04/03/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

Theresa May's big Brexit speech

appears to have done the impossible

and united both sides

of her party for the time being

but is the devil in the detail?

We'll get the verdicts of former

Tory leader and Brexit supporter

Lord Howard and leading backbencher

and Remain campaigner Nicky Morgan,

and ask if they can

really both be happy.

Away from Brexit, the Government yet

again promises to take on the Nimbys

and build more houses

where we need them most.

And coming up here:

The Prime Minister has put are some

meat on the bones of how to solve

the problem of the Irish

border, but not everyone

is happy with her plans.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today, I've got three

hardy souls who've struggled

through the harsh conditions

to help me to make sense of all

the big stories - Isabel Oakeshott,

Steve Richards and Anushka Asthana.

Well, it was as week where politics

was often given second billing

to the weather, with people up

and down the country battling

the Beast from the East.

But snow or not, Theresa May had her

crucial Brexit speech to give,

and she had a few big beasts herself

to contend with.

Forget the weather, the UK faced

a Brexit blizzard this week.

On Monday, Jeremy Corbyn offered up

a clear dividing line between Labour

and the Conservatives.

Labour would keep Britain

in a customs union with the EU.

Labour would seek to negotiate

a new, comprehensive UK EU customs

union to ensure there are no

tariffs with Europe.

On Tuesday, international

trade secretary Liam Fox

immediately hit back.

It would be a complete sell-out

of Britain's national interest

and a betrayal of the voters

in the referendum.

But his speech was overshadowed

by a warning shot from the former

boss of his own department -

Sir Martin Donnelly said leaving

the single market and the customs

union would risk the UK

going from feast to famine.

It's like giving up a three course

meal for a packet of crisps.

Also on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson took to the radio

waves to try to ease tensions

on Northern Ireland after Brexit.

He wasn't entirely persuasive.

There's no border between

Camden and Westminster.

You can't compare two boroughs

of London with the kind

of difference in the arrangements

that would be in place after Brexit

between the UK and the EU.

I think it's a very

relevant comparison.

On Wednesday, former

Prime Minister Sir John Major said

MPs should be given a free vote

on the final Brexit deal.

So let Parliament decide or put

the issue back to the people.

And the EU Commission published

the first legal draft

of the UK's exit treaty.

The proposals were controversial.

To avoid a hard border,

Northern Ireland must stay

in the customs union

if all else fails.

Theresa May was having none of it.

No UK Prime Minister

could ever agree to it.

On Thursday, diplomatic niceties

with the European Council

President Donald Tusk,

as he got a preview of the Prime

Minister's big Brexit speech.

But the real test would come later,

when she would need a lot

of grit to keep all members

of her own party onside.

The big day arrived,

and with it some hard truths.

We are leaving the single market.

Life is going to be different.

In certain ways, our access to each

other's markets will be

less than it is now.

Even after we have

left the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice,

EU law and the decisions of the ECJ

will continue to affect us.

This was also a pitch

for a pick and mix Brexit.

She said all EU trade deals

are tailor-made and what Britain

wants is no different.

If this is cherry picking,

then every trade arrangement

is cherry picking.

He was happy, and so was he.

Despite being stranded

and left out in the cold.

So, has the Prime Minister managed

to thaw the tensions

between her Cabinet on Brexit?

Time will tell.

There is more than enough to chew

over with our expert panel who will

tell us what's been going on behind

the scenes this week. Anushka, we

asked the question, has she achieved

the impossible and United warring

factions of the Conservative Party

over Brexit? It looks that way, will

it stay that way?

It is impressive

politically that your guests will

both have some praise for the speech

but it doesn't mean they agree with

each other when it comes to Brexit.

I'm sure there's a lot they continue

to disagree about. She managed to do

that by doubling down on the red

lines she already had but saying

beyond that we will try to get as

close as we can to the EU. I don't

think the Brexiteers are totally

happy, they see this as a staging

post and happy that what she said

future parliaments can change it.

She has done a magic trick now but

trouble ahead still.

Isabel, a lot

of it was how in the immediate

future we will stay tangibly similar

to EU rules and regulations, that

won't hold with the Brexiteer crowd,

will it?

Only an idiot would predict

peace and harmony within the Tory

party for more than a few days.

party for more than a few days. I

think they recognise the immense

discipline the Prime Minister

injected into the speech, in some

ways that means bits of it don't

please everybody. There was

frustration at the way she handled

some of the questions afterwards.

