21/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

More money is being offered

by Theresa May to break the deadlock

in the Brexit negotiations,

but will it keep

everyone happy at home?

One key sticking point in the talks

is the Northern Irish border.

we'll speak to the Democratic

Unionist Party on how

a solution might be found.

In case you hadn't realised,

tomorrow is budget day.

Many economists are warning

more must be done to

improve productivity.

So what needs to be done

to get the economy going?

And the art of a good deal.

Donald Trump says

he's an expert at it.

What about our own politicians?

We'll look at how to get the best

out of political negotiations.

All that in the next hour.

With us for the whole

of the programme today is the DUP's

deputy leader Nigel Dodds.

Welcome to the show.

First this morning, it appears

Theresa May has managed

to get her ministers

to agree on something.

What's more,

it's concerning Brexit.

At a special Brexit Cabinet meeting

last night it was decided to offer

more money to the European Union

in order to break the

deadlock in the talks.

The proposal is conditional on the

negotiations moving onto trade.

Here is what David Davis said this

morning. It is clear in negotiating

rounds that we need to start talking

about future negotiation

relationships.

The Northern Ireland

border cannot be fully addressed if

we don't take into account the

future partnership with the European

Union. The final resolution on

financial settlement depends on it

because nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed. It might be a

familiar phrase to some of you, and

the future of Europe requires a

satisfactory resolution to the

critical economic issues at stake

and we are ready to begin the

conversation about the future

partnership as soon as the European

Union is.

Do you support the agreement to up

the offer of money to the EU to 40

billion to unlock the negotiations?

We've always supported the UK

Government meeting obligations and

commitments and we would like to see

it set out, the commitments that we

are legally obliged to pay, what are

the pensions arrangements and what

are the commitments in terms of the

budget. We don't believe in paying

for access to the single market.

Other countries like the US do, so

we don't see why we should. But this

is a negotiation. And as I

understand it no figure was

discussed in Cabinet so I await with

interest to see the way the

negotiation takes place.

What would

you like to see upfront at this

stage? The government, David Davis,

have spoken about there being

concrete proposals from the EU, a

response before that money is given.

What conditions would you like to

see attached?

I think we need a firm

assurance we will move to the next

phase of discussions on the trade

deal that needs to happen because

Northern Ireland, on the border

issue, and on the financial

settlement, as he said, and he's

quite right, nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed and we need to

see the whole package in the round.

Therefore the EU, and certainly the

Irish, if they are encouraging the

EU in this, they are doing

themselves a great disservice by

holding back talks on the trade

deal.

They say it is held back

because the UK Government has not

given on the divorce settlement. Do

you think the offer should be on the

table first before and taken on

faith that Michel Barnier will move?

The Prime Minister in the Florent

speech put an offer on the table and

clearly what is going on is a haggle

for money and that is what it comes

down to. Clearly Brussels would like

to use the leverage of moving the

trade deal to extract more money.

The government is right to take a

cautious approach. This is the

biggest card we have to play and the

EU will suffer a massive in the

budget going forward, and it would

be madness to commit a firm figure

upfront in terms of the final deal

at this stage.

Are you happy to see

a continued role for the European

Court of Justice during the

fermentation period?

We are clear

that as long as it is an

implementation period with a fixed

date for a final withdrawal, and we

know it will happen in 2019 in

March, but this implementation

period, we take the view that

whatever happens with the transition

is a matter for negotiation and we

will judge it and we are not

doctrinally on the issue, as long,

at the end of the day, after a

defined period, we are free in terms

of making our own laws, controlling

borders and money. Those are the key

issues for us.

Would you entertain

the idea of the ECJ continuing in

some role, overseeing the rights of

EU citizens in the UK beyond

transition?

I think that is a

difficult one. I think we have voted

to leave the EU and the jurisdiction

of European law. To continue to have

a role for the European Court of

Justice in setting laws or rules

about immigration, or whatever it

might be, would be contrary to the

expressed view of the people in the

referendum.

Is it a red line for

you? We are careful when it comes to

negotiations when it comes to read

lines.

All of it needs to be looked

at in the round in terms of the

overall package but we are clear

that one of the objectives should

clearly be getting rid of the

European jurisdiction of the bodies

there, including the European Court

of Justice intervention in the

affairs of the UK.

It was decided

that it was part of getting a good

trade deal, would you not do it?

Let's see the outcome.

Is this an

ideal time, bearing in mind what is

happening in Germany and Angela

Merkel's failure to create a

coalition government, is this an

ideal time to exploit German

political weaknesses and withhold

any more money?

I think it is

interesting what is going on because

Germany is in an unprecedented

position. But I think Angela Merkel

is the Chancellor and she will give

direction to Germany's input into

the talks and in the relationship

with Michel Barnier and all the rest

of it. My view is that we need to be

sensible about this. I think talking

about exploiting Germany's weakness

on the helpful.

Could it work in the

favour of the UK?

We need to adopt a

sophisticated approach to this by

saying we are prepared to meet our

obligations and commitments in the

context of reciprocal guarantees,

whether or not Angela Merkel is

another minority position or a limbo

position in terms of transitioning

or whether she has a majority

coalition or not.

But is this an

opportunity for the UK, her

weakness?

I am not sure that it

necessarily will be, because at the

end of the day Angela Merkel remains

Chancellor and in charge of the

negotiations.

