08/03/2018 The View

It's all about the money tonight.

Finally, a big budget boost

from the Tory-DUP deal.

But is there a downside?

And, as a judge rules

the decision to block legacy

funding was unlawful,

what happens next?

Welcome to The View.

Tonight, a day for

balancing the books.

The Secretary of State has included

an extra £410 million of the money

from the DUP deal in her budget.

But the pill in that

sugar-coating is a big rise

in domestic rates here.

We'll dive into the numbers

with former Stormont Finance

Minister Mairtin O Muilleor former

Alliance leader David Ford,

and the SDLP's Claire Hanna.

And, talking money, Enda McClafferty

has been looking into party

planning in Ballymena.

The chief executive came back to me

and told me that this was not a DUP

dinner.

You wouldn't need to be a

rocket scientist to find out what

this did not was.

-- what this is

dinner was.

And, back in Commentators' Corner,

Professor Deirdre Heenan

and Newton Emerson.

Hello.

After considerable uncertainty

as to whether or not it

would even happen today,

the written statement

on the budget finally came

through late this afternoon.

For the second year in a row, it's

been handed down by Westminster -

but this time around,

there was the small matter

of a £400 million boost

from the Tory-DUP deal to add

to the mix.

We'll get reaction from

the politicians in just a moment.

But first, our Business

Correspondent, Julian O'Neill,

has been crunching the numbers,

and he's with me now.

Was it broadly as expected?

I think it was largely speaking,

Mark. The DUP money aside, it feels

very much like last year's budget in

respect of health and education

being prioritised. They get extra

money, and they get an increase

which covers the rise in the rate of

inflation. That's not to say that

they won't feel huge spending

pressures in the course of the next

financial year. Other departments

are less fortunate. They get rises

which don't cover the rate of

inflation, and some actually see a

real terms

freeze in cash allocations, or

indeed a reduction. So, I think we

will not feel much of a difference

compared to previous years. And

certainly I think many of us will

still be driving through potholes in

the course of old working week.

We

have had £400 million of extra money

as part of this deal.

Where does the £400 million money

from the Tory-DUP deal fit?

This is new money, even though we

knew it was coming. £20 million of

that game last financial year, but

now we have the arrival of a

significant amount of money, £410

million. Half of it will be used for

infrastructure projects like roads.

There will be £80 million split

between education and hospitals, to

help ease pressures. Now, we were

looking at a fairly bleak financial

situation in December. The word from

the Department of Finance today is

that this DUP money has not made it

quite as bleak, although we are

still very much living in tough

times in terms of public spending.

Given that that's the case, it is

interesting to note that there is

very little by way of revenue

raising in this budget.

Yes, the

big, tough decisions, which was

attached out in the scenario by the

Department of Finance before

Christmas.

-- which were sketched out. Things

like reintroducing prescription

charges and higher education fees,

they have not been acted upon. I am

led to believe they will be

revisited in the next financial

year. What we do have this year, a

significant thing aside from the DUP

money, and that is a significant

inflation -- inflation-busting hike,

this is a return of devolution in

2007, the rise in the Stormont

regional rate has always tracked

deflation. This at 4.5% is

significantly above that and goes

well beyond what James Brokenshire

did last year, when he introduced a

regional rate increase of 1.6%. This

is 4.5%. I think the Secretary of

State is putting down something of a

market here, it's symbolic, and

perhaps pointing to next year's

budget, signalling that if there is

no devolution than some other tough

financial decisions may have to be

made in respect of revenue.

Here is

an interesting little point to end

on.

You've been told tonight

that there was quite a bit

of manoeuvring behind the scenes

to pull any announcement

about MLAs' pay today.

Which we had been expecting.

Make no

bones about it, there was to be an

announcement today about the budget,

but that was also to be accompanied

by a statement from the Secretary of

State in the House of Commons which

would have covered MLA pain. Now, at

the 11th hour, those two events

became detached, and what we got

today was the budget alone. And I'm

led to believe that the reason for

that was to allow the DUP to get

some headlines out of the budget

which weren't going to compete, or

be overshadowed by any announcement

on MLA pay, which will come next

week.

