:00:23. > :00:27.On The View tonight: Allegations of political interference and
:00:27. > :00:30.misleading MLAs. As the fall-out continues over the BBC Spotlight
:00:30. > :00:34.investigation into Red Sky and the Housing Executive - is there a case
:00:34. > :00:39.to answer? Not according to the Social Development Minister, who's
:00:39. > :00:42.with me in the studio. We'll also hear from members of the committee
:00:42. > :00:49.which is to launch an inquiry into the allegations.
:00:49. > :00:52.Also on the programme tonight: As the political year draws to a close,
:00:52. > :00:56.we honour the cream of our political class with The View's
:00:56. > :01:06.inaugural awards. And you can, of course, give us
:01:06. > :01:07.
:01:07. > :01:10.your thoughts and follow the A huge fishing expedition with not
:01:10. > :01:13.much of a catch at the end of it - or potentially the most serious
:01:13. > :01:19.political scandal since the Assembly came into operation in
:01:19. > :01:22.1998. Contrasting views from two MLAs. The first from the Social
:01:22. > :01:26.Development Minister, Nelson McCausland. The second from the
:01:26. > :01:28.Chair of his departmental committee, Alex Maskey. Both were prompted by
:01:28. > :01:30.last night's BBC Northern Ireland's Spotlight investigation which
:01:30. > :01:35.alleged political interference in the running of the Housing
:01:35. > :01:45.Executive. Those claims have been strongly denied by Mr McCausland,
:01:45. > :01:49.
:01:49. > :01:52.who joins me tonight. Woken to the programme. Good evening.
:01:52. > :01:55.Let's deal first with the phone call Jenny Palmer received from
:01:55. > :01:58.your special adviser, Stephen Brimstone. She says she was told by
:01:58. > :02:03.Mr Brimstone to vote against the Board's position on terminating the
:02:03. > :02:13.Red Sky contract for the good of the party. How do you respond to
:02:13. > :02:14.
:02:14. > :02:18.that allegation? The programme last night presented the conversation
:02:18. > :02:24.between my special adviser and the councillor, in a particular way. I
:02:24. > :02:28.want to be clear it was a single telephone conversation and it was
:02:28. > :02:36.the short telephone conversation that lasted a matter of minutes.
:02:36. > :02:42.The position as I understand it was, the telephone call was to explain
:02:42. > :02:50.to Councillor Palmer, there was a wider context in terms of different
:02:50. > :02:56.contractors. I would like to explain that. The focus was
:02:56. > :03:01.entirely on one company. What I was clear about, and I have since been
:03:01. > :03:05.vindicated on this by independent consultancy report, is it was not
:03:05. > :03:09.restricted to one company. When you look at all of the contract as we
:03:09. > :03:14.investigated, it became clear it was a more widespread problem. He
:03:14. > :03:19.was conveying that information to Mrs Palmer. We will go on to talk
:03:19. > :03:21.about that company and other companies in the moment.
:03:21. > :03:24.She says Mr Brimstone clearly attempted to bring political
:03:24. > :03:30.influence to bear on her. Do you accept she was put under pressure
:03:30. > :03:36.by Mr Brimstone? His account of the conversation is
:03:36. > :03:45.very different from her recollection. Two people who have a
:03:45. > :03:51.conversation and have different recollections. Did you ask Mr
:03:51. > :03:53.Brimstone to make that call to Jenny Palmer? Know.
:03:53. > :04:00.Did he make the call with or without your knowledge?
:04:00. > :04:05.Did you know he was going to make the call? That is a bizarre and
:04:05. > :04:13.ludicrous question. Am I supposed to check every single phone call my
:04:13. > :04:23.staff make? He is your special adviser. Let me finish. There are
:04:23. > :04:23.
:04:23. > :06:33.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 130 seconds
:06:33. > :06:38.two different stories about the making an allegation and she is the
:06:38. > :06:48.yearly clearly upset about it. It is part of a major issue now
:06:48. > :06:49.