All right.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Yesterday saw the decision

to relocate the European Medicines

Agency to Amsterdam -

after the European Banking Authority

was confirmed to be moving to Paris.

Both agencies will leave

London after Brexit.

But with stiff competition

between EU cities and several rounds

of voting, how was the deadlock

on the European Medicines Agency

eventually broken?

Was it a coin toss?

A tug of war?

A game of rock-paper-scissors?

Or a game of five-a-side?

At the end of the show, Nigel

will give us the correct answer.

One of the big sticking points

in the Brexit negotiations

is the issue of what to do

with the border in Northern Ireland.

Currently there is an invisible

border between Ireland

and Northern Ireland.

The European Union has said

throughout negotiations there should

be no return to a 'hard

border' after Brexit.

And the UK Government agrees -

and has said it is also aiming

for a deal which will

avoid any physical

infrastructure at the border.

But the EU and Dublin doesn't see

how that can work as the UK has

committed to leaving the customs

union and the single market.

On Friday Irish Prime Minister,

Leo Varadkar demanded a written

commitment from the UK

that there would be no hard border

between the two countries,

before trade talks can begin.

And a recent European Commission

paper implied the only way a hard

border could be avoided

was for Northern Ireland to remain

inside, or as close to as possible,

the EU customs union

and single market.

This would take the border off

the island and place

it in the Irish Sea -

between the rest of the UK

and Northern Ireland.

The DUP, who support

the Conservative on key issues, say

a border between Northern Ireland

and the rest of the UK

is "just not acceptable".

And Brexit Secretary David Davis has

also rejected the proposals -

saying he wants to preserve

the constitutional and economic

integrity of the United Kingdom.

The UK Government and the DUP

want to keep the border where it is.

David Davis has suggested that

a new, undefined customs arrangement

using technology such as trusted

trade schemes to create

a 'light-touch' border,

will avoid a hard border.

Joining me now is the

Shadow Northern Ireland

Secretary Owen Smith.

You said Northern Ireland could

remain part of the EU so should it

be in the sea?

I agree with Brussels

right now that the only way I can

see us is practically avoiding the

problem of the hardboard are coming

back in Northern Ireland, between

Northern Ireland and the Republic,

and we concede that would be very

damaging to the very difficult and

hard-won peace process we have in

Northern Ireland.

Do you accept it

is a solution?

It is if you want to

separate Northern Ireland from the

rest of the UK and you think damage

to the economy of Northern Ireland,

and you believe in a project about

following the EU position on the

customs union. The reality is, and

if you talk to some of the leading

remain people in Northern Ireland on

the business front, the people who

run the ports, yes, we want to stay

in the European Union, but now we

are leaving, to create a border

between Northern Ireland and the

rest of the UK where three quarters

of our trade is with the United

Kingdom would be madness. Never mind

the political consequences. If you

care about business, jobs and

investment, you will do nothing

which cuts Northern Ireland off,

between the UK and the rest of the

EU.

When the UK Government say they

are not prepared to discuss the

economic and constitutional

integrity of the UK, what you say to

this?

I don't think it will

challenge the constitutional

integrity as Northern Ireland will

remain part of the UK. I completely

agree that nothing can change that

it is by consent from the people of

Ireland and Northern Ireland.

What

about the economic argument?

I think

we are talking about the least worst

option. In either regard we will end

up doing economic damage to Northern

Ireland. That is my view on where

this is likely to lead. The question

is, which damage trumps which. My

view is that the principal danger we

face is reintroducing a hard border

between North and South, with all of

the political problems I think that

will potentially give rise to and

that has to be avoided above all

else. That is my view and the view

of many people.

It seems that the

political considerations are above

the economic considerations. In my

view both of them are important, but

the economic one, whether you are

nationalist or unionist, people want

to ensure that you have a good

future and there is good trade. To

cut yourself off and create

differences and barriers between

trade of your biggest traders, that

is economic vandalism. In terms of

the political side of it, the

British government in its August

paper on Ireland and the border put

forward practical solutions. Radical

solutions which ended Kenny was

working on and when Leo Varadkar, he

stopped the work on the practical

solutions, when he came in. He wants

to keep the whole of the UK in the

customs union, and I understand that

that is good for the Republic of

Ireland but that isn't going to

happen.

How difficult do you think

the Irish government is being on

this? When I interviewed one of the

MEPs, she said it would be

traumatising for Ireland if there is

anything that destroys that

relationship between Northern

Ireland and Ireland and she says

that is what you are doing.

It was

the Irish Republic who decided to

break with sterling, that parity we

had, and the Irish government

decided to create that union and

create barriers between the South

and Northern Ireland in terms of

currency and they're all sorts of

differences. Our view is that we

need to work together. The Irish are

in grave danger of doing damage

their own industry and the Irish

farmers Association came out to

criticise Leo Varadkar, saying that

what you'll end up doing is that the

EE you and Ireland, creating that

hard border, cutting us off from the

GB market.

But the farmers also said

there should not be a hard border on

the island. They've united with the

trade and business leaders.

But we

are not the ones putting it up

there.

We have to make sure we have

a practical to solution taking it

forward. David Davis brought forward

sums solutions and then rode

backwards and said we could not have

a technical fix.