Some would have liked her, for

example Nigel Farage, outside of the

party of course, would have liked

her to be more explicit that no deal

remains an option. On the other

hand, had she said that, that is

provocative. I think Tory MPs found

she struck a balance and a great

feeling of positivity this weekend,

maybe not next.

Steve, did it tell

us a huge amount about what Brexit

deal might look like? Or is Theresa

May sitting on the fence about what

the future deal will be?

I don't

think she is sitting on the fence.

She gave a clear idea of what she

envisages it to be. Watching it, and

reading it several times, I have

reached the conclusion that she is

the only person that can lead this

party.

You have Michael Howard on in a

minute, you knows how difficult it

is to do. She can do it and I think

they would be daft to get rid of

her. However, having read the

speech, it is full of unexploded

bombs metaphorically speaking. Like

the budgets that go down well on the

day and then turn out to have hidden

bombs, I think this one does. In her

admission we are giving up things,

we won't have the same market

access, in saying we have given up

passporting for the financial

services already. She did it to show

we weren't having our cake and

eating it, she was honest, but it is

depressing to have that candour

explained so clearly. And in

explaining we will be fully aligned

with the EU in many ways but have

the right to diverged even if it is

against our interest. And the all of

this, to have the right to diverge

at a future date seems fraught with

difficulty. I see problems down

road.

Steve's point about only this

Prime Minister can lead the party is

a very astute one and that's what

I'm picking up this weekend, even

from those who have been her

harshest critics, at her ability not

to say too much which makes her seem

rather boring at times is precisely

the reason she can manage these

delicate factions. I definitely feel

time has run out now for those who

would like to have seen her gone

well before Brexit next year. I feel

that has evaporated milk. We might

be in a different place in a few

months but I would suspect not.

Anushka bitchy answer the question

about the border between the

Republic and Northern Ireland? Simon

Coveney said he's not sure the EU

can support the plan she came up

with.

Both sides can smile and say

they don't want a border, the

question is how you achieve that.

The Government have put forward

these options, a customs partnership

which is a slightly weird system

under which there would be checks on

the UK border that would then be

acceptable for the rest of the EU.

The problem is the rest of the EU

have suggested that won't be

acceptable to them, and even very

senior figures in Government around

the Cabinet table have told me they

think it is a completely unrealistic

option. The second option is to use

technology to make it flow freely,

perhaps not quite as Boris

perhaps not quite as Boris Johnson

was suggesting, it happens in the

congestion charge in London. He was

slightly mocked for those comments,

but can there be a way to make it

softer in that way? Perhaps there

can but there is no evidence you

would end up with no border. Then

there's that tricky situation of the

EU saying the backstop is Northern

Ireland stays in the customs union,

and the Prime Minister says that is

unacceptable.

Thank you for that,

stay with us.

Theresa May was on the

Andrew Marr Show this

morning, and she was asked how

the UK's rules and regulations

might move away from

the EU's in the future.

Parliament will be able to take

decisions about the rules that

are set, so in the circumstances

in which the EU

change a particular rule,

there'd be a decision

for us to take.

Did we accept it

in the future or not?

But if we didn't accept it,

there'd be an arbitration mechanism,

an independent arbitration

mechanism, so people

would look at it and say,

actually, you know what,

if the UK doesn't accept that,

does it make any difference

to the trading relationship?

And they might say no, it doesn't,

so there's no consequence.

They might say yes, it does,

and so there would be a consequence.

So you're saying we might

lose market access -

the more we diverge,

the more market access

we might lose in the future.

There'd be a decision to be taken.

Joining me now from

Loughborough is the former

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan,

who put her name down on a Commons

amendment that calls for the UK

to participate in a customs union

with the EU after Brexit.

Good morning. So you heard the Prime

Minister ruling out a customs union

which is what you say you want, and

they will be less access to EU

markets in future, you cannot be

very happy with this speech, can

you?

I thought it was a very

realistic speech that set out the

compromises and hard facts we have

to face, and I think it was a

welcome dose of realism. That's why

I think it has been welcomed from

people on all sides of the debate

because we can get away from

pretending things will stay the

same, that we can have the same

benefits, and be honest with

ourselves and our constituents about

what that means. The reason MPs put

down amendments is to get ministers

to explain their position is more

fully and that's what we began to

see in the Prime Minister's speech

on this issue of the border between

Northern Ireland, the Republic of

Ireland on Friday. The Prime

Minister could not have been more

clear this morning and last week

that she does not want to see a hard

border between them, and that's

where we are as well. I think there

are more discussions to come about

the two options, as Anushka was

setting out, that the Prime Minister

outlined, and we will have to see

what happens when the bill comes

back to the House of Commons.

