St. Andrews and the Cuts
Yesterday on the Peter Robinson played a legal card in his negotiations over the Spending Review, insisting that the government had obligations under the St. Andrews' Agreement to honour Gordon Brown's committments to maintain capital spending in Northern Ireland.
In response on Inside Politics, Owen Paterson insisted he wasn't going to negotiate over the airwaves, but questioned whether Gordon Brown had made promises he couldn't keep.
In turn that prompted Mr Robinson to claim that Mr Paterson apparently "believes that International Agreements and binding commitments with devolved Institutions have no standing if governments change or economic circumstances alter."
So what does St.Andrews say about our finances? The deal, reached in October 2006, concentrated on policing and power sharing. However it contains an annex which deals with a projected financial package. "In the context of restoration of the institutions" St Andrews says "the Governments remain committed to ensuring the Executive has the capacity to provide quality public services, to continue the process of necessary reform, to plan for the future, to make the long-term capital investments to underpin the economic transformation of Northern Ireland, as well as bringing long-term benefits for the island as a whole."
Nothing very specific there, but the then Chancellor Gordon Brown produced a funding package, which included a pledge to provide "an updated strategic capital investment plan totalling £18 billion over the period 2005 to 2017 to underpin long term economic growth, and facilitate substantial capital spending on roads, health, schools, tertiary education and other priorities."
This is the committment to which Peter Robinson is referring. It's smart politics for the First Minister to throw in St. Andrews to the current negotiation with the Treasury, on the grounds that the other devolved regions will no doubt be marshalling whatever arguments are at their disposal. But it's hard to imagine this one going all the way to the If it did the lawyers would have to decide whether Chancellor Brown's subsequent funding package was covered by the government's treaty obligations, or whether the rather more vague wording of the Agreement's Annex C gives Chancellor Osborne the flexibility to cut the Executive's capital budget.
P.S. As flagged up previously on this blog entry, Ian Duncan Smith's plans for welofare reform could have a major impact on Northern Ireland. Figures given to me previously by the DSD were that in 2009/10 more than £4billion was paid in welfare benefits to tens of thousands of claimants. In May 2009 61,704 people here were recipients of Incapacity Benefit, 91,500 people here received Income Support and 44,585 people here got Job Seekers Allowance.
This morning the DSD Minister Alex Attwood told the Nolan Show that he may seek flexibility or even an "opt out" in relation to one aspect of the proposed welfare reform package - the cut in child benefit to high rate tax payers. Departing from the "parity principle" in relation to welfare could be fraught with political and practical dangers, given the way the local DSD is reliant on the London Department of Work and Pensions systems. But aside from his own objections to Mr Duncan Smith's reforms, Mr Attwood probably doesn't want to be outflanked on this by Sinn Fein, which criticised his predecessor Margaret Ritchie over her defence of parity.
In seeking to argue that the government could find the cash to close its deficit elsewhere, Mr Attwood suggested the MOD's purchase of two new aircraft carriers should be scrapped. Of course this would go down badly with minister's Scottish counterparts who have been lobbying intensively to preserve the jobs at stake in their shipyards. It's just another illustration that whilst there may be talk of the regions putting pressure on the centre to blunt the cuts, come October 20th it may very well be every man for himself.
I'm 
Comments