Let's talk about

the practicalities. There is an

issue because there are so many

people, Wise heads, who say that

technological solutions will do it

but they say that won't work and

there has to be a way of checking

customs and goods and having

regulatory equivalents, and the

easiest way in the eyes of the EU

would be to keep Northern Ireland in

the customs union. What is your

solution if technology is not going

to cure all, what else is there?

Let's be careful.

David Davis wrote

back on the issue that was about a

new preferred customs arrangement

and said there were difficulties but

on the technology side, go to Sweden

and Norway. They are inside the

single market, but outside the

customs union. Go to Switzerland,

evidence given by the authorities

and there are technological

solutions, so the idea it cannot

work is wrong. If we get a free

trade deal and move on to the second

phase and get a tower if free deal,

we will not have to worry so much

about this. Bowen, I hope and his

MEPs in Brussels. Voting against

moving to the second stage of talks

and actually get on and support the

British Government's view it is

necessary because until we get to

the second stage we cannot get to a

final deal.

Have you got Brussels'

backing for the idea of Northern

Ireland remaining part of the EU?

I

have not asked for it. What I am

trying to point out is there has to

be a practical solution that avoids

a hard border on the island of

Ireland. Northern Ireland remains as

close to part of the customs union

as is possible and I don't think

that damages the constitutional

integrity of the UK nor offers put

-- political advantage to Brussels.

Then simply transfer to the border

of Northern Ireland and the UK...

If

we were to end up with a border down

the Irish Sea, how difficult would

it be?

It went. The government has

been clear and we are clear because

both politically and economically,

it would be catastrophic. It would

be catastrophic economic theory

because businesses, trade with the

rest...

What assurances have you had

from the government? Would it be so

important that you would be prepared

to pull out of the confidence and

supply motion?

It would be gravely

destabilising to the government and

they know that but secondly it would

be gravely destabilising to Northern

Ireland. Barry is going into words

because market would be disastrous.

From the political point of view it

will not happen.

As you said early

in our discussion politics in a

negotiation is important and the

government said it was not prepared

to move further than the Florence

speech amount of money and it has

moved and there could be a situation

where they say they will seek some

sort of regulatory equivalence for

Northern Ireland and Ireland and if

that happened, would you pull out of

that agreement?

This is the Lee

Varadkar idea that you do not stay

in the customs union and single

market but mirror everything. Which

would lead to greater difference and

it would be Northern Ireland economy

and the rest of the UK and that is

not acceptable and the government

know it would be a red line for the

DUP.

If Brexit talks collapsed as a

result of what some critics might

say would be your intransigence,

there could be another general

election.

Is that something you

would like to see? We are committed

to supporting the government in its

main objectives of achieving Brexit

and the security and stability the

country needs and I am confident the

government will get to that.

You do

not think the pressure you will

exert to make sure the government

sticks to what it has promised in

terms of Northern Ireland would not

collapse? A general election could

bring an alternative government.

We

do not have to exert pressure on

this.

There is not going to be any

move towards what you're suggesting

as a result.

We do not know that

because we are in fluid negotiations

and I agree with Nigel, we need to

move to the next stage and I hope we

will make progress, because it has

been disastrously slow. Nigel

revealed, he used the word

intransigence, but he is revealing

it is politics driving his position.

I have pointed out the economic. Leo

Varadkar offered a simple and

practical way in which we could

solve problems but the DUP are not

prepared... They feel it changes the

nature of Northern Ireland within

the union.

You have yet to address

and you have not answered the

central point, what do you do about

most of the trade going to the UK?

You would want to create a barrier

in terms of customs differences and

regulation tariffs between Northern

Ireland where most of the trade goes

to the UK. You do not even want to

address that.

Let him address it.

Millions of pieces of trade occur

between Ireland north and south and

the huge Mac goes from the south

through the North into GB and huge

amounts of trade goes from within

the UK between Northern Ireland and

GB and that is true. Whatever way

around we solve the problem we

aren't going to see in my view a

lessening of the economic

performance of Northern Ireland,

indeed of the UK and that is the

reality. We have to get right the

perspective on Northern Ireland, not

returning to a problem with a border

dividing the island that gave rise

to conflict in Northern Ireland. The

answer is the politics has to trump

the economics because the danger in

Northern Ireland is so great. The

politics and a political solution

have to come first.

Why do you see

the DUP as the block in this, isn't

it the government to hold the same

position, or are you say they are

blocking the government moving on?

I

am not sure they hold the same

position. I think you can get a

large bit of paper between what they

have said and what Nigel has said

and we do not yet know where the

government are going to land on this

and it may there is a compromise to

be found that is unique, special

status for Northern Ireland

reflecting the unique nature of the

Good Friday Agreement.

That could

result in the DUP pulling support?

That is not our concern, that is for

the DUP and government to worry

about. My concern is maintaining the

cost Jewish and integrity of the UK

and making sure Northern Ireland and

the Republic do not a hard border.

Arlene Foster accuse the government

of using the issue is blackmail in

the Brexit negotiations. Why should

the Irish public not comment?

I have

no problem on the Irish government

standing up for its own position and

national interests. What I have

problems with is people who

represent the UK and UK parties,

they back the Irish against the

interests of their own people. So

that the Irish can have free access

to Northern Ireland. Let's create a

barrier between Northern Ireland and

the rest of the UK...

Northern

Ireland voted to remain.

