20/03/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Iain Duncan Smith follows up his resignation with a blistering

attack on George Osborne, saying some of the Chancellor's

budget measures are deeply unfair and damaging to the country.

It's being seen as a direct attack on Chancellor Osborne -

are his leadership hopes now holed below the waterline?

And with ministers now close to civil war over IDS's resignation,

And coming up here: With the Easter Rising

commemorations just one week away, I'll be asking the Justice Minister

for his assessment of the legacy of the rebellion 100 years on.

But with questions over who pays, is the

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

panel in the business - Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott

and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme

So, George Osborne unveiled a Budget which he hoped

would satisfy the Tory faithful, generate a feel-good factor

in the run up to the EU referendum and enhance his own leadership

That strategy started to come off the rails within 24 hours

as the Chancellor faced Tory revolts on four fronts.

And was blown to smithereens on Friday night when welfare

secretary Iain Duncan Smith resigned over savings to disability payments.

This morning open warfare is breaking out

We'll be devoting the next half hour to this story,

with analysis and comment from Nick, Isabel and Janan and interviews

with the shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith,

the Conservative backbencher Heidi Allen, and the head

of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson.

First, Giles Dilnot reports on the very public falling out

at the top of David Cameron's government.

When the Chancellor gets badly hurt in an attack from his own side,

we shouldn't be surprised where it came

Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne whenever was buddies

and they are on the opposite sides of the EU

But for nearly six years, they've worked together

in government, delivering welfare reform and savings.

Last July, when the Chancellor announced the living

Those currently on the minimum wage will see that pay rise

And whilst in polling, there was popular support

for balancing the books and reforming welfare,

there was also angry protest, especially from disabled people,

who passionately believed they had been targeted

The deepest wound a Work and Pensions

Secretary could inflict on his own governments,

On Wednesday we were touted a budget that would be dull,

Nonetheless, the Chancellor and wannabe PM was

The richest 1% pay 28% of all income tax revenue,

a higher proportion than in any single year

But not so for many disabled people and enough Tory MPs,

of State for Work and Pensions, set out changes that will ensure

that within the rising disability budget, support is better

It was a confirmation of changes that just 48 hours later would see

a resignation letter from the man the Chancellor was referring to,

questioning if enough is being done to ensure

These were changes to personal independence payments that have

replaced disability living allowance, that would make it more

likely large numbers of recipients got less money,

and in some cases much less, in future.

Something he regarded as a compromise too far.

According to Mr Duncan Smith, the changes had demanded because too

much emphasis on money-saving exercises and that his welfare

to work reforms could not be repeatedly

By this weekend, the government's unofficial paramedic

was dispatched to patch up the internal wounds,

Mr Duncan Smith's literary cuts had inflicted.

by the whole Cabinet on Wednesday morning before the Chancellor

And he was obviously part of that process.

These proposals came from his department.

And the PM's response to the letter stressed...

In the hours after the budget, amid angry

rumblings from the backbenches, suddenly the government

where describing and announced policy

Something that has been put forward, there has been a review,

And the suggestion the next day from the PM

We are going to discuss what we put forward

with the disability charities and others, as the Chancellor said

It is important this increase in money

goes to the people who need it the most.

The problem is, the internal party concerns were that it looked

like money was going to those that didn't need it most.

The headline rate of capital gains tax currently stands at 28%.

I am cutting the capital gains tax paid by basic rate

Iain Duncan Smith said the disability

reforms couldn't be defended within a budget that benefits

I'm told this was the most toxic aspect for a large number

And that he was not the only conservative in government

who'd considered resignation over this.

But not everyone was sorry to see him go.

The problems have been at the heart of the DWP.

I do not see eye to eye with the Treasury,

I'm not the Chancellor's biggest supporter,

shall we say, but the reality is, in all the experiences I've had,

the problems have been with an evangelical point of view,

They have consistently failed disabled people

As Stephen Crabb takes on work and pensions,

But clearly the quiet man reflected if

you're going to turn up the volume at all,

best rattle the windows of Downing Street.

A war of words has now broken out in Iain Duncan Smith's

old department, with one junior minister accusing him

of "shocking" behaviour, but three other ministers rounding

Mr Duncan Smith gave his first post-resignation interview to Andrew

Anybody who thinks this is a here today, gone tomorrow

I am genuinely frustrated, I have no personal ambitions. If I never go

back into government again, I will not cry about that, it is not my

ambition. I came into this government, and let me be clear, I

came into this government because I cared about welfare reform. I spent

eight years in social justice trying to figure out why certain

communities were so badly off and how could we get them back to work

and solve that one. Everything I have done has been driven by my

desire to improve the quality of life for the worst. We can debate my

policies, but my motivation has always been a bad back. My motive

now, I am concerned that I want to succeed and it cannot do the things

it should because it is too focused on narrowly getting the deficit down

without saying where it should for. Minutes later the energy

secretary Amber Rudd, popped up to attack her former

cabinet colleague - saying she resents Mr Duncan Smith's

"high moral tone". I do remain perplexed. It indicated

he was making progress. He wrote a letter on Thursday night saying what

he was doing and why we should support it. So I don't understand. I

do remain perplexed about it, but I am disappointed. This is an man I

sat a cabinet with for nearly a year. He was a cabinet minister for

nearly six years. I do respect him, so to suddenly launch a bombshell on

the rest of us in a way that is difficult for us all to understand,

is disappointing. It is the Tory party now in open welfare and it is

not easily quelled? If Amber Rudd is perplexed, it is a dereliction of

duty on her part to understand what has been going on in her own

Administration. In a way, there is nothing sudden about this for Iain

Duncan Smith, it has been brewing for a long time. She has known that.