Some people might say that

with the Tory-DUP deal delivering

for the DUP today.

Well, certainly

it suggests that there was

absolutely no doubt at all that the

initial plan was for the Secretary

of State to make a statement in the

House of Commons today. That did not

happen, and we're hearing it has now

been rescheduled for Monday.

Julian,

thank you very much indeed. We may

well come back to you throughout the

course of the programme.

Thanks, Julian.

Let's hear what the

politicians make of it all.

With me are former Finance Minister

Mairtin O Muilleoir,

former Justice Minister David Ford,

and the SDLP's Claire Hanna.

Both the DUP and the Ulster

Unionists declined to take part

in our studio discussion.

Mairtin, let me come to you first of

all. Julian has outlined where the

extra money is going to be spent,

Key infrastructure payments, health

and education. No big changes as far

as revenue raising our concern. How

is that not good news in a difficult

economic climate?

It's amazing that

the DUP are not here to defend this.

Why they are not here, it is a tough

budget. Inflation is racing ahead at

3%. Therefore, any increase to any

department needs to be at least 3%

to stand still. Seven departments,

in government, they have a reduction

in their budget going forward. This

is not a budget for growth or

development. You know, when the DUP

said they have this wonderful deal

with the Tories, and the price of

course is that they didn't have

rights to Irish speakers -- the

denial of rights to or is because.

But when they said that they were

getting the additional money, some

of us were naive enough to think it

would be additional money, but they

plugging the gap in the budgets are

still being cut. The wonderful money

from the DUP is now being used to

plug the gaps.

That is not how the

DUP with the. Sinn Fein said you

would not accept direct rule at any

price. Here is a budget opposed by

the Secretary of State at

Westminster, an individual act of

direct rule, and there is nothing

you can do about it.

I don't think

they with their pretend that the

budget for health is enough, health

needs 6% to stand still. In this

deal, it's still only 2%. This is in

direct rule, but we all

understand...

It was an act of

direct rule today.

We understand

that public services need to

continue and budgets need to be set.

We are relaxed about that.

Fall of

the fuss and sabre rattling that

Sinn Fein was engaged in, at the end

of the day, here is a budget imposed

by a British liquid of state, and

you are compliant.

What I will say

is this -- British Secretary of

State. We need the British - Irish

intergovernmental conference to come

together. That is what the

constitution says, we need to bring

back together.

There is still no

sign of it.

I'm content that the

next step forward in terms of

working through this political

crisis and joint stewardship will be

this conference.

Went?

The sooner

the better. Well, we can't make

progress without that. So, if the

limbo is to be...

But we made

progress today.

We can't make

progress on this political film

eight, the denial of rights for the

British - Irish intergovernmental

conference -- this political

stalemate.

You of course failed to

set a budget when Sinn Fein help

finance portfolio. Last April, Sammy

Wilson, a former Finance Minister,

called you a political coward for

dodging responsibility as Finance

Minister to present a budget to the

Executive for debate.

I'm in the

studio, where is the DUP? The

Finance Minister can't present a

budget to Assembly. We didn't have

an agreement with the Executive

because the Executive collapsed.

You

could have brought it to the

Executive table for it to be

discussed?

No, the DUP were obsessed

with RHI. We didn't have an

agreement in government. The Finance

Minister cannot present a budget.

That's what the failure is. Why did

government fail? It was a failure of

the DUP.

Sammy Wilson says the

reason the Assembly was brought down

by Sinn Fein was your desire to

avoid unpopular decisions.

When he

said it was about RHI and

power-sharing, Sammy Wilson should

be here to say it and defend this

tough budget. That's what it is, it

is not a budget for growth and

investment. It will not provide home

for the homeless or solve the

universities places crisis. It was

signed up by the DUP.

David Ford,

just Okore Phi one point, but a

budget have been brought to the

Executive table for discussion? --

just one point. The blog without the

agreement

of the person is that

under by Defence Minister. The rule

takes about six meetings to get

something onto the order paper.

It

would have been tricky?

It would.

What do you hope of today's budget

proposals, is at the best we could

have hoped for in difficult

circumstances?

There is a real

requirement that we seek strategic

decision-making, issues that are

creating difficulties addressed,

what is about rather than what is

effectively a rolling on budget.