In the

referendum. As did London and as did

other regions of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is one country.

Representing the people in the way

you expressed you could say you are

out of step with the views in

Northern Ireland.

I could point to

constituencies in Northern Ireland

that voted to leave. We could all

drill down into micro-areas and

regions. This was a UK national

referendum and as we joined the EU

we will leave together and there is

talk about the DUP and government,

we are on the same page and the

Prime Minister made clear today and

David Davis has spelt it out and

James Brokenshire in Brussels made a

strong speech because they recognise

that it would do such economic

damage to Northern Ireland it would

be inconceivable.

What did you think

when the Labour Party front bench

walked through the lobby with the

Tories yesterday in voting down a

bid to keep Britain in the single

market and customs union?

I was back

in my constituency on business but

my understanding is it was a one

line whip and a couple of members of

Labour Party front bench walking

through the lobbies. The important

ones.

Not our Brexit Secretary.

But

John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. My

view is we should be in the customs

union for the transitional period

and that Northern Ireland should be

in the customs union or something

akin to it and I would have been

tempted to vote for the amendment

had I been there but as I understand

it I would be free to do that.

Was

it a betrayal by the front bench to

go through the lobby with the

Tories?

I do not think so but people

have different views in different

parties and that was reflected in

last night's vote.

So, today, we're covering

sorting out Brexit and

the Northern Ireland Assembly,

both tough jobs but spare a thought

for someone with another tricky one.

Richard Leonard was elected leader

of the Scottish Labour

party over the weekend,

and squeezed between Nicola

Sturgeon's SNP and a resurgent

Scottish Conservative Party under

Ruth Davidson, he has quite a task

to turn his party's fortunes around.

Just to make life harder for himself

he's now admitted he would support

England over Scotland in football

or rugby, he clearly

doesn't like an easy life.

And I'm pleased to

say Richard Leonard

joins me now from Edinburgh.

Welcome. To win big in Scotland you

need to win back Labour's old

heartlands in Glasgow and

Lanarkshire. How does a privately

educated England supporter do that?

My response was to a question in

which I thought it was right to give

an honest answer and so it may not

be popular in all circles but I

thought it was the right thing to

do. The reason why I have been

elected as leader of the Scottish

Labour Party is because I stood on a

radical programme calling for an

extension of public ownership and

ends to austerity and a

redistribution not just of wealth

but power. Those were traditional

Labour messages perhaps, and once

that which have their roots in a

manifesto which we fought the

general election and people are

turning to the Labour Party in

Scotland more as a party that

represents the hope of a different

future so it is a positive,

optimistic Labour Party in Scotland

we are building.

Use say the

Scottish Labour Party will be a

movement for socialism. Are you

Jeremy Corbyn's man north of the

border?

I am a bit the tooth to be a

Corbynista. We have both been in the

party a long time and I have been in

the party 35 years and I have

largely stuck to my views and

principles and that has meant

occasionally I have been a bit off

message and maybe out of fashion

occasionally, but I have been

consistent and that lends

credibility in articulating this

radical Socialist democratic renewal

of Scotland, which I am looking for.

That is in line with what Jeremy

Corbyn is doing broadly. Would you

be prepared to challenge the Labour

leadership and policies put forward

in London to set your own individual

agenda?

It is not so much an

individual agenda. It is a Scottish

Labour Party agenda and I have been

clear the mandate I got at the

weekend was from the membership of

the Scottish Labour Party and it is

to those members I will be

accountable, not beholden to any

individual in the Labour Party

previously and I will not start now.

There have been differences for a

while in the prospectus offered by

the Scottish Labour Party rather

than at UK level on things like

taxation where we have argued there

needs to be a more progressive

approach using powers of the

Scottish Parliament to combat

austerity.

How does that differ from

what the SNP are probably going to

do? They have hinted at tax rises.

There will not be that much to

distinguish you and at the moment

you are behind, both the Tories and

SNP.

The distinction is this, the

SNP has been empowered the last ten

years and during that time they have

instituted a council tax freeze and

almost done nothing to change income

tax rates and bands and there is now

an opportunity to build a consensus

in the Scottish Parliament for more

progressive approach of I hope they

will come along with other parties

including the Labour Party to

promote that agenda. The distinction

is this, the Scottish Parliament has

extensive powers, many of which the

SNP has not used in ten years in

office.

They may be about to do so,

which would blunt your attempt to

try to grab the initiative. Unity is

important in a party. The public do

not like this within politics and

you will be the fourth leader of the

Scottish Labour Party in three years

of most of your colleagues voted for

your rival in the recent leadership

contest and your predecessor said

there were internal problems within

Labour, plotting and bullying. How

will you unite the Scottish Labour

Party?

I will unite the party

because I have a mandate not just

from the trade union section but

grassroots membership and I have a

majority and have had a majority of

members of the Parliamentary Labour

Party from Scotland supporting me. I

will reach out to all parts of the

party, Parliamentary, local

government, activists, trade

unionists, and build a unity, but it

will not be a hollow call for unity

but a unity of purpose and that is

about building that movement for

real change because after 20 years

of devolution and ten years of the

SNP in power, people are hungry for

radical change and are increasingly

turning to the Scottish Labour Party

to be the vehicle for realising

radical change.

Are you going to

suspend Kezia Dugdale for taking

part in I'm A Celebrity without

authorisation?