Your

amendment wasn't just about Northern

Ireland, it said you want the UK to

stay in the customs union with the

EU. Now you say you want to talk to

the Prime Minister about this. Talk

about what? We are either in the

customs union or knots and her

speech made it clear she didn't want

a customs union.

I can speak for

myself and my colleagues, many of

whom put their name down, it was

about the Irish border issue because

many of us got to the stage of

thinking how can this be resolved

without being in a customs union. I

think many of us don't care what it

is called, it's a question of what

it does. Does it avoid a hard border

and small traders having to make

declarations each time they crossed

the border? I was a Treasury duties

minister, I visited the Irish border

and it is 300 miles of incredibly

porous countryside basically. People

are crossing it everyday for work,

for trading, and it's not just about

the economics, it's about the

cultural and political significance

of not a hard border.

The Irish

government and Irish Foreign

Minister Simon Coveney were saying

this morning he didn't think EU

would accept this. Theresa May said

a long she doesn't want a hard

border, just saying that doesn't

mean it won't happen and the EU

don't seem satisfied with what she

laid out as a possible solution.

The

first point is, as I said in a tweet

on Friday, the EU cannot say and

Simon Coveney recognise that this

morning, the EU cannot say it

doesn't know what the UK Government

wants. Simon Coveney also agreed, as

the Prime Minister rightly set out,

this is a problem that has been

created by Brexit and it's up to the

UK Government, the EU and Irish

government to work together to find

a solution. I think it is right that

talks will continue in one of those

areas where it is best for the Irish

government and UK Government to be

talking directly because at the

moment what's been remarkable is how

cohesive the 27 have been in

negotiating through the commission

but there may be ways to speed up

discussions, particularly on the

Irish border issue. What we saw on

Friday is the Prime Minister saying

there's difficult things ahead.

People won't remember ultimately the

negotiations, they will remember the

enduring deal that's struck, that

puts livelihoods and economic

security first.

One of the hard fact is that she

laid out is we will have less access

to EU markets. That is one of the

things that you as a Remainer have

been worried about. Maybe she is

being pragmatic and you're welcome

that, but is that pragmatism not

admitting were going to be worse off

in future as a result of this?

I

think it probably is. Actually,

while the speech was well come in

its towns, it did set out some of

these hard truths. Some people have

said, nothing will change, it will

have exactly the same benefits but

that is not the case. I am chair of

the Treasury Select Committee, we

look at financial services. That

industry understands that things are

going to change. The Prime Minister

was clear, no more passporting.

People have reconciled themselves to

this in the city. What next? The

Prime Minister is talking about

mutual recognition of regulations,

that is the way to go, that is

achievable, but this is the start of

negotiations and it is a long way to

go. At least we are now on the

starting blocks. Your right to say

that many of us have been concerned

about the prosperity and livelihoods

of people in our constituencies and

our businesses. We welcome this

speech but we will continue to watch

out for any drifting backwards

towards some kind of idea logically

driven hard Brexit. That does not

benefit anybody. As the Prime

Minister said on Friday, reverting

to WTO is not a good outcome that

will benefit people in this country.

The Prime Minister made clear that

the UK after Brexit can choose to

stay aligned with the rules and

regulations of the EU or future

parliaments to choose to diverged.

In those circumstances you will be

fighting every step of the week to

try to stay aligned with the EU, I

take it?

Not necessarily. That was a

really well come statement from the

Prime Minister. It is for the

sovereign parliament to be making

these decisions in future, which is

why we had the debate over the

amendment in December because

ultimately it should be sovereign

Parliament that makes these key

decisions in the future. In terms of

divergences regulation, there may

well be good arguments in the future

by businesses and industry say, we

do not need to be aligned with that

regulation, because there is a

higher international standard that

we can all get around and following

that will benefit our businesses.

The point is, at the moment,

Parliament will take decisions about

things on the basis of listening to

constituents, and that is what will

happen in the future. That is

welcome. Financial services, that is

the message we're getting by, there

are some international standards,

which is what business already

comply with, higher standards than

the EU, and that is what businesses

want to on complying with.

Nicky

Morgan, thank you for talking to us.

Listening to that is the former

Conservative leader Lord Howard,

who campaigned for Britain

to leave the EU.