He has been rustling for a long time whether he can do better, staying

where he is and operating within the difficult constraints the Treasury

has imposed on him. Or whether he is better off out and saying what he

really thinks. That is what tipped him over the edge. The Downing

Street strategy is to paint Iain Duncan Smith as a kind of,

head-banging Eurosceptic and try to pretend it is all about the EU

referendum. I don't think anyone who watched Iain Duncan Smith this

morning giving that powerful interview to Andrew Marr, could

really doubt that what this is about is Iain Duncan Smith's real desire

to do the right thing by the disadvantaged. The rest is just

noises off. When you look at some of these clips come he comes out

against the welfare cap, to arbitrate. If you are sitting in the

Labour Party right now, you will be cutting up that interview and

pouring it out at every opportunity. This story will go on and on? I

interviewed Iain Duncan Smith about two months after the 2010 election.

He said if George Osborne wants me to be a cheese parer and do

arbitrate cuts, I will be out. Isabel says commie has been rustling

for six years with this. He came into this after the visit to the

Easterhouse estate in Glasgow. He had in Europe and championed the

vulnerable. He came to it with a mission to try and increase

incentives for the low paid combat to work. To George Osborne,

it is the bottom line. But it is combat to work. To George Osborne,

going to go away, you have the extraordinary spectacle of three

going to go away, you have the pretty Patel included, putting out

statements in pretty Patel included, putting out

Duncan Smith. And you have the pensions minister delivering a

Downing Street script saying this is about Europe, even though there is

not a word about Europe in Iain Duncan Smith's statement. Ross

Altman, who was unhappy with Downing Street and the Treasury on the

pension changes coming out and delivering what Downing Street one.

It is a mess and it shows the normal discipline you would expect in

government really is a challenge but the referendum. It is over the

George Osborne? If wasn't on the budget. Tax credits last summer,

reversal on pension reforms this year. And now this, you cannot

deliver but on Wednesday which is just a proposition by Thursday

evening and by Friday evening provokes a senior Cabinet colleagues

resignation. It is bad for him. stun them month after a general

election Monday, ... And start with them all going in different ways

during the referendum, it could get worse. They need this referendum out

of the way as quickly as possible. They

of the way as quickly as possible. would suggest, with the remaining

of the way as quickly as possible. this. In four years' time, at a

general election will this. In four years' time, at a

George Osborne's leadership chances? Quite possibly.

George Osborne's leadership chances? Chancellor will put this back

together again Chancellor will put this back

campaign. It might not just Chancellor will put this back

Osborne's future on the line, it Chancellor will put this back

could be the Prime Minister's the Chancellor's fate if tied

could be the Prime Minister's the to make the Conservatives

could be the Prime Minister's the again. It George Osborne goes down,

David Cameron's position is again. It George Osborne goes down,

And don't forget Cameron has never at this point,

ever, he ain't controlling it. As we know, these things have a life of

their own, so it should keep us Iain Duncan Smith's resignation has

been simmering for some time but it was triggered by plans

to make cuts to disability benefits A few days before George Osborne's

budget, the government previewed plans to change the way claimants

were assessed for certain disability benefits, saving ?1.3 billion a

year. The office of budgetary responsibility said the changes to

the personal independence payments, or Pips, would adversely affect

370,000 people by 2020. The amount of Paire pick a person receives is

decided by awarding points based on need -- the amount of PIP. Grab

rails, personal toilet seats, arguing people would audit have

these items. Iain Duncan Smith resigned, saying the changes were

not responsible. Replying to the resignation, the Prime Minister said

it had now been agreed not to proceed with the policies in their

current form. But that wasn't the only major criticism levelled at

George Osborne's budget. The Chancellor confirmed he will miss

Fiorentina of his three fiscal rules. Next financial year, welfare

bill cost almost ?120 billion, well over the cap of ?115 billion, which

he introduced himself to restrict overall welfare spending. And he

also broke his debt rule, which promised that national debt would

decline every year as a proportion of national income. This financial

year, total debt is expected to be 83.7% of GDP, up from 83.3% in

2014-15. We did ask the Government for

an interview about the disability But we were told no

one was available. It's a familiar refrain these days,

especially when the government I'm joined now by the head

of the Institute for Welcome to the programme. It looks

like the government is making a U-turn on these cuts to disability

payments, how big a haul does that blow in the Chancellor's efforts to

get a budget surplus by 2020? The truth is we are talking very small

numbers in the context of ?800 billion a year or so of spending.