The group is about to

meet in Holyrood in the next half

hour and there will be a discussion

at that meeting about our course of

action on that. I have said already

that I do not support hasty calls

for Kezia Dugdale's suspension but

it will be a decision taken

collectively.

So you will be bound by the decision

if they decide she should be

suspended?

I will be bound by the

decision the group takes,

absolutely.

Nigel Dodds has been a busy man,

this morning he was at Number 10

discussing the restoration

of the Northern Ireland power

sharing arrangement.

The Northern Ireland government

collapsed after the then Deputy

First Minister Martin McGuinness

resigned over First Minister

Arlene Foster's role

in a heating subsidy scheme.

There is now talk of direct rule

from London and last week

Northern Ireland's budget had to go

through the UK Parliament

because there was a risk public

services in Northern Ireland

could run out of money.

Sinn Fein also met the Prime

Minister this morning,

and speaking after the

meetings Mrs May said

She is determined to see the

inaugural Ivan government back in

action. I've said that the

determination of the government is

there to make sure we see the

re-establishment of the fully

functioning, inclusive devolved

administration that works for

everybody in Northern Ireland. I

have almost -- always said our

steadfast support for the Belfast

and its successive agreements and

the leadership of the DUP and Sinn

Fein have committed to seeing

Stormont back up and running.

We can get more on this

with Northern Ireland political

correspondent Gareth Gordon.

Were there any signs of progress

made this morning in your view?

As

so often with the Northern Ireland

peace process it is one step

forward, three steps back. Not that

we've really had a step forward, but

the interesting thing out of the

Theresa May interview which I

carried at view minutes ago was that

she said she wanted to see talks

between Sinn Fein and the DUP resume

next week and that came as something

of a surprise to us because Sinn

Fein last week said they believed

the current phase of the talks

process was over and there had

essentially been four phases which

yielded very little, if anything and

Sinn Fein said they were prepared to

go into a phase on the same basis.

The DUP say like they are happy to

go into talks any time anywhere but

I simply cannot get an answer out of

Sinn Fein yet as to whether or not

they would be prepared to go back to

talks as soon as next week but I

would be surprised, as we speak, if

that was the case. Theresa May also

said she thought that the issues

that divided the party were quite

narrow, although she was aware of

the challenges. A new challenge

might have emerged this morning

because Arlene Foster and Nigel

Dodds came out of the meeting and

criticise what they called the

glorification of terrorism at the

weekend Sinn Fein annual conference.

The one where Gerry Adams said he

would stand down as Sinn Fein

president in the near future. They

said that that would make, if

anything, a deal to restore

devolution even more difficult.

Nigel Dodds said things like that

had to stop. Gerry Adams, when it

was put to him, when he came out, he

said he had not seen the

glorification of anybody at the Sinn

Fein conference but what he had seen

was a respectful, comradely

acknowledgement of the role of

Martin McGuinness. He refuted the

use of the word terrorism and said

that was pejorative. Whether that is

a storm in a teacup or a more

serious issue, we have Tousiq, but

it does point out the difficulty of

getting a deal between these two

parties. -- we have two C.

Let's

pick up, because Theresa May said

they want talks between you and the

DUP to resume next week.

Will you do

that? We've made it clear to Theresa

May today that Sinn Fein will

reflect not just on reflects --

events of the last few days and

today's discussion but the progress

of the talks over the last ten

months. We want a deal we want to be

able to talk but there's no point in

having endless talks for months or

months with no rhyme or reason or

meaning behind them this is a simple

solution, for Theresa May to stand

up and ensure that rights are

delivered to people in Belfast like

they are in London and Liverpool.

But can you give us a straight

answer as to whether you will meet

the DUP next week as the Prime

Minister has said you should all

stop I've given you a straight

answer.

We will reflect as a party

on the progress of the talks and the

discussion today, the frank and

robust discussion that the Sinn Fein

leadership had with Theresa May. We

are open to talks on all sorts of

matters, but let me be clear again

that we do not want to have endless

talks for months and months. The

public need confidence in the

process thus far it has not been

there.

We are getting closer to a

state of direct rule. Just last

week, the budget passed ball

Northern Ireland by Westminster. Ie

You really going to hold up

power-sharing over an issue like the

Irish language act?

It is not Sinn

Fein holding up power-sharing.

The

DUP said they would do it any time,

anyplace, anywhere. Like the Martini

ad.

The DUP needs to stand up, and

as I said before my first answer,

deliver rights to all of the people

across these islands. It is

absolutely not sustainable that

people in the north of Ireland do

not have the same rights as they do

in places like London, Liverpool,

Edinburgh and Dublin. It is not

sustainable going forward. To

suggest that Sinn Fein is holding up

power-sharing is not an accurate

reading.

So how do you envisage this

ending in anything other than direct

rule currently?

Theresa May publicly

said today that she is committed to

the previous agreements.

And you are

talking about the agreement to

introduce an Irish language act?

We

are talking about the agreement

about protection for the Irish

language that was made. We have

issues around marriage equality, and

is DUP and Tory access has been

regressive for politics in the area

of Northern Ireland. We are talking

about rights being held up by a

group of religious zealots that

block progress in society. People

are simply not content to move

forward like this and that is the

expression Sinn Fein has given to

the debate.