You were nodding away in agreement

with Nicky Morgan all the way

through that interview. Not

something we thought we were going

to see happen in the studio.

You

agree with her? I agree with very

much of what she said and I am

delighted to be able to agree with

her. Can I just say this about the

speech on Friday, I thought it

should the Prime Minister at her

best, cam, patient, disciplined.

That is exactly the kind of approach

we need in these negotiations. I

think Steve Richards was right when

he said she is the only person who

can lead the country through these

negotiations, and she showed her

qualities on Friday, and I think it

was an excellent speech, and it is

something, of course it is a good

thing from my point of view that it

seems to have united the

Conservative Party, but more

importantly, I think it has united

the country. I think everyone in the

country, except perhaps those few

people are neither extreme, can

rally round. People like John Major

and Tony Blair? I fear that on this

issue John Major and Tony Blair are

to make love the people who have

never been able to reconcile

themselves to the results of the

referendum. I think a large majority

of people in the country, even of

those who voted Remain, they now

say, let's get on with it and see

what we can get out of these

negotiations. Nicky Morgan was

absolutely right when she said that

in years to come people will not be

looking back at the negotiations.

They will be looking back at the

outcome.

The negotiations matter

because they determine the outcome.

You like the tone of the speech.

When you look at the detail, does it

really amounted taking back control

when the Prime Minister says the UK

will need to make a strong

commitment that regulatory standards

will remain as high as the EU and in

practice they will remain similar in

the future?

That is not what you

campaign for. In many respects they

will be similar. As the Prime

Minister said this morning, on the

Andrew Marr programme, these

regulations are not EU regulations,

the international regulations. The

crucial thing is that our sovereign

parliament, in future, will be able

to decide whether we remain in a

layman, which in many cases would be

a sensible thing to do, or whether

we diverged, which could also be

sensible. That is what taking back

control means.

The sovereign

parliament will decide. Look at

where we do remain in alignment and

a hard fact that Theresa May picked

out there, in order to maintain

access we may have to maintain a

layman. The EU will change their

rules over the next few deals --

over the next few years. We will end

up having to mirror rules that we

had no say at all in making if we

want to maintain access.

That is not

control. We will be able to decide.

In some cases it may be sensible to

change rules to remain in alignment

with the European Union's rules but

in other cases it will not be, and

we will be able to decide. That is

what taking back control means.

You're perfectly happy with

associated membership of some of the

EU agencies, medicine, chemicals,

the aviation safety agency, and with

paying a fee to be -- to be a

member. Very sensible. A year ago

you would not have been telling us

that you wanted to stay a member of

any of these agents is a tall.

You

never ask me. You would have been

surprised by the answer. These are

sensible, practical arrangements

that we benefit from, and the EU

benefits.

It is sensible. We were

promised famously by David Davis

that we would have the exact same

benefits of being in the customs

union and the single market after

Brexit. The Prime Minister herself

said something similar. Now she's

telling us we will have less access.

When people were told we could leave

the EU and maintain the same

benefits, were they being lied to?

Not at all. I think it is a

consequence of what the Prime

Minister has said, that in all

important respects, we will have the

access we need. There may be some

areas where that will not be the

case, but she dealt with the most

important aspect in her speech on

Friday and should have in the most

important areas we will be able to

have access. I think that will be

the outcome. It is in the interests

of the European Union as well as

ourselves that that should be so.

They want access to our large

market. We are one of the six

biggest economies in the world. They

want access to our markets. It will

be on both our interest to reach

that sort of agreement.

Both wings

of the Tory party might be happy

with this. The speech was received

less enthusiastically in Brussels.

The EU will publish their draft

guidelines on how they see a future

deal on Tuesday. If they do not

accept the approach that Theresa May

has laid out, what should she do

next?

Let's concentrate on the

positives. We are in a negotiation.

There will inevitably be posturing

by the European Union in the course

of these negotiations. That is what

negotiations always bring with them.

But I think, as I say, it is in both

our interest that we should have a

good deal. At the end of the day,

they want our money. They will not

get our money unless there is a good

deal.

It has been said that a trade

deal cannot be said by putting up a

few extra cherries in the Brexit

cake. This speech did not persuade

him that is a deal to be done.

He is

not in charge of the negotiations.

Michel Barnier did not seem terribly

impressed. Are they going to accept

the Prime Minister's view that you

can accept different access for

different sectors?

Let's wait and

see. Michel Barnier welcome the

speech. There is lots of posturing.