The Chancellor is aiming for nearly a billion pound surplus, he doesn't

get this, it takes just down to under ten, so in that sense it

doesn't matter all that much to his target the 2020. But he has already

inked in 3.5 billion of unspecified cuts, we don't know what they would

be to get this surplus, but there are about eight or 9 billion of

watch some might call jiggery-pokery, cuts to public

investment in the final year, and now this. It must make it more

difficult for them. There are all sorts of things in the budget aimed

at that particular year. Numbers are being moved around and there are

some unspecified spending cuts. It is important to see this in the

broader context. Unless something awful happens, we will get close to

a budget balance in 2019-20, which given that we were over 150 billion

in deficit in 2010, the biggest deficit in his time that we have

had, to get from their too close to surplus will be quite an

achievement. Economically and politically understand it matters

enormously, but economically, the difference between a ?10 billion

surplus and the deficit is almost hear the dash-mac when neither here

nor there. The Treasury would expect that

department to find ?1.3 billion elsewhere, is that right? Not

necessarily, this is unlike the health budget or the education

budget, it is determined by the demands on the budget. So I think if

they don't put these changes in, the presumption will be at least that

the spending will still be in the budget. The day after the budget,

you said the Chancellor had only a 50-50 chance of filling his surplus

in 2020. Would you like to recalibrate these odds? It is a

relatively small change in the context of where we are, still a

50-50 shot. The thing that will determine it is much less changes of

this kind and parsley more what happens to the economy, whether the

economy does better or worse than currently expected. In many ways,

the most important thing we learned on Wednesday is that the O BR has

much less optimistic about the economy, and therefore we will all

be worse off than we thought we were going to be. The Treasury, as Iain

Duncan Smith has been saying, has been clawing away at working age

benefits the years, for him this was the final straw. But isn't that

inevitable, if you have a government who ring fences pensions and the

NHS, the only big travel figure spending line is welfare? If you are

looking, like the government has been common to really dramatically

reduce the deficit significantly, you are not going to avoid doing

things on the welfare side. Much more than ?100 billion was spent on

just working age welfare, covered by that welfare cap, which is far more

than we spend on almost anything else, apart from health service and

pensions. But the Chancellor has created this fiscal position. Even

though it was weaker, he cut business rates, he cut corporation

tax, capital gains tax, he raised the personal allowance, and he

raised 40p income tax threshold. He didn't have to do any of that. Even

if he had done only some of that, he would not have had to look for these

cuts in disability for study has made that himself will stop you are

right, she didn't have to make any of those changes, but it was very

clearly in the Conservative manifesto to increase the personal

allowance. So presuming that he would have kept the manifesto

changes, he would have had to have done that, and has to do quite a lot

more route. Cutting those taxes clearly means you have to do some

other things to maintain his target. But he didn't have to do them. Also,

perhaps his leadership tensions did play a part. There were two major

areas where they could have raised a lot of money, pension reform, by

taking away the top tax-free, which could have saved billions, and

raising the fuel duty. If you don't visit now, when will you? Both could

have raised billions and he chose not to do it. Those are two very

different kinds of things. Yes, you are right, it is astonishing with

petrol prices at their lowest level for a very long time, chatty on

petrol at its lowest level since the mid-19 90s, the cost of driving a

car at its lowest level for perhaps 30 years. If you can't increase fuel

duties even then, that is a long-term problem for the Treasury,

because it brings in a lot of money, ?30 billion a year, and if that goes

it is a real problem. On pension tax will if it is a much more complex

issue. There are good economic arguments, for maintaining it as we

have at the moment, and had you got rid of that 40% relief, you would

have hit the 5 million or so people who pay 40% tax, it would have been

another slice of the population rather unhappy. The national debt,

not the deficit, will be 1.7 4 trillion by 20 20. If the government

was then to run a surplus of say 10 billion a year for ten years, which

would be unprecedented in British government, after a decade, the debt

would still, by my simple rhythmic calculation, the ?1.64 trillion. Is

that what you mean by economically irrelevant in running a surplus? The

key point about the size of the debt is it is size as a fraction of

national income. More important than the absolute level. As the -- even

running a surplus of 10 billion or so a year, you don't get too

prerecession levels of debt until the mid 2030s. The argument the

Chancellor would make the running a surplus year after year is that even

if you just run a balanced budget, it takes

Owen Smith, in his resignation undo the damage that the crisis

Owen Smith, in his resignation letter, Iain Duncan Smith

Owen Smith, in his resignation protection of pensions. Do you agree

with that? I don't think that should be the first thing

with that? I don't think that should all, Andrew. I think the very clear

message that Iain Duncan all, Andrew. I think the very clear

himself has delivered is their word choices that could have been made in

the budget, and the Chancellor made them and he made the wrong ones

coming chose to cut the benefits from disabled people. As we have

heard, the PIP cuts taking many thousands of pounds away from the

370,000 people, and instead he chose that he was going to cut corporation

tax, which he -- is going to benefit large countries in this country, and

he chose to cut capital gains large countries in this country, and

which were largely benefit people who have got a bit of money. So I

think there were different changes he could have made even within the

terms of this budget that would have been much fairer. I understand that,

but which are nevertheless have thinks it the benefits? -- ring

fenced? We need to look at all these things long-term, but it would be

for a Labour government when we get closer to the next election to the

absolute specifics on all of those pension benefits, but by and large,

let's be clear. The last Labour government worked incredibly hard to

raise pensioners out of poverty. We were incredibly successful in that

regard, a million pensioners lifted out of poverty under the last Labour

government and I don't think they ought to be the target for cuts,

just as I don't believe that disabled people ought to be. There

are myriad other choices the government could have taken. Iain

Duncan Smith today I think has been very honest in explaining how George

Osborne could have taken different choices, should have done, and in

his words he is dividing Britain, moving away from any notion of us

all being in it together. But you are committed to balancing current

spending, but if you have ring fenced pensions, as you have told us

this morning, presumably you would ring fence the NHS, or even add to

spending in the NHS, and you want to ring fence nearly all of welfare as

well. Where do the cuts come from the balance current spending? I have

just given you two, let's be very specific, Labour would be saying

today if it were our budget, that we would not have done the cuts to

corporation tax, that would have given us in year ?600 million, and

we would not have done the cut to capital gains tax, that would give

us another ?600 million. That nets off the PIP cuts annually, the ?1.2

billion, and there are other similar choices we could look at. We would

not have taken corporation tax back to 19%. We would have been taking

far more from large multinational companies than this government is.

So far you have given me 1.2 billion, but you have announced much

more than that in spending plans. So I am not quite clear how it is you

would balance current spending, because I think we can both agree an

extra 1.2 billion went to do it, will it? No, but a corporation tax

alone by 2020 would be giving us ?2.5 billion, if we were to revert

back to the April 2015 rate of 20%. We would still have a corporation

tax in this country that was 10% lower than Germany, 15% lower than

America, 10% lower than Australia. It would be an extremely competitive

rate of tax. I just highlight that ?1 billion example, ?3 billion

example, how we would make different choices. Right, but as I say, in

many of your spending plans you have already spent that sort of money.

You also talk about fair taxes, you would not cut the corporation tax

any further, what else to you mean by fair taxes? What would you raise

by fair taxes? As I said a minute ago, we can't for years out from a

budget before, a pre-election budget from Labour, tell you precisely what

all of our spending plans will be, I don't think that is a reasonable

thing to ask any opposition government to do but I think we are

setting very clear indicators about what we think the benefits would be.

Give us another example. It is reflective of our belief that those

who have the largest amounts of money ought to bear the largest

burden in our society. It is unclear whether that raises you very much.