Except you could argue

that that access you say is

regressive has delivered 50 million

extra pounds to health and education

across Northern Ireland. Is that

something to be celebrated?

Any

additional funds into our resources

are to be welcomed but it has to be

put on record that the Tories since

2010 have gutted our public

expenditure, so to suggest that

being given money is good, you have

to look at the whole picture.

Do you

accept that the SDLP leader Colin

Eastwood says it would be poor

negotiating if Northern Ireland ends

up with direct rule. He's not wrong,

is he?

The Irish government and Sinn

Fein have also given the agreements

were previously reached that direct

rule is unacceptable. Direct rule is

not a consequence of the negotiating

position. We are talking about

rights that have been demanded by

White sections of the community and

it's the Tories and DUP who are

blocking rights that people have in

Liverpool, Edinburgh, Dublin and

London, but people in Belfast or

not. That's not sustainable going

forward.

What you say about the

criticism on the glorification of

terrorism conference recently making

the deal more difficult?

I was at

the conference and I did not

recognise this at all. I think it is

important to remember that we are

only a few weeks pass Remembrance

Sunday here where MPs of all

persuasions stood in remembrance of

those in the British Armed Forces,

so it would be hypocritical to

suggest that MPs and political

parties can do that, and Irish

people cannot stand with the same

remembrance and dignity and respect

for their dead as well. I think a

little bit of common sense needs to

be brought in.

Chris, thank you very

much. Nigel Dodds, you were shaking

your head.

I think the public will

have heard Chris Hazard of Sinn Fein

make an equivalence between the dead

who served in the police services

and the armies in world Wars to

secure liberal freedom to be equated

with IRA terrorists. There is no

equivalence between those two groups

of people. It really saddens me to

hear people in 2017 talk like that.

And that is one of the problems.

Chris is talking about not seeing

any glorification of terrorism at

the conference but there was video

played where the new MP for foil and

others stood up and praised Martin

McGuinness's role in the IRA and

said the rebels and it got the

biggest cheer of the weekend. This

denial. Gerry Adams said he resented

the term terrorism. You talk about

rights...

But they have a right to

have the same rights as expressed

there. Your party signed up to the

St Andrews agreement and it

contains, in black and white, a

provision for the introduction of an

Irish language act, so why don't you

honour the commitment?

First of all,

the rights he talks about are for

the Northern Ireland assembly and we

do not have any veto, so get the

assembly running and we can get them

up and running. In terms of the

Irish language act, that was a

commitment by the British

government, not by us. We played no

role in that commitment. That is for

the British government of the day,

Tony Blair, Peter Hain, to answer

for their commitments.

So you are

not going to one that? You don't

support the idea of an Irish

language act? So you are blocking as

a totemic issue, preventing

power-sharing?

We offered a way

forward which was illegal and

balanced approach. There are two

communities and cultures in the

Irish community, and we have said

that on cultural issues, identity

issues there needs to be parity

legislation for both. Sinn Fein want

a one-sided agreement come and that

is not fair.

But they were promised

it. You say it was a side issue and

you weren't involved, so they were

promised it, so can you see why it's

an important issue?

I can see why

they feel they were outmanoeuvred

and out negotiated by Tony Blair and

those men of the day, but that is

their problem. We have entered into

agreements in things with them that

we have honoured. Sinn Fein never

raised the issue of the Irish

language with us. They never put it

into the draft programme of

government. This has emerged as an

issue. Some of us believe this as a

fundamental point that Sinn Fein,

and you heard him equivocating about

getting back into talks but he

wouldn't give a guarantee.

Because

he says there have been talks about

talks and you have not moved and

that is because, he will say,

perhaps there is a feeling on the

DUP side that you are happy to go to

direct rule.

We want devolution and

think it is in the best way forward.

I've been in a devolved government.

Would you be happy with direct rule?

But you wouldn't be unhappy?

We

think it's not the best option but

it's interesting to hear Chris

saying the government should

implement their agreements in terms

of the Irish language, which is

direct rule, but he says that is

unacceptable. They all over the

place. But what is happening in Sinn

Fein is they have their eyes on the

southern election in the Irish

Republic and people in the

leadership simply want to sit out

Brexit and sit out difficult

decisions at Store Montt and keep

the devolved institutions down until

they get the Irish election out of

way -- Stormont.

Do you accept the

deal with the Conservative Party,

the confidence and supply agreement

has yielded extra money and he

accepted that, but has also been to

the detriment when it comes to

power-sharing, to getting the two

sides back together? He called the

axis regressive. I forget his exact

words but pandering to religious

zealots. What do you say to that?

It

is nonsense. The deal we have done

to the Conservative Party is about

getting infrastructure, health and

education spending for all

communities in Northern Ireland.

Money that will help mental health

and deprived communities.

But you

are signing up to the Conservative

cuts that Chris was talking about?

No we are not. When you get £1.5

billion to stop senior citizens

having the benefit cuts and ensuring

pay cap is lifted for nurses and

make sure there is movement on

tuition fees, that's not an agenda

for austerity. That's an agenda that

shows the DUP is delivering not only

from Northern Ireland but the nation

as well.

Just finally, it is true if

Jeremy Corbyn was in number ten you

would find it rather more urgent to

get back to Stormont?

We for

devolution now. We wanted to happen

now. We not the ones up barriers.

But a different leader in Number ten

would focus your mind?