:06:49. > :06:53.politically in Northern Ireland. are dealing with the Housing
:06:53. > :07:00.executive and the chairman has reported overpayments of �18
:07:00. > :07:07.million. We are dealing with scandals relating to response
:07:07. > :07:13.maintenance contracts and there seems to be a fixation... It is
:07:13. > :07:18.important that we settle on the context in the context that is why
:07:18. > :07:25.there is -- why is the adverse fixation? We are dealing with tens
:07:25. > :07:28.of millions of pounds. Why do you think Jenny Palmer would not report
:07:28. > :07:38.the conversation with the special adviser of the DUP menace that
:07:38. > :07:42.
:07:42. > :07:47.accurately? -- minister. I can't be held accountable for what she says.
:07:47. > :07:53.It seems to me there is a very partial approach to all these issues
:07:53. > :08:01.within the BBC. Here there is a major rescue of public concern in
:08:01. > :08:08.the fixation of the BBC, and I listened to the interview earlier
:08:08. > :08:14.on, where he was quite frankly rude and overbearing. It is not really a
:08:14. > :08:23.to this discussion. I think it has because it sets up the BBC as
:08:23. > :08:30.defending the indefensible. allegation was made by a DUP
:08:30. > :08:37.councillor, a member of your party. It is about the scale I am dealing
:08:37. > :08:42.with. We have a stock of 90,000 homes... So she does not matter? Let
:08:42. > :08:46.me finish and speak without interrupting. They are 90,000
:08:47. > :08:51.properties owned by the Housing executive. The standard of service
:08:51. > :08:56.being delivered to many of those tenants has not been good enough.
:08:56. > :09:00.The value for money that should be the hallmark of a public body has
:09:00. > :09:04.not been reached and when I am dealing with those issues I will not
:09:04. > :09:09.be sidetracked by what somebody has said... So we should not be talking
:09:09. > :09:15.about it at all? In the scheme of things, it shows the lack of
:09:15. > :09:25.perspective in the BBC. Is your party going to take any action
:09:25. > :09:29.against her for the allegations she has made? You have this fixation and
:09:29. > :09:39.we will get to the end of the 15 minutes without reaching the core of
:09:39. > :09:43.
:09:43. > :09:48.the matter. Let's move on to Red Sky. You said you always acted with
:09:48. > :09:53.the highest level of integrity. Why did you attend the meeting in June
:09:53. > :10:00.2011 when the representatives of either the administrators or the
:10:00. > :10:05.Housing executive were present? of the things I said at the
:10:05. > :10:12.beginning was that I had the priorities. One was to ensure value
:10:12. > :10:16.for money, secondly to ensure the good quality service, and Dublin
:10:16. > :10:26.that in everything I do, I will do it with integrity and I have sought
:10:26. > :10:30.
:10:30. > :10:34.at all times to do that. -- thirdly that in everything I do. Give me a
:10:34. > :10:43.chance to explain without interrupting. The meeting with the
:10:43. > :10:52.people from Red Sky took place two years ago on the 27th of June, 2011.
:10:52. > :10:56.That is correct. That particular meeting, I was approached by a
:10:56. > :11:03.number of representatives from across East Belfast and from
:11:03. > :11:07.different parties with regards to Red Sky. I have representation from
:11:08. > :11:17.other parties and from the DUP... The only members there were
:11:17. > :11:27.political? Are they to be condemned for being particularly active.
:11:27. > :11:27.
:11:27. > :11:31.only politicians present were members of the DUP. Your... If I am
:11:31. > :11:36.asked to have a meeting with elected representatives, they bring people
:11:36. > :11:43.with them and I will hold the meeting. Even if it was a breach of
:11:43. > :11:47.the ministerial code? The legal advice I have received is nothing
:11:47. > :11:51.improper happened at all. Did you take that advice before the meeting
:11:51. > :11:56.or after the meeting? understanding is that the advice was
:11:56. > :12:04.taken, and my recollection is, bearing in mind that this was two
:12:04. > :12:07.years ago, we had advice beforehand that was checked out after. You must
:12:07. > :12:15.have asked for advice because you might have been concerned you were
:12:15. > :12:23.in breach? You are expecting I would take advice and then when I do that
:12:23. > :12:31.as a problem! I was very clear on this. I wanted to make sure that in
:12:31. > :12:37.addressing the issues, and I have acknowledged clearly there were
:12:37. > :12:42.issues about Red Sky, but I also acknowledged and was subsequently
:12:42. > :12:47.vindicated that when you look at all the other contactors at the same
:12:47. > :12:51.time and we examined six other contactors... But the clear evidence
:12:51. > :12:55.from the independent forensic audit that was done indicated that there
:12:55. > :13:03.may have been problems with other companies... You are totally wrong
:13:03. > :13:13.on that! There was clear evidence that Red Sky had been acting
:13:13. > :13:13.