The government's own analysis showed there was ?3 billion forgone in

cutting that top rate of tax. I now see they are trying to argue they

have somehow applied a famous curve and ?8 billion they have made. I

think corporation tax shows you very clearly, corporation tax receipts

have been flat, they have managed to cut from 28% to 20% in the last six

years, and the amount of receipts we are getting in has gone from 43

billion to 43 billion. Investment has decreased.

What are used to call sickness benefit comes to over 50 billion

pounds a year. You would leave it untouched? No, we want to reform the

system. Take for example, Iain Duncan Smith made a lot about

universal credit this morning. He has said George Osborne has stripped

out the guts of universal credit. I was asking about disability? Some

people who are disabled will be in receipt of universal credit. What

would you do about the disability 50 billion pounds annual budget? We

wouldn't be making the changes the current government are proposing.

They are lying to the British public about this, spending on the disabled

is increasing. If you take all disability benefits, I am publishing

figures today that say it has declined around 60% that the

government have already cut disabled benefits. -- 6%. That will not be my

target. Would you keep this increase in the threshold for people who

enter the 40% tax bracket? Yes, we would keep that. It is fair to say

the fiscal drag of people being pulled into the 40p rate has been

increasing. I think we will need to reform taxation much more

fundamentally. I still think the key thing today is we have got to

understand George Osborne is the man in the dock. I am going to have to

stop you there. We look forward to talking to you in the future about

your plans for tax reform. Now let's go to the Conservative MP who has

spearheaded the back bench opposition to George Osborne's tax

cuts. Was a Iain Duncan Smith right to resign? He was coming he had

reached a point where he had had enough of the purse strings being

pulled so he couldn't deliver the welfare reform he wanted to. He had

no option. Mr Cameron says he is puzzled by the resignation and the

position of the government on these welfare reforms and cuts had been

collectively agreed. I am learning, I am still a relatively new MP. You

can keep your powder dry for so long, you are convinced by the whips

that this is the right thing to do. Your conscience will kick in, it did

for me last year over tax credits. The rumblings are more open this

year than they were last year over tax credits. Iain Duncan Smith

looked around him and saw many MP is saying how unhappy they were and he

couldn't proceed any longer. Would you have been one of the rebels if

the government had proceeded with what was in

the government had proceeded with the years has presided over a number

of cuts to welfare. Now he is resigning

of cuts to welfare. Now he is going to happen,

of cuts to welfare. Now he is The first thing to say, I cannot

of cuts to welfare. Now he is happened. I have had no letter or

e-mail coming from the Treasury saying we

e-mail coming from the Treasury again. A lot of what has been cut

from Iain Duncan Smith's point of view, so the tax credit taper rate,

universal taper rate, PIP, it has been coming thick and fast. He has

had to deliver what it was revolutionary welfare reforms. He

wanted to do them the right way. Everything I talked about in my

maiden speech about doing it gently and allowing the minimum wage to

rise. The Treasury whole the purse strings and they stopped him

delivering the policies the way he wanted to.

delivering the policies the way he tax credits, which was a move

delivering the policies the way he take away some welfare benefits from

delivering the policies the way he the working poor, is it not puzzling

the Chancellor then moved in to an even more difficult group to deal

with, in terms of taking things away, into the disabled and seem to

have learned nothing from the tax credit U turn? I guess we will see

in the days and weeks to come. It is not just PIP, you will remember the

extra payment given to claimants who not just PIP, you will remember the

had been ill for a long time and were returning to work. I voted

against that also. I hope Stephen Crabb, the new Secretary of State

will have a conversation with the Treasury and this will be brought to

the table. We have made some poor decisions. Some of the areas of

taxation we have opted for instead, are wrong. It doesn't send the right

message that as a Conservative Party we can look after everybody in

society. It is only the Conservatives who can, because we do

need the strong economy to deliver any of this. But it has got to come

back to the table and we have got to start again. Is it your view it

wouldn't be enough just to tinker with what the government was

planning to do with the personal mobility independent payments and do

what it did with tax credits, which was to scrap what it was planning to

do and start again? I have spoken to a lot of disability charities. I am

putting myself through and Mark PIP assessment because I want to feel

what it is like. It just doesn't work that so many groups of ill and

disabled people. Tinkering with two tiny point isn't good enough. We

need to look at the whole process and start from scratch and work with

these charities, who understand the pressures put on these people so we

have a system that works for them. Your party is in open warfare this

morning, you have a resignation and people are referring to you as the

nasty party. How big a crisis is this for the Conservatives? I have

been thinking about this this morning. I am trying to keep my own

wooden spoon in my kitchen drawer. I think, in a funny sort of way,

because there has been so much focus on the EU, this might lead the sense

check we need. All MPs are good people trying to do the best they

can. This could be the slap to the face we all need that says hang on,

get back together and sort ourselves out. We are the party that should be

looking after people. In fact, I think it could bring us together. If

you are to be brought together for a fresh start from tax credit to

disability payments, is George Osborne still the right Chancellor

to do it? It depends how he responds to the challenge. I am hoping so.

The jury is still out? Yes. Are his chances to be Prime Minister below

the water line? Sometimes the strength of a man is how he picks

himself up from a fall. So let's see how he responds. If this is

attempted to be brushed under the carpet, I think his chances are

over. If he lets himself up and shows he is listening, making

mistakes is OK, providing you correct them before they affect

people. He did that with tax credits. Some ways it was a big

thing because it would have affected millions and millions of people. But

we need to wait and see what he is going to do with this. Your wooden

spoon is always welcome on this programme.

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

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

100 years on from the Easter Rising, the effects of that rebellion

are still being felt in the form of a threat from dissidents.

I'll be asking the Justice Minister, David Ford, for his assessment.

And rebellion at Westminster over disability benefits.

How might changes hit claimants here?

Algae asking a leading benefits expert to explain.