Last year we had a kind of Tory

budget based on DUP and Sinn Fein

ministers failing to make strategic

decisions, this year the Tories have

failed to make strategic decisions

entirely on their own. We have huge

inefficiencies in public services.

The crossover pavilion Evian schools

post-16 -- Effie and schools. There

are a range of issues which simply

aren't being addressed. Until we

address them, we will continue to be

living with trying to play catch up,

trying to make the best of what

we've got as opposed to making

strategic decisions, some of which

will be unpopular in the short-term

but will actually allow long-term

decision-making.

What about revenue

raising? That was something which

could have been... Jolyon has talked

us through it, there were various

options for consideration. Apart

from a number of issues of reference

is about revenue raising in that

paper

were pretty meaningless in

terms of the value it would have

produced compared to the public

difficulty in getting them through.

For example, getting rid of free

prescriptions sounds good but it

actually brings in very little

revenue.

It brings in very little

revenue and a lot of it is taken up

with administering, there are

difficulties. That may be needed as

we look at at well, if we were to

ever implement the reforms to

health, that's the kind of things we

might need to look at. There is also

good deterrent factor of people

taking prescription is too easily,

which has been suggested by some

people. The

people. The reality is, and people

currently don't see value for money

because of the inefficiencies in the

system.

Claire Hanna, could it be

worse under the circumstances?

Actually, we haven't seen the

detail, we have a lot more questions

than answers.

It was a pretty short

statement.

Absolutely, nobody had

the opportunity to ask questions,

the last session of Stormont was

pretty opaque in terms of questions

about the budget, but even Tory

backbenchers are asking about the

lack of opportunity...

You had a

briefing earlier in the week was

glad we had a conversation, but as

far as I'm concerned it political

cover

it was, as I call it, the kids

tables, the smaller parties, there

is due process even in that. The

bigger parties had conversations.

We

had no conversations. This is a

Tory-DUP budget.

Did you know what

was going to be in it before the

written statement before the House?

We had the same briefing that every

party received from the finance

officials before Christmas and a

response to the consultation after

Christmas, but we had no say

whatsoever in this, and if we had we

would have been arguing.

The bottom

line is, the last day in 14 months

is left, certainly we need a budget,

departments need clarity and how

they are going to spend so they can

spend

spend effectively, we are not

turning Dinos Arpad additional money

but there is no understanding about

who is making the political

decisions. Last year's budget,

whilst it was presented from

Westminster, everybody was clear it

was laid down on the basis of the

budget that the previous Executive

did not issue. Who is making the

decisions? The extra money,

delighted we are to have it, but for

infrastructure, what oil building

and where? £20 million extra for

targeting social need, that could be

spent for almost any department.

In

the DUP can say that it has returned

£410 million.

It isn't their money,

it is taxpayers money.

It is money

the DUP negotiated over and above

other money due to come.

That is not

to say the rest of us don't have an

entitlement.

Everybody is going to

benefit from that is the case but

the point is people are entitled to

know and it is a breach of the

spirit of power-sharing Gasper that

this is worse than direct rule

because when Sammy Wilson showboat

it on Twitter how he was going to

see Treasury, the Good Friday allows

for traditions, and they have their

fingerprints all over this budget.

Are we all going to benefit or will

this plug some of the short term

issues without actually dealing in

the long term meaningful way with

addressing the problems of public

services in Northern Ireland? We

might get through this year but we

won't get the benefit if we don't

have proper scrutiny as to how the

money is spent, in a strategic way,

as opposed to spending more on

services than we ought to.

And a bit

of false eye on the part of Sinn

Fein and yourself today. Whenever

you complain about the 4.5 increase

in domestic rates, you wanted to

portraits up, you wanted to scrap

the cup.

I do believe that if we're

going to have increase across the

board, those with the broader

shoulders have to carry more weight.

So today's increase isn't OK?

I

believe that increases on the public

should be means tested. The more

money you have, the more you

contribute, it is a basic principle

of fair government.

People in big

houses don't is a serious have a lot

of money.