:13:13. > :13:18.inappropriately. These factors, the report that was commissioned did not
:13:18. > :13:28.consider any of the others. It did not see they were clean or at
:13:28. > :13:30.
:13:30. > :13:34.fault... I must correct you there. The initial report identified issues
:13:34. > :13:40.with Red Sky. My question at that point was to the chairman of the
:13:40. > :13:47.Housing executive, have you looked at the other housing companies? The
:13:48. > :13:55.answer was that they had in place... Without interrupting. It is
:13:55. > :14:05.quite clear that he said they are robust systems in place. The probe
:14:05. > :14:09.was that that was not true. It may or may not be the case... FB report
:14:09. > :14:16.was very clear there was wrongdoing, why did you not do something about
:14:16. > :14:24.that? Why did you to defend contracts being given? Is that not
:14:24. > :14:28.the point? If you would only listen to what I said. I said very clearly
:14:28. > :14:32.I am not in the business of defending. I am not defending anyone
:14:32. > :14:40.and that beer is wrongdoing I will deal with that. The point I am
:14:40. > :14:43.making clearly is that the report was commissioned by the Housing
:14:43. > :14:53.executive and they picked out one company and do not deal with the
:14:53. > :14:54.
:14:54. > :14:59.others. Sorry, I will take the opportunity, please. Give me the
:14:59. > :15:06.opportunity to respond. I am giving you the opportunity but I have a lot
:15:06. > :15:09.of questions and you are repeating yourself. The point is we were in
:15:09. > :15:13.the process potentially taking a contract away from a company where
:15:13. > :15:17.there clearly something wrong to give it to another company where
:15:17. > :15:24.there was potentially something wrong because it was already clear
:15:24. > :15:33.that point... You do not know that at that time. On the 27th of June
:15:33. > :15:35.you asked for the contract to be extended. You said you were not
:15:35. > :15:42.defending them but you asked for the contract to continue with them for
:15:42. > :15:50.it for the period of time. I have the minutes in front of me. That is
:15:50. > :15:57.totally wrong and I hope you retract it. There was a second company which
:15:57. > :16:05.had emerged. Do you mind if we talk about Red Sky? The menace than
:16:05. > :16:09.advised he would like to have the administrators in place. --
:16:09. > :16:13.minister. You then said during this time the proposed new company might
:16:13. > :16:22.have been able to assess its own matters and he'll is why I am
:16:23. > :16:28.asking. Red Sky representatives were talking about acquiring the
:16:28. > :16:35.company's contracts for a new company. That according to the QC
:16:35. > :16:42.who was consulted is in breach of the ministerial code. When we were
:16:42. > :16:44.dealing with Red Sky, I was already in possession of evidence that
:16:44. > :16:51.another of the companies was a company where they were similar
:16:51. > :16:56.difficulties. I was suspicious because it was clear to me that if
:16:56. > :17:01.you look across the whole realm of contracts, you have more than one
:17:01. > :17:07.company where there were irregularities. They were covering
:17:07. > :17:16.in more than one district, and beer you come to the conclusion, how
:17:16. > :17:22.widespread is this? -- therefore. That report which you are obviously
:17:22. > :17:32.not particularly interested in, clearly indicated that when you
:17:32. > :17:34.
:17:34. > :17:37.looked at the six companies, similar issues record. Why were you at that
:17:37. > :17:38.meeting and why were not representatives of the
:17:38. > :17:44.administrators they not representatives of the
:17:44. > :17:54.administrators there? You could not with any authority talk to
:17:54. > :18:01.
:18:01. > :18:11.employees? They were not. Why were you taking part in that meeting?
:18:11. > :18:14.