And with their thoughts throughout, I'm joined by Brian Feeney

In one week's time, the centenary of the Easter Rising will be

commemorated in an official ceremony in Dublin.

Dignitaries from across the island have been invited to

However, the centenary has also prompted concerns that dissident

republicans will intensify their violence, as we've already

seen with the murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay.

With me now is the Justice Minister, David Ford.

How concerned are you that the dissidents will strike again

Since I became ministers six years ago, the threat has always been

severe against police and prison officers, so in that sense, it is

not particularly different. But we do know certain people hang things

on anniversaries and those are a particular concern for the next week

or so. How could you ever manage

to persuade people who feel they are carrying on in

the footsteps of the 1916 rebels that, a century on,

they've got it badly wrong? I'm not sure it is possible to

dissuade those who continued those actions. What we saw on Good Friday

1998 was a fairly significant number of those who previously supported

file and action against the state ends that. It has been messy and

edgy, but we have seen the great majority of Republicans except the

arrangements from Good Friday. But small numbers did not. They seem to

be more welded to the struggle than any possible outcome. It is

absolutely clear that the actions coming out, including murderers,

make no difference to the way Northern Ireland has run and a make

no difference to the constitutional arrangement with the UK and Ireland

and are simply causing terror and threat and anguish. In the meantime,

it looks as if prison officers in particular are vulnerable in our

society. Prison and police officers are under particular threat. There

is no doubt that will continue to be the case if dissident is continue to

pose those kind of threats and continue to carry on in the way they

are doing. There is a particular concern, and the prison service does

what it can to assist people in providing protection to homes. Is

enough being done or should more be done, given what the threat is?

Bill-mac I see a very significant effort put in to provide that level

of protection. But clearly that also relies on individuals and how they

look after themselves. It can never be 100% guaranteed.

How do you think Easter 1916 should be marked?

I think it is interesting when you see marked. What we see are some

people wanting to celebrate and others wanting to mark. I have

received an invitation to go to O'Connell Street on Easter Sunday,

which I have declined. I explained when I wrote back I did not think it

was appropriate for somebody in my decision to take part in a ceremony

which was directly linked to that particular act of violence. Just the

same as I took no part in any celebration for the Ulster covenant

three years ago, even though my grandfather was one of many

thousands of people who signed it. I do think it is appropriate we use

this as a time for reflection. There are other events over the next few

weeks which I will which take a more rounded approach.

We talk about the journey from which take a more rounded approach.

rebellion to reconciliation. It is entirely appropriate we

rebellion to reconciliation. It is that. We should recognise the

rebellion to reconciliation. It is relationships which has existed

rebellion to reconciliation. It is the last 18 years. Are you

rebellion to reconciliation. It is the formal event on the day itself

in Dublin the formal event on the day itself

complexity of what happened 100 years ago, so much so

be uncomfortable being there? I would be uncomfortable at an event

like that. I have no problem recognising what happened on the

whole issue of the ways relationships have

whole issue of the ways was an invitation to attend a

centenary Celbridge in the First World War, you can see that as a

movement into a democracy. My problem is that people who murdered

Adrian Ismay, the people who murdered David Black and others, the

people who murdered the two officers, would all claim to be the

direct inheritors of Easter 1916 and I cannot associate myself with that.

Some people equate Easter 1916 with the Battle of the Somme in terms of

historical significance. If you would feel uncomfortable formerly

commemorating Easter 1916, would you be comfortable formerly

commemorating the Battle of the Somme? You save some people

associate them and I do not think that is true. There is no

equivalence. Ten years ago, I attended the ceremony which the

Irish state attended the ceremony which the

of the Battle of the Somme, marked the sacrifice of many thousands of

Irishmen, North and south. I think that is very different. Frankly,

some of these events... Looking at the Easter Rising, it's as if only

those who bid involved for those who were engaged in

those who bid involved for those who to civilians, police also, never

made British soldiers. It is certainly a complex issue.

The Attorney General, John Larkin, has said the Easter Rising

was profoundly wrong and undemocratic.

I think all the evidence at the time, until the point when the

British general ordered executions, I think all the evidence was

regarded as undemocratic by the great

regarded as undemocratic by the whatever part of Ireland they came

from, whether nationalist or unionist. The question that needs to

be asked, and I am interested to hear your answer.

Are you uncomfortable with elected politicians in the Republic,

representing a 21st-century western democracy, celebrating an armed

I think there is a problem if you celebrate the insurrection in a way

which doesn't mark all the events associated with it. And it does seem

to be that some of the event is being run are celebrating the rising

rather than looking at the totality of relationships. I can accept there

are lots of complexities. Three years ago, the Queen stood and bowed

her head before a monument, so I can accept that there has been a

significant degree of reconciliation between the two islands, between

North and south as well. But I think there is real difficulty if the

state is putting a very significant part of its effort into marking the

efforts of those who engaged in violence when there was a

democratically available, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority

of Irish people, and doesn't actually recognise in some of the

key events, the totality of what happened and the totality of

suffering. Have you formally committed to taking part in any

events which will mark that? Yes, there are a couple of events coming

up on the two weekends after Easter. There is an issue of the opening of

the war memorial. There are a variety of issues which seemed to be

looking at the totality of what happened rather than celebrating the

specific act. What actually happened on Easter Monday in the month of

April, and not Easter Sunday, on the month of March. You're coming to the

end of your time as Justice Minister. You will not upload your

name to go forward for the position in the new mandate. What do you

regard as the successes of your six years in charge? I said in my party

conference speech a couple of weeks ago that I thought we had seen more

reform in the last six years than any previous 16 or possibly 26. I

believe that is true. Issues like prison reform and youth justice

reform, issues of legal aid reform, which simply left to withdraw. That

has now been tackled. We have seen huge changes and there is a lot to

be done, particularly around prisons, but what I was able to do

is announce the later stage of the study relating to youth justice and

get massive agreement around the Chamber on almost everything on how

we stop young people getting sucked into a culture of criminality and

how we get them out of the system at the earliest possible stage. That is

a very different situation from the political views six years ago. It

has not all been a success. If you could put a finger on your key

failings, what would they be? Come on, mobility vision will do that. I

might say I regret that so much takes so long, because we have

lengthy consultation processes. We have not moved as fast as we would

have wished on some of those reforms. I think those are the kind

of problems you see. But what I think we have done is set the tone

for saying justice has actually been operated successfully for six years

and will continue to be a part of devolution. The pace is the problem,

but the reality is the successful stop but we are not yet ready for a

DUP or Sinn Fein Justice Minister? The minister will have to be

elected, but I get the impression that some people are still looking

to Alliance. Thank you very much indeed for joining us for now.

