to go

through. There were 69 projects that came forward in terms of social

investment fund, and of those the writ huge clusters. One single

project have 13 different capital elements to that. I know you

yourself in terms of your charitable work have worked on some of those

big introduction cabinet projects and it takes a lot of time put up

how to go through design briefs, procurement, economists, it is very

challenging. But what I do know is it will be worth it at the end. What

communities will see is that those projects have fidelity to the

original concept that they came up with several years ago but they will

see that working and because of those safeguards, cause of the work

we are in and the good design of those projects I know they will

bring about tangible benefits on the ground reached outcomes we

originally wanted. Chris, do you accept that is the

case? OK, delivery has been badly. It actually broadly speaking, the

right things are being done and they are going to benefit the correct

people on the ground? I think the aims of tackling social

deprivation and dereliction in the community are reasonable aims. The

administration of the fund has been shambolic. The targets dot-mac the

pro-government targets was to spend ?80 million between 2011 and 2015.

And they made 2015 and ?1 million had been spent. That raises serious

questions at a time when families, businesses, public services, are

under real pressure. Why that money was not properly utilise other time

when the DUP and Sinn Fein have constantly talked about helping the

most abominable. Peter Robinson said the really is the main target broke

OFMDFM. That raises real questions as to why that has not been

achieved. Do you see this as nothing much more

than ?80 million experiment? I think it raises serious questions.

There have been Gateway reviews that have not been published so it not be

to see the full details of what went wrong in order to reflect on that.

There been some projects delivered but there have been people waiting

to deliver education programmes, childcare programmes, advice

centres, all of whom could use that money extremely effectively but they

have not had access to it. It is an interesting point that

Chris raises, Emma. We spoke to some of those groups that had been

bidding for this money over the last few years and they raised for those

issues like complaints from funding decisions being influenced by

paramilitaries, which they have grave concerns about. Driscoll horse

trading. Decisions made based on Sinn Fein and the DUP being kept

happy rather than need on the ground. Mystification as to why

money wasn't given to the DST when it has an neighbourhood renewal

strategy that could deliver this type of project. Judge that there's

a fair issue is a fair issues for groups and individuals to raise?

Absolutely no truth to the allegations around horse trading or

any kind of malignant influence. None at all. And what I would say

that we have a really good team of people working on this post just

this week we have at the chair of the OFMDFM clinging around very

insulting terms. Very good officials and working very hard. They're

working with the community. The easy route would have been to fire this

into an existing scheme but what we have done dot-mac would we have

achieved anything? If we're going to achieve better outcomes need to do

things differently. Even if it takes longer it is worth it. Better to

have the right project. How's that the case that originally

responsibilities were going to be transferred to the project of social

response Bertie there was announced by a senior official in your

department it was not happening any more? Why such a U-turn on that

issue? That comes down to one of the many

differences. This is a cross departmental skin. It does not fit

into the neat box of one department and that is why OFMDFM was behind it

in the first place. It deals with unity services, Chard and education,

these are not think that that within one department. This is a very much

a central scheme. It is not just in OFMDFM project and I believe it will

bring about changes to many more communities will stop what you make

but that policy change? My understanding was that the

delivery of social investment fund was supposed to be transferred to

the new Department of communities, the Department for social relevant

with experience in the delivery of the Stauber projects, there are

other programmes that have delivered in ways that the social investment

fund has not. The Department for employment has delivered 1300 new

university places, 40,000 young people into employment, and 4000

jobs to the assured skills programme as well. So there are other

departments using funds effectively to deliver positive outcomes for

people in Northern Ireland. The record on their social investment

fund is to be scrutinised. What do you say about what needs to

be done so that your confidence can the restored in the confidence of

community groups? I know you are involved in one group in particular

that is actually bidding for some of this funding so maybe you have a

feel of what it's like on the ground and stop what these redundant store

confidence? We need to see progress as soon as

possible in terms of clear communication to the community

groups who are involved in bidding for the fans, and we need to see

fund released to people on the ground start using them as

effectively as possible. Can that happen? It is happening.

Almost 700 people employed through our schemes and since I became

junior minister I have announced over ?16 million projects going out.

Delivery is ramping up and will be out there on the ground and it is

already happening within certain constituencies. I am absolutely

confident that in the course of the next few months all of the funding

will be committed. Many tens of thousands of people are going to

benefit from the scheme and whenever people setback they will say, this

was a good idea. The OFMDFM did something different and it was the

right thing to do because it is actually change things on the

ground. The cottages between it has been a

disaster and you clearly don't think there's been a disaster. Therefore

the only conclusion I can reach is that your role over optimistic about

what you could deliver within the timescale. Do you accept that as a

fair criticism? If the scheme are still bidding you can deliver the

money quickly to the people are needed you were hopelessly naive

about the time it was going to take you to do that.

We were overambitious by the done thing that is a bad thing. It will

happen, it is happening and I do think it will bring about benefits.

I think unfortunately it has clouded the success is within the scheme and

innovation within this team but think that these projects are out of

the ground people have the time to reflect and saved was a good thing.

It is different on what to do it again and I believe other

jurisdictions across the UK others will look to this to say, there are

some very good principles and here. Wider benefits.

Until all of the money is delivered there is a serious credibility issue

for the fund and for someone like yourself who has invested so much of

your personal time and effort in it. Part of that is the likes of myself

going out there and saying to people what this fund is about. People who

will be operating the skin will be saying to others about the success

of that but the best thing about this will be the people who benefit

from it and those people will notice a good thing and those people will

talk about is and monster schemes get up and running on the ground and

a lot of them are doing that. More will do that this year. All of those

tens of thousands of people will be selling this project saying it is as

excess and using it as an example moving forward.