:18:14. > :18:24.than you are. You can either ask questions or you can try that
:18:24. > :18:32.bullying approach. I will answer questions when I get a chance
:18:32. > :18:37.without being rudely interrupted. I am trying to connect a point. I
:18:37. > :18:47.think our viewers would like to know. I should have an opportunity
:18:47. > :18:50.to connect all the errors you are introducing. You made a statement a
:18:50. > :19:00.moment ago and if you would actually listen instead of grimacing, you
:19:00. > :19:10.might have a sense of what is going on. You keep talking about other
:19:10. > :19:12.
:19:12. > :19:14.issues? I will deal with the issue quite simply. The report
:19:14. > :19:24.investigated six different companies and it was clear that someone issues
:19:24. > :19:36.
:19:36. > :19:44.record. You said you know all about that. What I am going to ask you
:19:44. > :19:49.finally... I will come back to Red Sky. In all my correspondence, what
:19:49. > :19:53.I was keen to secure was that we keep the administrator were in place
:19:53. > :20:03.until we get to a point where there could be an open situation where
:20:03. > :20:12.
:20:12. > :20:22.they could keep the contract going. They were sitting in a meeting with
:20:22. > :20:25.
:20:26. > :20:30.ministers and others, getting an unfair... That is not true.We have
:20:30. > :20:37.run out of time, but this is an issue that was raised to date. It
:20:37. > :20:41.is simple, would it not be wise for you to stand aside as social
:20:41. > :20:45.development minister while the Assembly discusses the issue on
:20:45. > :20:51.Monday and while this statutory inquiry investigates the issue?
:20:51. > :20:53.have not had that suggestion put to me by anybody. I spent over two
:20:53. > :21:00.hours with the committee this morning and they did not suggest
:21:00. > :21:04.that. It would be ludicrous anyway. Other politicians have been on the
:21:04. > :21:09.airwaves suggesting it. No the D has put it to me. Would it not make
:21:09. > :21:17.sense for you to step aside and allow the inquiry to happen without
:21:17. > :21:22.you being in post as minister? is a bizarre suggestion. That is
:21:22. > :21:27.what the First Minister did while the investigation was going on,
:21:28. > :21:36.then he resumed his post. I have no intention of stepping aside and
:21:36. > :21:43.doing the job and I am doing. The Gazette -- Executive has condemned
:21:43. > :21:48.people, 10,000 tenants living in awful conditions. I have been
:21:49. > :21:54.vindicated time and time again. The report you skimmed over so likely
:21:54. > :21:59.vindicated the stand I have taken. A time after time, reports have
:21:59. > :22:09.shown I have been right and the Housing Executive got it wrong.
:22:09. > :22:14.When the Deputy First Minister so today, this potentially is
:22:14. > :22:18.damaging... The minister appeared before the Social Development
:22:18. > :22:24.Committee this morning following the spotlight programme and two
:22:24. > :22:29.members of the committee are with me now. Thanks to you both for
:22:30. > :22:32.joining us on the programme. Alex, you heard a very robust defence
:22:32. > :22:37.from the minister regarding the allegations of political
:22:37. > :22:46.interference made last night. Do you accept his defence of his
:22:46. > :22:50.actions? My job, as chair of the committee is to oversee an inquiry
:22:50. > :22:55.which the committee agreed to establish this morning. It will be
:22:55. > :22:59.the most thorough investigation around these allegations. What we
:22:59. > :23:05.have heard so far has been uncomfortable viewing and listening.
:23:05. > :23:11.I think the public confidence is continuing to be dented over the
:23:11. > :23:17.Government's in the Assembly. I do believe this is potentially the
:23:17. > :23:22.biggest political scandal to hit the Assembly since 1988. As I had
:23:22. > :23:27.just said, the allegations of the potential to undermine public
:23:27. > :23:31.confidence in public institutions. The minister's response to that is,
:23:31. > :23:37.he has no case to answer. minister is prepared to make that
:23:37. > :23:41.point. But the inquiry will have the power and this will be a
:23:41. > :23:48.statutory inquiry, and the committee will have the power to
:23:48. > :23:51.all of the evidence, the IMO and -- e-mails, telephone records, and all
:23:51. > :23:56.the individuals are relevant to this inquiry, including the
:23:56. > :24:01.minister, the Housing Executive and others. This will be a robust and
:24:01. > :24:11.thorough investigation. This will be thorough and there will be no
:24:11. > :24:12.