We had revenue imposes,

and we make sure those who couldn't

afford didn't pay. 4.5 shouldn't be

across the board. Those struggling

wake-up today knowing inflation is

hitting them and now they have rates

above inflation.

Part of the point

is people can understand rates hike

if they know what it is going to do.

This is a ticket overbudget, it is

cut-and-paste and nobody will see

any improvement in their services.

Let's pause this because in the

meantime it was funding for legacy

inquests which was making all the

headlines.

A judge ruled that

Arlene Foster's decision to block

it was "unlawful and flawed".

Sir Paul Girvan said the former

First Minister was wrong to think

she could postpone the decision

until an overall political

agreement on dealing

with the past was reached.

Our Political Editor,

Mark Devenport, asked the DUP's

Sammy Wilson for his reaction

to the verdict.

When we deal with the past, we deal

with it in a fair and balanced way,

and that one particular aspect of

the past is not examined while other

parts of the past or ignored. And

that was... That will remain our

position but I don't want to comment

on the judgment itself.

Should the

government heed the government's

advice and release the money now?

That would be a decision for the

government to make. But we will...

We want to see that dealing with the

past, being dealt with in a fairway,

where it isn't seen that in the one

particular aspect of the past is

investigated. We have got a lot of

hurt people in Northern Ireland and

I think they expect to see fairness

and balance in a way in which we do

with the past.

Sammy Wilson talking

to us. David Ford, you adjusters

minister at Stormont, what do you

make of this ruling?

There is a

certain amount of personal pleasure

that I worked with the lord chief

justice and the DOJ worked hard to

put together a plan which would have

commenced the process of speeding up

legacy inquests. It wouldn't have

dealt with all of them but it was to

get the process under way. I took

that paper to the Executive, Arlene

Foster refused to table it for

political reasons and we now have a

clear decision from the High Court

that was unlawful. That legacy

inquests 's should have been speeded

up by the provision of extra money.

That is what we wanted to do, that

is what the Lord Chief Justice

wanted to do. And it was rejected

for purely political reasons by

Arlene Foster.

Arlene Foster.

And the Department is

now request during the provision of

additional funding for legacy

inquests and this can't be postponed

until an outcome to a political

agreement is resolved. Do you think

the government should now go ahead

and release the money?

It would

appear the Secretary of State should

release the money. There is also the

issue as to the role of the

Department of Justice in the absence

of a minister. The normal rule was

when ministers had set a direction

of policy, the civil service

continues to work on that. The

direction of policy I said was

absolutely clear that the money

should be provided, should be

requested from the Treasury from the

money promised by David Cameron and

the DOJ should work with the

Judiciary Committee police and other

relevant agencies to speed up the

inquest process. That is something

which is now set, as a ministerial

direction, and which I trust civil

servants will continue through.

Mairtin O Muilleoir, Sammy Wilson

asked about this earlier today and

he says it is up to the government

to release the money or not. That

seems to indicate the DUP would not

object, which is a possible shift in

the party's position. If it is that,

would you welcome such a

development?

I think it is

appalling, and you're showing what

the price of this Tory-DUP deal is,

that the Lord Chief Justice who has

vigorously independent, not in the

pocket of any party, he made an

appeal that we resolve this issue

which causes hurt and pain, the

British didn't fulfil their

commitment but today to explain that

away, we have Sammy Wilson on the TV

justifying the unlawful actions of

the former first Minister and the

judgment of the courts. And sitting

in judgment now, almost godlike,

over whether or not people will have

access to the truth.

He was

explaining the DUP's position.

Arlene Foster made her position

clear which is she didn't believe

the release of the legacy inquest

funding was balanced. She wanted to

see it as part of a wider package.

This is why it is appalling because

Sammy Wilson didn't explain why

Arlene Foster...

Isn't the case Sinn

Fein has reached agreement with the

government to see 35mm is released

over five years? That was meant to

be part of the deal. Doesn't look

like it'll happen any time soon so

should the money be forthcoming

ASAP?

Remove the politics from it.

The British government made the

commitment to the Lord Chief

Justice, 35 million over a period of

years, that money should be

released, and we did have an

understanding with the British that

they would make sure that happen.

The deal collapsed because the DUP

could not consummate. Release the

money and remove it from the

political arena entirely. Let people

have their inquest.