Let's see what our guests make of it, Brian Feeney and Felicity

Brian, let's talk about 1916 first of all. It is hugely complex. What

do you make of what David Ford has just said and the distinctions he

has brought out? It is making it over complicated. The reason it has

been marked and celebrated, whatever, on Easter Sunday and

Easter Monday. And I was there on Easter Monday making a speech on the

forecourt, along with other people... It is the origins of the

state and it is a bit pious to produce modern ideas about democracy

and freedom and all the rest of it and exported them back one century.

The United States celebrates an armed resurrection against Britain,

1775-1776 full stop they are happy to do that. There are massive

bicentennial celebrations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. All

over the world, could have state 's which threw off empires at the

beginning of the 20th century. And they all celebrate getting rid of

the empires, whether it is the British, French, the Austrian

Empire. There was actually a lot of support in Ireland for the

Bulgarians trying to overthrow the Turks and the Russians at exactly

the same time. So when the Attorney General John Larkin says that

looking at 1916, you have individuals of huge moral worth and

capable of self-sacrifice, doing something that was profoundly wrong.

You disagree? Quite often, the Attorney General is profoundly

wrong, but never in doubt. Sorry expat I would be very curious to see

if Brian get a letter in the post tomorrow from the Attorney General's

Office for that. The thing I have found fascinating about the 1916 and

all the fuss is I have learned a lot. I knew all about the causes of

the First World War in school, more than 1916 and the rising. I just

knew something had happened in Dublin. The British had, as usual,

mishandled, and the outcome of that was the Irish free State. Now that

you know, would you become double going along as Brian's guest to take

part in those celebrations next week and? I would be curious to go along.

I would see as being something that I didn't understand much of. But you

do not feel threatened by it? It is so long ago and there has been such

a change in our relationship with the Irish Republic that what is

happening this time around will be different, I hope, from what

happened in 1966. You have got a willing guest. Very quickly, what

about the fact, and this is a serious point, that there are some

people who still use what happened 100 years ago as a reason for what

they see as unfinished business today? That is right, and they try

to use what happened in 1916 to legitimise their actions today. But

they are a tiny minority. They have no support and cannot get anyone

elected, and actually, no one knows what they want. It is not a case of

saying they want a united Ireland. No one knows what they want. We will

talk to you again very shortly. Thank you both for now.

The resignation of Ian Duncan Smith from the Cabinet has ensured that

planned changes to disability benefits are going to stay

Mr Duncan Smith says the changes are unfair,

but his opponents say he's standing down because he wants Britain

Here he is explaining to Andrew Marr this morning why he resigned.

Pressure began to grow because this pressure was about the budget and

the problem over the revised figures for the Budget. What worried and

concerned me was we then came under pressure to put the consultation out

and respond to it before the Budget, and I always hoped we would do that

afterwards so as not get caught up in the Budget. This was supposed to

be part of the process in the category can best aid those in need.

And that pressure really was to get out a definitive definitive answer

only consultation. There were lots of arguments and debates about that.

Downing Street and the Treasury wanted the extensive set of changes.

We argued first of all for no change at this point. And we wanted to

ensure that if we did, we wanted a smaller level of change, but most

importantly, to continue the dialogue and not have a fixed point.

So how will the proposed benefits changes, which are designed

to save ?4 billion, affect people here, especially given our previous

With me now is the benefits expert, Professor Eileen Evason.

Welcome to you. Thank you for being here. It does seem to be

unbelievably complicated. What do you make of the row that has never

engulfed the Government after Mr Duncan Smith's sudden departure? It

is very confusing. In Northern Ireland we do have a strategy from

energy on welfare reform. On Wednesday, I thought we might have

to go back and crunch the numbers. We would have to check if that was

robust enough to take the changes proposed by the Government. What

they were doing was PIP, we benefit that has replaced the older one for

those of working age. We must have certain points to qualify. They want

to adjust the systems will people scored fewer points and get less

benefit or might fall out of benefit altogether. We have to look at that

and see if we can accommodate that. But we are two years behind the

situation. There might be a case of defending that because we are a

different state. However, as I was thinking that, the whole thing

seemed to fall to pieces. Initially, had a number of Conservative MPs

unhappy about it. It doesn't look nice to be seen to be cutting

benefits for vulnerable or disabled people. At the same time giving tax

cuts to those who are better off. We had Ian Duncan Smith's resignation

after that. This is added confusion. To say that he is resigning because

he is not happy about the fact George Osborne is being nasty to

people on disabilities and cutting their benefits is frankly... It is a

laugh. He has presided over numerous cuts and things that have made

people's lives, if they are disabled, much more difficult. That

is why it is so hard to get welfare reform sorted here. People were

watching what was happening there and were alarmed. So you have

suspicions about his reasons were leaving in the first place? I think

it may be tied up in the issue of the EU. He was to be fighting for

Brexit. Alongside that, he has tried to do damage to Cameron and Osborne.

Maybe he has worked out that Osborne is not going to take over from

Cameron. The person who may do so is Boris Johnson. I think there is a

whole lot going on. Unfortunately, this is not about benefits, I

suspect, and we be dragged into a much broader issue. Ian Duncan Smith

denies it has anything to do with the EU, but some say he would say

that. The shadow secretary made an interesting point. You have said

this is about real people and real issues. In terms of them surviving.