We are

focusing on what will happen in what

is going to happen in the next few

years, and we are confident that

prospect will not arise.

Productivity, or more

precisely the lack of it,

is one of the great problems

of the British economy

at the moment.

The amount of stuff that the UK

can produce per person,

per hour has been stagnant

for sometime, and is particularly

poor compared to our international

competitors like Germany and the US.

So what's holding us back?

Emma Vardy's been taking a look.

It's called the productivity gap.

If you measure how much each

employee makes over a period

of time, it takes a German worker

four days to produce what a British

worker makes in five.

And it's been puzzling economists

and politicians for years.

Productivity is the most important

thing in the economy.

Productivity is why we are rich

and some places are poor and it's

why we're rich now and in the past

people used to starve to death.

Over the last 200 years productivity

has grown about 2% a year and it's

just stopped over the last ten years

and we don't really know why.

Think of Britain like

a giant car-wash business.

Broadly speaking, productivity

is often higher when industries

use machinery to make

jobs more efficient.

But where companies opt instead

for a greater use of people power,

and efficiency is reduced,

productivity will be lower.

There are ways to increase

productivity, such as investing

in new equipment, or adopting

new processes so workers can improve

the speed and quality

of what they're doing.

Economists believe Britain's poor

productivity could in part be down

to the supply of cheap Labour.

Because, in uncertain times,

employers are choosing cheap

and disposable man-hours over

the capital cost of new equipment.

And there is a huge

difference depending

on where you are in the country.

If you look at the greater

south-east, it's 44% more productive

than the rest of the UK,

so quite a substantive.

And when you get into our cities,

places like Slough and London

are nearly twice as productive

as places like

Doncaster and Swansea.

East London is the UK's

most productive area,

partly down to high productivity

rates from banks in the city.

For me, the biggest

problem is housing.

People can earn a lot more

and produce a lot more doing

the same job in a more high-growth

area, whether that is a Uber driver,

plumber, a small business,

or a solicitor even.

But the high rents in places

like London, Oxford,

Cambridge, Brighton,

and other places people

want to move to are dissuading

them from increasing

their own productivity.

Solving the productivity gap

in the UK won't be easy.

And could face another setback

if trade is disrupted after Brexit.

Experts say there is no single

solution, but a whole range

of things we need to address

simultaneously, if we want to see

the amount of stuff we produce

per person per day,

per year, go watch.

It's not so much the policies that

we've got, whether it is R&D

and innovation, or transport

or housing and skills.

What really matters is how we bring

those together and that's why

I think we need to see our cities

as the platform, the means

by which we can bring more

of these things together.

That's why thinking about things

such as Metro Mayors has been

an important element

of the industrial strategy

and productivity response.

It is the mix and the magic,

by bringing those things together,

that actually will get some

of the benefits we desire.

It is sort of a perfect

storm hitting now.

It is one of the reasons why

politics feels quite

nasty at the moment,

because when you have

productivity growth,

everyone's getting richer,

there's lots of things

to spread around.

When you haven't got

productivity growth,

wages aren't going up and there's

a lot of people at

each other's throats.

Over the long-term,

economists expect productivity

to eventually recover.

But it's a question of how long

we'll have to wait for that.

Watching that was TUC

General Secretary Francis O'Grady

and Tej Parikh who's a senior

economist at the Institute

for Directors.

Welcome. Productivity, 22% less than

the US and 23% weaker than in France

and 26% less than the Germans, can

it get worse?

There is a number of

things to look at with this puzzle,

a tendency to simplify it down to a

set of specific solutions. We need a

ballistic and long-term approach

when we look at productivity.

Can we

afford that? We have had low levels

for some time.

There are ways to

boost productivity. In our

consultation we are looking at ways

to boost investment in the private

sector and one way to do that is to

raise the investment allowance for

firms to replace Plant and key types

of capital.

Why are your members not

investing now? Is it not their fault

there has been a lack of investment

over recent years? You could say

workers are lazy, but isn't it down

to poor management and lack of

investment?

Management is an issue

and businesses need to look at

organisational structure in trying

to boost Labour efficiency and wider

productivity but it is looking at

wider economic environment. There is

a high level of economic uncertainty

at the moment which makes it

difficult for businesses to plan

ahead and that means it is harder to

invest in technology and people.

What needs to be done is to provide

greater certainty and also support

for businesses.

France is more

efficient in production but the

trade-off is it employs few of them

and their unemployment rate is 9.6%

compared to 4.3% of the UK. Is it a

trade-off worth making?

It is not

the trade-off you need to make. The

three problems for the UK, that have

run years before Brexit, but Brexit

is creating more uncertainty,

long-running problem of

underinvestment public and private,

in the bottom three alongside

Portugal and Greece and secondly

Labour is too cheap and we would

like to see the minimum wage closer

to the London living wage of £10 20

an hour. And we have not had an

industrial policy to create the

well-paid jobs, particularly in

export industries that could help

the balance of trade but also put

money in pockets to spend.

What do

you say about increasing wages?

It

is a chicken and egg problem cars to

increase wages, businesses need to

boost productivity in order to give

themselves a capacity to do so and

we need to be careful that trying to

intervene in the market and raise

wages might have a counter effect

where businesses are not able to

support a workforce. In fact, one

third of members said if their

revenues were squeezed, they might

have to consider reducing headcount.