Do you agree?

Week welcomed the ruling people have

been waiting for. It was

mean-spirited by Arlene Foster to

use it as a bargaining chip. Every

time the government and the two big

parties get into a room, what's

provided for victims is stripped out

and the political will isn't there

and in my mind, they are covering up

for each other. It is a bad taste in

people's mouths.

Do you anticipate

developments in?

We should have

bitten his arm off if he said he

could have resolved this problem

with £5 million, that money should

be released, and it will build

trust, create virtuous circles...

You have to blame Sinn Fein for

this.

Final question... You can't

blame Sinn Fein.

Final question, do

you think £35 million over five

years would sort this issue out once

and for all?

I suspect it would be

more than 35mm is for all the cost

is associated with inquests. The

important point I put was not that

it was going to resolve the issue

entirely by get the process under

way, it was going to prove the

concept as to how we would proceed

to do the full job.

Thanks, folks,

for coming in to join us.

The Local Government Auditor

is to be asked to investigate claims

that £1,500 of rate-payers' money

was used to sponsor

a table at a DUP dinner.

The party may also be asked

to refund the cash paid by Mid

and East Antrim Council.

The DUP has insisted the dinner,

which was attended by the

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

in September, was not

a party fundraiser.

But a letter released under

a Freedom of Information Request,

and seen by the View,

has raised questions

about how the money was paid,

as Enda McClafferty now reports.

He is the MP who just loves to

network.

This is my office, this is

where I work.

Rubbing shoulders with

ministers.

I've a nice view

photographs. I had dinner with

Michael Gove.

That happened last

year when the Environment Secretary

joined the MP at dinner in this

hotel at Ballymena. It was billed as

a is this community dinner and

amongst those who sponsor the table

was the local council. Despite

questions raised at the time the DUP

always insisted it was not a party

fundraiser. Does a letter from Ian

Paisley's office to the Council

chief executive released through a

Freedom of information request

suggest otherwise? In it, Ian

Paisley asked the council boss to

make the check for £1500 for a table

payable to the hotel hosting the

dinner. But not to send it there.

And this is where Ian Paisley wanted

the cheque sent, to an address on

Church Street in Ballymena. And it

-- as it turns out it is the DUP

offices. This is the councillor who

obtained the letter through the

Freedom of information request. She

says the K the states this was Ian

Paisley's annual constituency

dinner.

I find it very alarming

because we questioned and I

personally question the chief

executive around the details of this

dinner and I seek clarity. They told

me it was not DUP dinner.

Here's

what happened she tried to raise it

in the chamber this week.

I'm going

to speak, regardless of whether

you'll my microphone. I will speak.

I've correspondence which makes it

clear... Order, order, order! You

cannot speak on the matter.

Unfortunately, my microphone was

switched off. I wanted to see

clarity about what the chief

executive new and what the DUP

what's they knew as well and

following this we will be going to

the local government auditor said

this can be investigated further.

Ian Paisley wasn't up for talking

about that and about here is someone

who was there and who interviewed

the guest speaker. Did it feel like

a DUP fundraiser for him?

It didn't

feel that way to me. It wasn't

presented that way to me. It was a

business constituency dinner hosted

by the MP Ian Paisley, something he

does on a regular basis. He was

hosting it.

What checks did council

officials make before handing over

that money? Which asked that

question and this was the response.

I don't think the council have

handled this well at will. It has

been very ambiguous. We were told it

was the North Antrim business

community event but it wasn't Ian

Paisley constituency dinner

supported by in Paisley himself.

I

think there are big questions. It is

disgraceful the way the ratepayer

and councillors have been treated.

We've suffered massive job losses.

Our rates have been increased by

2.95%.

We asked the DUP for a

response to the councillor 's

concerns but they don't reply. Ian

Paisley, though, has since hosted

another dinner, attended this time

by the former minister Priti Patel.

She, too, is now on his wall. But

this time the local council said no

thanks when invited to sponsor a

table.

Enda McClafferty reporting.

Let's hear what tonight's

commentators make of

what we've been discussing.

Deirdre Heenan and Newton

Emerson are with me.