:24:12. > :24:20.hiding place, if there is any wrong doing. We have had allegations
:24:20. > :24:28.which have been tabled, which talks about political interference. It is
:24:28. > :24:38.from bullying to bribery, which is from political interference to
:24:38. > :24:41.illegal activity. I am concerned. In respect of the point you're
:24:41. > :24:46.dealing with the minister on earlier, I spoke to the minister at
:24:46. > :24:50.the head of that, and I said I thought he was on very thin ice by
:24:50. > :24:58.attending that meeting as a minister, with people who had been
:24:58. > :25:03.deemed to be guilty of fraudulent activity, the management of Red Sky.
:25:03. > :25:07.The minister did involve himself in that and it was very difficult.
:25:07. > :25:13.do not think he should have been at the meeting? You have concerns the
:25:13. > :25:16.Red Sky people were at that meeting and there were not representatives
:25:16. > :25:23.of the administrators or the housing Executive? I use the term,
:25:23. > :25:27.I thought he was on thin ice. you share those concerns? Totally.
:25:27. > :25:34.I did ask this morning the nature of the representation if they were
:25:34. > :25:42.still employed by the administrators at Red Sky where
:25:42. > :25:45.private individuals had been previously at Red Sky. It was a
:25:45. > :25:51.position the minister would have been badly advised to get himself
:25:51. > :25:58.into. Do you think it was a breach of the Ministerial Code? You have
:25:58. > :26:04.an opinion which we might defer to mind. I actually said to the
:26:04. > :26:10.minister at the meeting, and his staff in the room and his adviser,
:26:10. > :26:14.I thought he was on Derry, very thin ice. He was meeting people who
:26:14. > :26:18.were trying to get business, people who were deemed to be responsible
:26:19. > :26:28.for fraud. At the same time they were trying to get more contracts
:26:29. > :26:33.and have their contracts extended. You gave your reaction to the
:26:33. > :26:36.pressure about Jenny Palmer, about the pressure she was put under. The
:26:36. > :26:41.minister says there are two differing events of that
:26:41. > :26:46.conversation. What is your reaction to what the minister had to say
:26:46. > :26:54.about that? It displayed a lack of understanding and compassion. If
:26:54. > :27:00.one of my colleagues had received a telephone call like that, I would
:27:00. > :27:05.have been trying to clarify the actuality of what was said. I want
:27:05. > :27:13.to unreason the call was made. minister said it was to explain the
:27:13. > :27:20.wider context of the situation? Palmer was occupying a political
:27:20. > :27:25.position on the board. They documented the position they were
:27:25. > :27:32.going to take was correct. I presume, had she been reinforced by
:27:32. > :27:40.her presence, that finding, it might have made the actions
:27:40. > :27:44.slightly more questionable. It is a matter for interpretation. What
:27:44. > :27:48.about the allegations of sectarian influence? Particularly comments
:27:48. > :27:54.that West Belfast elected representatives were out to get at
:27:54. > :27:59.Red Sky, that is what Peter Robinson are said in April 2011?
:27:59. > :28:09.cannot speak for Peter Robinson, and why he made that the surgeon.
:28:09. > :28:11.
:28:11. > :28:15.What he's -- was he right? Certainly not. I raised for the
:28:15. > :28:20.Housing Executive, complaints about Red Sky work and non-work carried
:28:20. > :28:26.out on houses. I raise those concerns on behalf of constituents.
:28:26. > :28:31.Therefore the representatives that my party made were solely about the
:28:31. > :28:35.bad workmanship that was being carried out by Red Sky. A question
:28:35. > :28:41.to both of you, should the minister stand aside while these inquiries
:28:41. > :28:47.continue? There is a precedent given, the actions of Ian Paisley
:28:47. > :28:51.Jnr, who is not a minister, but was elected on the First Minister. I
:28:51. > :28:56.think the minister should give serious consideration to that cause
:28:56. > :29:02.of action. I put to the minister directly at the meeting. How did he
:29:02. > :29:06.feel about carrying on his pivotal role particularly in relation to
:29:06. > :29:11.what mate -- might replace the Housing Executive and the current
:29:11. > :29:17.public mood and the issue in his confidence on the ability to do
:29:17. > :29:22.that. I put the question to him this morning, did he feel he was
:29:22. > :29:26.able to carry on that were given the community and political
:29:26. > :29:30.sensitivities around it. He chaired that meeting today and you heard
:29:30. > :29:34.what the minister had to say tonight, do you think he should
:29:34. > :29:44.stand aside? It would be wise for the minister to consider where he
:29:44. > :29:56.