So there is a trade-off.

We are seeing record profits. There

is perhaps a bigger question about

corporate governance and why they

are not investing in new plant but

also people'swage packets.

Can the

UK afford pay rises to public sector

and private sector before

productivity goes up?

We cannot

afford not to. We produced a report,

the TUC, showing almost 50 billion

has been sucked out of the English

economy by the public sector pay cap

alone, money not being spent in

shops and local businesses and it is

not encouraging private employers to

start investing in skills as well as

salaries.

Why is productivity worse

in Northern Ireland?

Nerve it -- it

is the worst performing region and

something we recognise and we are

working on strategy. Traditionally

Northern Ireland has had a lot of

people working in agriculture,

retail, manufacturer of food and so

on and textiles, which has also been

labour-intensive, so there is an

issue investing public key, which is

what our package was about,

infrastructure, skills, but

companies you are right should be

doing that. In terms of Northern

Ireland, investment in

infrastructure is key.

You agree

with Frances O'Grady on this broadly

rather than the government?

We take

a balanced approach. In Northern

Ireland we take the best of all the

arguments. We will put forward the

best of the arguments available.

Would you like to see the Chancellor

increase wages for other parts of

the public sector other than police

and prison service?

I do not think the Chancellor will

increase pay but he could relax

restrictions in terms of the pay

cap. I think Matt is right. We made

that clear in terms of nurses and

public sector pay generally. The

policy has gone on long enough and

too long and I hope we see movement.

What if he does not give departments

extra cash to do it, there must be

cuts elsewhere?

There are ways the

government can manage this and he

has extended the deadline for

reducing the deficit and we will see

what he does on that.

Do you think

it is the right way to go? Even if

austerity is not over in that sense

he relaxes deficit targets and put

some sort of resource behind

allowing their to be more money for

public services?

Members are for

fiscal responsibility and we know

the Chancellor has committed to

specific fiscal rules and it is

important for businesses that there

is a semblance of policy continuity

to allow businesses and investors to

anchor expectations around. There is

no doubt with Brexit and potential

consequences, there may be need to

set aside money to support the

transition.

Do you think it would be

more important if there were to be

something that might hamper the

economy while the Brexit

negotiations are going on, keep the

fiscal rules, put money aside for

that, before giving the green light

to more pay rises?

It is clear

austerity policies have not

delivered higher productivity and

investment and on the contrary, we

need to invest in public

infrastructure including services to

get Britain match fit. What do you

want to see? We have one in seven

workers in the public sector

skipping meals. They have had seven

years of pay cap and they need a

real pay rise. It has to be fully

funded. Nurses do not want to see

porters and cleaners going without

to fund their pay increase. It is a

team, a family, and I hope the

Chancellor will do the right thing.

Well tomorrow instead

of your usual Daily Politics

Andrew Neil will host a

special budget programme

bringing you all the top

analysis and reaction

to Philip Hammond's statement.

That's on BBC Two

starting at 11.30.

Time now to find out

the answer to our quiz.

The question was how did EU

countries break the voting deadlock

over which city would get to host

the European Medicines

Agency after Brexit?

Was it...

A coin toss?

A tug of war?

A game of rock-paper-scissors?

Or a game of five-a-side?

So Nigel, what's the correct answer?

I think the correct answer was a

toss of the coin, but I would have

loved to have seen any of those

scenarios. It is a good argument for

transparency.

Doing Rock, paper

scissors. It was a coin toss with

Amsterdam beating Milan after three

rounds of voting and a coin toss.

The old ways are sometimes the best.

My guest of the day

Nigel Dodds has plenty

of experience in negotations,

and many felt the DUP managed to get

a particularly good deal

with the Conservatives

when they agreed to help them stay

in government earlier this year.

We can see the signing of the deal

in June. They are flanked by the DUP

leader Arlene Foster. And Theresa

May and Nigel Dodds and Damian

Green.

So what makes a good negiotator?

And are there rules that politicians

should follow in order

to get the best deal?

Sir Christopher Meyer was the former

Ambassdor to the United States

and was also Chair of the Press

complaints commission so he knows

a thing or two about delicate

diplomacy and he joins us now.

First role in getting a good deal?

No deal is better than a bad deal.

You to that? Absolutely and it has

nothing to do with Brexit

particularly. I have seen it work in

action. It is the other side of a

coin that says decide what your

bottom line is, stick to it and if

the other side try to push you below

it you walk out.

What if you cannot

get agreement on your side about the

bottom line? You will. In terms of

walking away, should the government

walk away now?

Would that be your

strategy? I would not walk away now,

I would be tempted to suspend my

participation if come a new offer

from Theresa May with a hint of more

money at the December European

Council, the EU 27 do not decide to

move to the next stage, at that

point I would say maybe it is not

worth it after all and we will go

back and think about this.

You think

it should be a case of jumping

together when it comes to more money

and moving onto trade talks?

There

is a principle which the EU has

enshrined and that is, I'm sorry,

nothing is agreed until everything

is agreed. If that principle is

there, by definition we should move

forward in parallel talks on all the

different bits of it.

Do you think

the British Government have been

tough enough?

I do not think they

have, they were too quick to accept

the motion of the sequence

negotiation because that has

structured to enable PE you to win.

Thank you. Thank you -- enabled the

European Union to win.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

Bye-bye.