Let's talk about the budget first

bowl. Nugent, any surprises as far

as you're concerned?

No, I think

it's a mistake for the other parties

to complain about the budget when

it's really one of the things that

we don't have to complain about. The

real issue this budget reveals is

that the DUP, having screwed up the

best deal on unionism could possibly

have got at Stormont, has retreated

to the Westminster comfort zone for

the duration, and this has given it

a great headline to start that. The

debate

debate that we were having about the

Stormont talks has flipped

immediately around to the budget as

if the catastrophe of the past month

has been forgotten, and now we're

arguing about alleged Tory hostility

and the nit-picking details of

finance, when the real problem is

that this budget is a breach of the

1999 act, it is completely outside

the terms of the Good Friday

Agreement. This is the different

between the two other patch up

budgets. It is unambiguously direct

rule. We have been tipped into this

limbo and nobody seems to care.

Did

the DUP not say tonight, we have

delivered an extra £410 million for

everyone in Ireland has blogged it

would be churlish to say, we don't

need money. We need the money.

On

the other hand, it flies in the good

face of good government. There is no

accountability, no transparency, no

consultation. We don't know what

this money is going to be spent on.

We are told infrastructure,

education and health. We don't know

where is the political direction for

this. In health, we are told it is

going to implement the report. We

don't have the structures in and

systems in place to implement this.

The civil servants that we have are

risk averse. Listening to the RHI on

it daily basis, they are going to be

more risk averse. The idea that they

are going to lead a programme of

transformation is quite frankly

ridiculous. It will be keep the ship

going, steady the ship, as you work,

keep the show on the road. But we

will not get a programme of

transformation, there is no

strategic direction, and we

absolutely need strategic direction,

particularly in health and

education.

They didn't want any

announcement on MLAs' play to take

the gloss off this announcement --

MLAs' pay.

This is the big launch

effectively of their new Westminster

period, as Arlene Foster has

effectively said, Stormont can't

come back this side of Brexit,

really, what it looks like, given

the timetable of these negotiations.

With a Tory deal but can run on

until perhaps the end of the decade,

they are sitting back and thinking,

we'll see what else crops up. They

don't have any other options, they

have walked away from the best

possible outcome they could have

had. They are going to simply sit

back and Westminster, see how they

can operate things from there and

see what they can make of Brexit.

And in the meantime, we have been

left with neither direct rule nor

devolution. And no particular

urgency, it seems, to resolve that

conundrum.

For some long as the

confident and supply arrangement

continues at Westminster, the DUP is

in a pretty powerful position and

today proves it.

I don't know that

they are in a powerful position.

They are enjoying the position that

they are in, but it could go at any

time, it could be short lived. We

have a fragile Conservative

government. They don't have that

much power leveraged. The

interesting thing is, yes, they have

delivered a budget and the money but

we are still in a political vacuum.

We don't have direct rule devolution

and we have no ministerial

direction. We have nobody there to

make the decisions to spend the

money. Well done them for bringing

the money, but if it can't be

delivered in the way it's needed, so

what.

Let's talk about legacy just

to close. You confident that legacy

inquest funding could be

inquest funding could be released

sooner rather than later?

Not

necessarily. I think you have to

bear in mind that traditional

reviews are police actions, and

losing a traditional -- judicial

review doesn't mean that you have

broken the law, the Government has

stalled this for decades and

Stormont has ignored judicial review

is completely.

He directed them to

look at it again stop your civil

servants are averse to breaking the

law.

When Martin O'Neill said that

legacy should not be a political

issue, it is. It is still in the mix

of all the other and soft issues at

Stormont.

Deirdre, final. Log one

might hope that this decision may

embolden the Secretary of State.

James Brokenshire talked about

consultation and September last year

and we are still waiting on it. One

may hope that this may give Arlene

Foster the cover to say, I'm going

to move it on and do it so boy

interesting thoughts, thanks both

very much indeed for joining us

tonight.

Thanks, both.

That's it from The View

for this week.

The Sunday Politics is here

at 11:35am on BBC One as usual.

And, as International Women's Day

draws to an end, let's close

with some familiar faces

from the local political world.

Bye-bye.

MUSIC