We need to leave it there. We will continue to keep a close eye in the

months ahead. Let's take a final word with Patricia and Alex. Let's

talk about the social investment fund. There may have been a few

bumps on the road effectively is what MSN. At the end the day the

money will be delivered to the people who need it most.

The social investment fund was the peace dividend and the dividend

double not paid. This was announced in 2010 and a two to 2013 until we

had any idea about what schemes would be funded. There was huge

delay and that was the result of deciding how we going to fund

projects in Unionist areas or Nationalist areas that are most

deprived. There is no doubt that there was political disagreement on

the types of projects that were going to be funded and the knock-on

effect in community and voluntary sector organisations who have bid

for the standard was a loss of expertise. Projects tell by the

wayside because they were dependent on match funding. And when the

social investment did not come through then the other match funding

was withdrawn. Abel moved onto other roles. The key thing now is, if the

money is going to be committed in the next number of months as Emma

has said that it will be, that it is committed in such a way that the

expertise is not lost. That those projects can continue to deliver for

the benefit of the community but fundamentally, in the evaluation,

there needs to be some looks at where it has all gone wrong.

Alex, what is your investment and opinion on the success of the

scheme? Patricia is right. I've talked to

books on -- groups on both side. The funding has not be made available

and are no Emma says it is not a matter of horse trading but it is

hard to avoid the conclusion that somewhere between the DUP and Shin

Bender is disagreement about whether is money should go and I think they

need dot-mac we're talking a matter of weeks before an election when it

should be actually trumpeting the success of this money, they're still

saying, we're not quite sure when. Interesting discussion today. Thank

you very much indeed. That is it from all

Donald Trump is net damaging for the Scottish economy, but that is not

why I am saying he should be considered on the same basis as

everybody else. We have banned American shock jocks and MPs, not

necessarily on terrorism, Donald Trump is not on any of these things,

but making statements, in the words of the formulation, are not

conducive to the public interest. What did you get wrong, your

assessment of Donald Trump, or the size of an independent Scotland's

oil revenue? Eight years ago I would have found it difficult to know that

Donald Trump was going to run for president of the US. Most people

would have found that an incredible proposition. I was not to know he

would make a range of statements that are deeply offensive and deeply

not acceptable whether they apply to Mexicans all Muslims. Nor did I

anticipate he would only go forward with a 10th of the investment

promised. It is a yes or no, which? I did not anticipate any of these

things, Andrew. Thanks for joining us. You have won the prize for the

best ever backdrop to an interview down the line I have done. Alex

Salmond, thank you for joining us. Back to Europe, we are told I think

the Sunday Times and other papers that the Prime Minister is not going

to just get what he wants, he is going to pull rabbits out of a hat

and get more than we expect. We spent 2015 playing down

expectations. I remember number 10 enjoying it in November and December

when the Conservative leaning press was talking down the renegotiation

Cameron would achieve, they wanted to go into February with Tory

backbenchers and voters and members expecting really quite a paltry deal

from Brussels and Berlin. The rabbits he pulls out of his hat do

not have to be big, they can be medium-sized. They can still clear

the low hurdle that has been set for him. He has raised the bar by

talking about rabbits. So far this has gone exactly as I and many

others predicted. Cameron was always going to orchestrate it so it

sounded like it would be difficult and then he managed to get

concessions and then he gets something fantastic at the last

crucial moment! I think that leave, out campaign, the various campaigns,

have a challenge. Not to allow Tisch boaters to fall for these ruses and

there should be real scrutiny of what Cameron comes back with. --

allow voters. If you are the Prime Minister on the European project,

which I expect privately he wishes he did not kick off in the first

those, it looks good, it looks like he will get a deal. The potential

major deserters, we are told Michael Gove will stay, Nick Herbert forms a

Eurosceptic group to stay inside, and we see no sign of Boris Johnson,

Theresa May leading the out camp. If they do not do it, that is job done

for the Prime Minister. Yes, it is dangerous to predict, but the stars

seem to be coming together in a favourable way. I picked this up on

Thursday last week, essentially the Prime Minister would get something

on welfare that would be better on the four-year ban on in work

benefits. You could say pressure on public services is too great and we

need to limit migration. What is interesting is that potentially

means the four girls he wants, he could do better than that. It is

interesting because it now appears according to an opinion poll in the

Times newspaper, voters have clocked onto the negotiations and believed

they are for real and believe if the Prime Minister gets a good package,

there is a greater chance they will vote to stay in. All the detriment

-- diplomats who said he could not do this, he appears to have proved

them wrong. If it is going well for the Prime Minister, there are

opinion polls showing a majority to come out, today. I have learned my

lesson from the general election, which is not to believe polls and so

I do not think they are correct. They were right on the Scottish

referendum. You think the campaign is starting from behind? I do and I

think there is a danger as Nigel Farage touched upon, that voters

will think it is a giant stitch up if the political establishment, the

big figures we have talked about, are on one side, it does not look

like a balanced debate and it may backfire. Tomorrow, the equity

markets have had their worst start to the year since the crash. All

eyes will be on London and New York tomorrow. Should the government

prepare for a potential financial crisis? It is politically preparing

because George Osborne gave a speech ten days ago that was more negative

about the economic picture than the Autumn Statement in November. That I

think is laying the political ground if not for recession or crisis, then

slower growth than we were expecting. It looks worrying, the

Dow was down almost 500 points at one stage. That would be very bad

for George Osborne but there is an argument people will cling to him as

a future leader if times are tough. Some people saw that speech as the

beginning of Project Fear on the European referendum. Maybe he

believed it and he was telling us the warning lights were flashing. We

will see if there is a flight to British bonds. Keep your eye on the

markets tomorrow. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

at midday over on BBC Two, and I'll be back here,

same time, same place, Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.