:29:56. > :29:59.sits at the moment. It is about of term, but with Stormont recalled
:29:59. > :30:03.for Monday to discuss the Spotlight allegations, some MLAs may have to
:30:03. > :30:05.delay their summer break. However, it is the final episode of The View
:30:05. > :30:08.until September, and to mark the occasion we asked our commentators
:30:08. > :30:11.to put their heads together to judge which politicians scored top marks.
:30:11. > :30:21.Our Political Correspondent, Martina Purdy, has the detail on their
:30:21. > :30:21.
:30:21. > :30:27.deliberations. Tonight, we put the spotlight on
:30:27. > :30:37.Stormont's best performer is. need to wake up and smell the
:30:37. > :30:38.
:30:38. > :30:43.coffee. A personal tribute to her that the law has now passed. Behind
:30:43. > :30:53.the scenes with our producers, the drama and comedy has been closely
:30:53. > :31:04.
:31:04. > :31:13.conversation as we go. Let's make a start with top performing minister.
:31:13. > :31:23.The person I'm going to suggest as Martin McGuinness because a very big
:31:23. > :31:28.
:31:28. > :31:36.duty falls upon him to be seen to work together. He met the Queen
:31:36. > :31:41.during the Diamond Jubilee visit and his ongoing commitment. That was her
:31:41. > :31:51.major crisis with the weather in March. I have a lot of time for
:31:51. > :31:52.
:31:52. > :31:56.Arlene Foster who has been very competent and very well briefed. It
:31:56. > :32:05.is so good to see that she has now been talked about as Peter
:32:05. > :32:15.Robinson's chosen successor. Judges singled out Alex Attwood and Sammy
:32:15. > :32:16.
:32:16. > :32:20.Wilson on finance. Arlene Foster makes the point difficult. He says
:32:20. > :32:29.if push came to shove, he would give the vote to Martin McGuinness.
:32:29. > :32:35.Tough category. Onto the choice for best speaker. One of the important
:32:35. > :32:40.speeches was by Stephen Agnew on gay marriage. He took on two ministers
:32:40. > :32:45.and I thought that was a standout for me.
:32:45. > :32:54.Another nominee John McAllister for his speech warning Mike Nesbitt into
:32:54. > :33:01.sleep walking into Unionist unity. Within days, he had been sacked as
:33:01. > :33:11.the party's deputy leader. By February of this year, he has left
:33:11. > :33:11.
:33:11. > :33:16.the Ulster Unionist Party. Yet another new Unionist party.
:33:16. > :33:21.stuff on welfare reform and housing and social issues. For some time he
:33:21. > :33:31.was out of step with his own party and unionism in general. He saw
:33:31. > :33:38.
:33:38. > :33:40.enormous courage. It has to be Jim Allister by a country mile.
:33:40. > :33:50.Has nomination goes to Jim Wells as a consistent performer. Next up,
:33:50. > :34:01.
:34:01. > :34:09.best use of social media. My vote would go to Conall McDevitt.. He
:34:09. > :34:12.does not shy away from debate online and in social media. The break and
:34:13. > :34:22.direct are also voting for Conall McDevitt although they ugly mentions
:34:23. > :34:25.
:34:25. > :34:29.Jim Allister. Much tougher is best MLA. Jim Allister and Stephen Agnew
:34:30. > :34:38.are singled out again. Sue Ramsey gets mentioned for holding the
:34:38. > :34:43.health minister to account and Simon Hamilton. He has developed from
:34:43. > :34:48.inarticulate to very sure of himself. Very good with his beliefs
:34:48. > :34:54.and much respected and liked as well. Judges are rather coy about
:34:54. > :35:04.their top choice. For me, it is a person who would dwindle popularity
:35:04. > :35:04.
:35:04. > :35:12.contests. To me, this person wins this category. I think we probably
:35:12. > :35:22.agree. Who could that be? The final categorically as most entertaining.
:35:22. > :35:25.