It is invading tress and hours to

arrive at a deal that is very

similar to that which the Prime

Minister set on Friday.

You're being

very positive about with the EU is

likely to do. They may well not do

that. Is there a point at which the

Prime Minister may be forced to walk

away because they will not meet

halfway?

I hope not but if you go

into any negotiations in, I want to

deal at any price, you will be taken

to the cleaners. That is true of

every negotiation. I agree with the

Prime Minister when she says that in

the ultimate circumstance, no deal

is better than a bad deal, but I do

not think we're going to have a bad

deal, I think we're going to have a

deal along the lines the Prime

Minister set out on Friday.

She said

we are going to have to compromise

and we are not

and we are not going to get what we

want. We will have to meet someone

in the middle on this and the

response from the EU has not been to

say, we agree, let's talk about

compromise, it has to -- it has been

to maintain a lot of their hard

lines about cherry picking.

That

will change. Their approach to the

negotiations on the first stage

changed. All sorts of figures were

bandied about about the money we

would have to pay and they bore no

reality to the ultimate outcome. You

have to take these initial

negotiating positions with a pinch

of salt.

When the EU was negotiating

with Greece during its financial

crisis, they were absolutely

insistent, they did not soften their

lines.

No disrespect to Greece, but

we are not Greece. The European

Union needs access to our markets.

The European Union needs our money.

The situation is very, very

different from that which happened

between the EU and Greece.

Lord

Howard, thank you for talking to us

this morning.

As we've heard, Jeremy Corbyn

made his own big speech on Brexit

earlier in the week and he backed

a customs union.

So how would it work?

With me from Salford

is the Shadow Communities

Secretary, Andrew Gwynne.

Thank you very much for coming in to

speak to us today. We have got to

make a very different approaches.

Jeremy Corbyn at the beginning of

the week saying he wanted to stay in

a customs union, Theresa May on

Friday pretty much ruling it out. Is

it not Theresa May who is being

honest with the voters by laying out

the hard fact, as she puts it, that

we will have to accept we have less

access to the EU market?

Absolutely

not. That we are leaving the

European Union is decided. We had a

referendum, but the Thames by which

we leave the European Union is what

the negotiations are all about and

the Labour Party has always said it

would seek to maintain the benefits

of a customs union. In doing that,

we have set out our proposals for

what we think that new arrangement

should be, I bespoke agreement

between the EU in the UK that would

maintain the benefits of tariff free

trade between the UK and the

European Union going forward. But

one in which we are equal partners,

so we have a say on those new trade

deals that are being made and a half

of the new arrangements between our

two trading blocs.

That has never

happened with any other country that

has entered into a customs union

with the EU. Why do you think they

would give us an equal say, one of

us against 27 of them, when it came

to a negotiating a trade deal with

someone else somewhere else in the

world?

The EU is different trading

arrangements with different

countries.

It does and none of them

have a say in outside trade deals.

The difference here, as Lord Howard

said, we are the largest economy the

world. The European Union has

important trading links with the

United Kingdom, it is a two-way

process, and therefore it is in both

of interest that we strike a deal

that benefits both of us.

I do not

know what is happening on this

programme. You are agreeing with

Laura Taarabt, he's agreeing with

Nicky Morgan. It is a very unusual

morning.

You're all in the same

side. The difference is the

Conservatives have ruled out a

customs union, and we are saying

that a customs union is vital, not

least that we can give real

assurances that the Good Friday

Agreement and our treaty obligations

in the Good Friday Agreement are not

torn up. We do not want to lose the

advantage is that we have seen of 20

years of peace between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

If the EU says, you can remain in a

customs union but you do not get a

large say in future trade deals with

countries outside of the EU and you

just have to accept what is

negotiated by the EU 27, would you

still want to be in that customs

union?

We would have to look at that

carefully. We want to be a rule

maker

maker and not a real taker. It is

hard to do that if you stay in a

customs union. Unless you have a new

arrangement whereby the United

Kingdom sits at the table when those

trade deals are being made. That is

the new arrangement that we seek to

make. We believe we would be in a

better position to make those

arrangements with the European Union

because we have approached the

Brexit negotiations in an entirely

different manner. We have said what

we would like to see in terms of

transitional arrangements, the

government subsequently followed on

a number of those issues, but all

along we have said that we want to

maintain the benefits of tariff free

custom free trade, and that is

absolutely crucial, not least for

the Northern Ireland issue.