He said he suspects Mr Osborne plays politics with the lives of

vulnerable people. Is that what this is about? Yes, I remember when I was

doing interviews in 2010, 2011, we got to grips with the volume of cuts

announced by the coalition, mainly the Conservative Government, and

that concern was that the difficulty with deficit was caused by the

bankers. We could not understand why the cost of clearing up that mess

should fall under people in the bottom half of our society.

Osborne's strategy was either about dealing with the deficit or it was

about a cover for an agenda to shrink the state. If we see what has

happened to local government and benefits, there is a suspicion that

is what it has been about. But real people have been damaged by this.

And real people watching this may be do not know what is happening. And

you wonder if members of the Cabinet know quite what is happening. It

does seem that the changes were announced in the Budget for what...

Ian Duncan Smith resign. The issue on which he resigned has now been

kicked into the long grass. We do not know precisely what that means.

I think we have gone from... Nicky Morgan on question Time said the

cuts were under question. Then we had someone yesterday saying this is

now about consultation and discussion. I think what they want

to do is get the issue of the table until after the referendum, then of

course they will come back. But we have a number of Conservative MPs

who were not happy about tax credit cuts. They are not happy about this.

Maybe we will move into a new period of discussion. If it is an issue

that will be kicked down the street until after the referendum, it may

well come back and you could have to sit down and crunch numbers again

and look to see whether the mitigation here in Northern Ireland

meets that. Is that a possibility? It is, but I think we will do it

calmly. We rushed things last year. The things went down the first time

because people rushed in front of microphones and got themselves

confused. Steady as we go, we have got a strategy, we will look at it

to see if we can cope. I think we might be able to do so. We might

have to delay the change because we are farther back than we are in

Great Britain, sought a different point in the process. But let's do

it calmly. Thank you very much for coming in to join us.

Let's take a look back at the week gone past

The first and Deputy First Minister were in the US for... When news

reached them the death of police officer Adrian Ismay. We are here to

talk about Northern Ireland. I am personally devastated to hear the

news. We are trying to move forward and build a better future. There are

tripping continued including a meeting with President Obama, but

Gerry Adams was excluded from a White House reception. I was not

invited, and it is bad manners. It is not a good way to treat guests.

As thousands gathered to celebrate in public, celebrations in the holy

land area of south Belfast turned sour. We have been far too lenient

in the past. Life there is an utter misery. It is a high octane mix.

Long periods of drinking. And with an election looming, it was time to

say goodbye to some old faces at Stormont. It was a pleasure to know

each and every one of you. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE Let's have a final word

from Brian and Felicity. Whether you agree with what Eileen

Evason is analysis or not, it is a bit shambolic in terms of the

Government's position on welfare, isn't it? It is dreadful. It is an

episode of The Effect Of It. Cameron Sward down the phone, so they say.

It is dreadful, no way to run a Government. It is not about Brexit.

Brexit is different, it is not about that. Ian Duncan Smith was free to

say what he wanted about that. He did not need to make the stand to go

out and campaign for what he believes about Europe. I think it is

much more about Osborne and his relationship with other big beasts

in the party. What do you think of where we are? Can you pick any

logical path through this, Brian? First of all, there is a

relationship between Ian Duncan Smith and George Osborne which has

been terribly bad since 2010, but there is certainly an element of the

referendum in it. There is no doubt that Ian Duncan Smith and close

associates of hers have been saying he has been looking for a pretext of

designing for several months because of his opposition to being in

Europe. He described the official Government position as a dodgy

dossier. Having said that,... Furthermore, he has carried out some

of the worst reforms in the last six years, the benefits cap, the bedroom

tax, he has been attacking people with disabilities for six years, and

finally to decide he has got a conscience is surprising. OK, it is

a fascinating situation and we will have lots more value out of it in

That's it. Now, back to Andrew in London.

extra cash. -- onto the consumers will stop

My thanks to Diane Abbott and to Justine Greening.

government back together after Iain government back together after Iain

Duncan Smith's resignation? What happens to George Osborne's budget

plans and what will the impact of all this be on the EU referendum

campaign? So where does it go from here? I

would suggest it gets worse for the Tories long before it gets better.

Yes, I think one thing David Cameron and George Osborne might want to

think carefully about is how they manage Iain Duncan Smith, and the

pretty hostile briefing against him is only going to increase his ire.

They should not forget that he has quite an important weapon, the

private conversation with primers to's office in recent weeks, which

show that the Prime Minister wanted to much, much further than Iain

Duncan Smith was willing to go. When they say these were your ideas, why

is it a problem, Iain Duncan Smith's argument is yes, these were my

ideas, but they were part of a long-term sustainable plan. They

were not about giving you, George Osborne, money to cut taxes for the

wealthy, which is what he did in capital gains tax. So I think they

probably need to handle Iain Duncan Smith with care because he could be

dangerous for them if he really is on the loose.

Is clear It already for every person in Downing Street is briefing to

have a go at Iain Duncan Smith, there is someone ready to have a go

at Mr Cameron and the government? I cannot remember a time since David

Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party that discipline

has broken down as it has in the last 48 hours. It is hard to see how

he brings discipline back in before the referendum. His powers of

patronage is limited, he doesn't want a big reshuffle before the

referendum, he wants to wait. There is a feeling of open season. Is he

on his way out? It is not in Brexit's interest to whip this up.