:35:25. > :35:30.They are are some characters. Kelly was carried off. It gave new
:35:30. > :35:39.meaning to the phrase Easter bonnets. Unintentionally funny but
:35:39. > :35:44.for me Sammy Wilson was the guy. When he is on form, he is funny and
:35:44. > :35:47.he can make the host laugh and it is a useful attribute because he
:35:47. > :35:51.sometimes comes up with that for excuses for not being able to do
:35:52. > :35:55.something. Well, you saw some of our esteemed panel of commentators in
:35:55. > :35:59.Martina's film. Two of them are here now to reveal who they chose as
:35:59. > :36:09.winners in each of the categories - and why. Paul McFadden and Alex
:36:09. > :36:12.
:36:12. > :36:13.Kane. Welcome to the programme. Let's dive in, we have five
:36:14. > :36:23.categories in five minutes to do this.
:36:24. > :36:24.
:36:24. > :36:34.Top Performing Minister: The winner is - Martin McGuinness.
:36:34. > :36:43.Why Martin McGuinness? He remains me almost of a boxer like sugar Ray
:36:43. > :36:50.Leonard. It is rare that anybody actually land a punch on him. He has
:36:50. > :36:54.been very statesmanlike and the a lot of people are looking to see the
:36:54. > :36:58.dynamic between the first Minister and Deputy first Minister. Who would
:36:58. > :37:04.think he would be the one with the steady hand and from that point of
:37:04. > :37:10.view he deserves it. Stiff competition but pretty much
:37:10. > :37:15.unanimity on Martin McGuinness? number of occasions when the
:37:15. > :37:24.assembly needed stability, he chose not to rock the boat. Let's move on.
:37:24. > :37:34.Best Speaker: We have joint winners - Stephen Agnew and Michael
:37:34. > :37:36.
:37:36. > :37:45.Copeland. They are quite a few good speakers but a lot of them get up
:37:45. > :37:54.and you know what they will say. These two guys focus on issues and
:37:54. > :38:04.Stephen Agnew just makes a difference with his speech. Stephen
:38:04. > :38:09.Agnew for his passion, Michael Copeland spoke on the gay marriage
:38:09. > :38:14.debate and has Facebook page received 33,000 views. Medical
:38:14. > :38:17.Copeland does not know anything about this sort did not know until
:38:17. > :38:27.it was announced. Most effective use of social media by a politician: The
:38:27. > :38:29.
:38:29. > :38:34.winner is - Conall McDevitt. There was not really much debate?
:38:34. > :38:41.surprise at all. He is prolific Twitter and has his own daily
:38:41. > :38:49.newspaper. He tweets in English and then Spanish and has a huge number
:38:49. > :38:52.of followers and as they deserve a of this category. Let's move on to
:38:52. > :39:01.our penultimate category. Most entertaining politician: The winner
:39:01. > :39:10.is - Sammy Wilson. There are lots who are funny for all
:39:10. > :39:15.the wrong reasons. Lots who think they are funny but have not. Sammy
:39:15. > :39:22.Wilson, when he is on form, can be absolutely brilliant. There have
:39:22. > :39:29.been many times where he gets it just right. The question is whether
:39:29. > :39:32.people are laughing with you are few. He can be both. He sometimes
:39:32. > :39:42.gets it wrong which is always a risk. And finally, Best MLA: The
:39:42. > :39:55.
:39:55. > :39:59.winner is - Jim Allister. You actually said then that, you hinted,
:39:59. > :40:09.not necessarily everybody's most popular but there was considerable
:40:09. > :40:09.
:40:09. > :40:17.unanimity. The vast majority of us believed that his success in getting
:40:17. > :40:27.the bill passed. He managed to drive a wedge between the SDLP and Sinn
:40:27. > :40:28.
:40:28. > :40:36.Fein. It was a remarkable piece of politicking. A deserted winner?
:40:36. > :40:44.Anyone who is grumpier than I am who win something, I am delighted.
:40:44. > :40:48.was an interesting afternoon and there are some choices to be made.
:40:48. > :40:53.It was a bit of fun but I suppose it is quite serious. That's it from The
:40:53. > :40:56.View for this first year. We'll be back in September, but Sunday
:40:56. > :40:59.Politics continues for another two weeks - join me at 11.35 here on BBC