People will worry what a big leap it is into the unknown if we leave. If

they think we are voting for a total change of government and Prime

Minister, it puts the stakes of even higher. We might see believe

campaign's dumping this down a little bit. The Chancellor, now

among the walking wounded, has a budget to get to the House of

Commons which deals through money matters. He needs a vote to cut the

capital gains tax, cut corporation tax, raise the threshold for the 40%

taxpayers. There is a danger with rebellion in the air and the Tory

back benches rebel against one thing, as they do on disability,

they could rebel on other things? I think he has two problems, the

immediate is the legislated challenge of getting the CGT cut and

the threshold raised and everything else through Parliament in the

coming weeks and months. Then he has to find the money he has just lost

by reversing on the disability benefit cut. He has already lost

money from reversing the tax credit policy. Which is why he broke his

welfare cap. Exactly. Even if he gets through this immediate

challenge of getting the budget through Parliament, his central

purpose as a politician is to close the deficit. He has made it harder

for himself by reversing on some of these contentious measures. It's not

as if the problem ends in a few weeks' time. Isn't it made worse by

the fact this is taking place in the midst of the EU referendum campaign,

which had already divided conservatives. It like pouring

petrol on the flames? It is hard to see anything other than another four

months of mayhem. We don't know what the results of the referendum will

be. Probably a good deal of mayhem after that. It is interesting how

quiet Boris Johnson has been. I understand he is away skiing, but we

haven't heard from friends of his. Maybe the lines are bad to the Alps.

It shows you how serious his team are, they are being smart and will

not wade in. This has been a good weekend for Brexit, because their

most high profile member of the Cabinet has resigned and appears to

be a bit bullied, possibly by George Osborne. He speaks from the heart of

this because he had this visit to Glasgow and got onto this issue. In

that sense it is a good weekend the Brexit. But the problem for them,

you need to be talking about the vision for the future of Britain.

This is quite Westminster, inside. Brexit need to counter the main

argument that they are the biggest risk. While there may be sympathy

for Iain Duncan Smith, it is not getting on their argument. The two

leading spokesman for the remain campaign on the conservative side

the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Minister has a civil

war on his hands and has to be careful he doesn't make it worse by

some of the briefing Downing Street is behind. The second most important

man is among the walking wounded. Why will people listen to him over

the referendum. That is why it has been a good weekend for the Brexit.

But the most political force in this country will make a big picture

decision based on the big picture arguments of what is the safest

option and what is the riskiest option. I am not sure this great

excitement and eruptions in the Westminster village, I am not sure

whether they massively register with the British people if they make a

big decision are big issues. There is concern over the Conservative

Party and their brands. They work so hard to detoxify themselves in the

run-up to the last elections. It wasn't convincing, they were in

coalition and now they have the smallest of majorities. Now it looks

like they are the nasty party. At a time when the home strategy was to

move to the centre ground? It hasn't worked. If I were a conservative

strategist, I would concerned about the catastrophic damage to the

party's brand. The Prime Minister keeps on making speeches, normally

on Monday about the poor, about racial discrimination, about

equality. All designed to position the Tories in the centre, even the

centre-left ground, because they think Labour has left that. But they

can come up with the tax credit fiasco and the disability fiasco.

Who is running the show? It is hard to close the deficit once you have

ring fence the NHS and everything else. But they make it difficult and

provocative when they juxstapose a cut in tax credits, with raising the

threshold of in terrorist -- inheritance tax last year. Capital

gains tax this year. They have had to do it because it was in the

manifesto, but it didn't have to be in the manifesto and it is that

juxtaposition rather than the cost of welfare that appeared to be so

incendiary. You say it has been a good weekend the Brexit, and the

domestic back drop will exacerbate tensions between the remain and

leave. But there is an international guy mentioned to this. The EU in

Turkey have come to an agreement, I think it starts tonight. And here is

a guess, I'd bet it starts to unravel within 24 hours? It is the

sort of thing that looks good on paper. Refugees who come over arson

back to Turkey and Syrian refugees are sent to Europe. Looks great on

paper. These are people who have risked their lives, seen people

drowned in the Aegean Sea. Lost family members. They make it to

Greece and you are going to say to them, get back. And they say, fine,

I will do that. It will be difficult to do. UN agencies are saying they

are not sure if it is legal. You cannot treat a group of migrants as

a group under the Geneva Convention, they have to be treated as

individuals. But this treats them as a group. If you see more unpleasant

scenes out of Greece, more of a sense the European Union just hasn't

tackled this problem, that all adds to the leave campaign? Yes, it is a

real source of alarm. The debate about Turkey and the possible

prospect of Turkey, in the long-term, becoming part of the EU,

is extremely toxic. The outer campaign will be seeking to exploit

every inch of that debate. It has been a horrible week for the remain

campaign, politically and strategically. Ultimately, the

decision by swing voters, people by definition have no principled view

on the subject, will be based on big picture variables and factors. Would

you rather have the Prime Minister, still a credible, by all accounts a

reasonably popular Prime Minister, on your side? You would. It is a big

asset than Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson Michael Gove. One of the big

elements of the bigger picture is the prospect of Turkey becoming a

member of the European Union. I am not sure I will be alive at the

member of the European Union. I am Turkey joins the European Union.

That means the EU is basically lying to Turkey? The implicit thing about

the deal they have had is you make progress towards membership. I am

the deal they have had is you make making progress towards becoming a

millionaire, it is not going to happen. I was looking to you for

alone! I was in Luxembourg ten years ago when those accession

negotiations began. The Foreign Minister of Turkey was made to

negotiations began. The Foreign in Ankara. He eventually flew

through the night when Europe eventually said yes, we will start

it. eventually said yes, we will start

France to allow them to join. eventually said yes, we will start

French will not vote in favour of Turkey joining. I agree it is not

going to happen but it Turkey joining. I agree it is not

of hand to imply to the Turks to get them to deal with the migrant

crisis. They use it to get the money and sneak through various

crisis. They use it to get the money All Brexit has to do is

impression that it might happen sooner or later and bingo, you will

scare a lot of people. More worrying is how strategically depend on the

West is on Turkey. The Turkish government, is nothing like the

Turkish government than it government, is nothing like the

ago. Which is why we are having to shut up about domestic Turkish

affairs because we are so reliant on them. They are only closing

We won't be back next week, it is We will leave it there.

We won't be back next week, it is Easter, but remember, if it is

Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics. Unless of course, it is Easter.