One of

the things the Labour Party was

looking forward to have to Brexit,

and that Jeremy Corbyn has stressed,

was the freedom from state aid

rules, where the EU stops the UK

Government from giving financial

assistance to any particular sector

of industry. Theresa May spoke about

that on Friday and said it would be

necessary to sign up to the

directives on state aid and

procurement rules, to keep those EU

rules. Do you accept that will have

to happen?

No, and we have a different view

anyway. When it came to our

anyway. When it came to our

arguments the Government should step

anyway. When it came to our

arguments the Government should step

in to assist the steel industry in

Britain, the Government used these

in to assist the steel industry in

fallacies about state aid rules

in to assist the steel industry in

excuse themselves for not giving

adequate support to that industry.

We didn't believe in the

interpretation the Government

We didn't believe in the

because other European countries

have got round the so-called

because other European countries

aid rules. We have said as part of

our negotiations, that is a red line

for us. We would want to make sure

we could facilitate state aid in a

number of areas where

we could facilitate state aid in a

policies have been clearer about

we could facilitate state aid in a

is a red line, is

we could facilitate state aid in a

staying in the customs union,

we could facilitate state aid in a

have to make the choice? The EU

could say no customs union if you

insist on state aid.

We believe we

could get a bespoke arrangement for

a new customs relationship, a new

customs union.

I think there's a

name for that, isn't it called

cherry picking?

No because we

name for that, isn't it called

believe this is in the interests of

believe this is in the interests of

the UK and in the interests of the

European Union. 44% of our trade is

with the European Union, 53% of the

European Union. 44% of our trade is

EU's trade is with the UK so it is

in both our interests that we sort

this out and get the best deal not

in both our interests that we sort

for the European Union but for

in both our interests that we sort

Britain outside of the

in both our interests that we sort

Union.

You seem to be saying

in both our interests that we sort

Tory government are asking for the

in both our interests that we sort

impossible in their

in both our interests that we sort

won't get what they are

in both our interests that we sort

but somehow if there was a Labour

government negotiating this deal,

all doors would open and you would

government negotiating this deal,

be able to select which bit of the

government negotiating this deal,

customs union you did and didn't

like and could have a

customs union you did and didn't

that is not available for

customs union you did and didn't

reason to Theresa May.

They ruled

out a customs union, I think that is

out a customs union, I think that is

a bad decision because I believe a

customs union, negotiated between

the UK and the European Union 27 is

in the best interests of

the UK and the European Union 27 is

customs free tariff-free trade going

forward but also sorting out the

customs free tariff-free trade going

issue of the border between Ireland,

customs free tariff-free trade going

north and south.

Labour set out six

tests as to whether they

north and south.

Labour set out six

one of those was that it had to

north and south.

Labour set out six

deliver the same benefits we

north and south.

Labour set out six

from being in the single market and

customs union. That was a quote from

David Davis, but Theresa May has

David Davis, but Theresa May has

been clear we are not going to

David Davis, but Theresa May has

the same benefits. Does this mean

Labour under no circumstances will

be able to vote for any Brexit deal

that's been negotiated?

Let's see

that's been negotiated?

Let's see

what Brexit deal comes back

that's been negotiated?

Let's see

we have a hypothetical vote on this.

You don't think there's any

circumstances in which it could come

back...

I believe if the Government

wanted to enter into negotiations to

wanted to enter into negotiations to

do that, they could do that. The

fact the Prime Minister

do that, they could do that. The

is probably because they have ruled

do that, they could do that. The

out a customs union. We believe that

do that, they could do that. The

is the wrong decision, we believe

do that, they could do that. The

that arrangement is possible, but

let's see what the Government comes

back with and then we will decide

let's see what the Government comes

how we vote in parliament.

Parliament has got a meaningful vote

how we vote in parliament.

and that was something that had to

be secured through the parliamentary

processes. The Government weren't

going to give us that right

processes. The Government weren't

think it is right it is ultimately

Parliament that decides.

Thank

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come...

As the government promises to cut

red tape to get more houses built,

we'll ask the Cabinet Office

minister David Lidington

whether they're finally prepared

to take on the nimbys.

First though, it's

time for the Sunday Politics

where you are.

Hello and welcome

to Sunday Politics.

A major speech on Brexit

by the Prime Minister,

but did it offer any new ideas

to help reach agreement?

We'll hear from Sinn Fein -

which claims there wasn't one

specific solution to help prevent

a hard border -

and the Ulster Unionists,

who say the principle

of consent cannot be ignored.

And with their thoughts

on that and more, my guests

of the day are commentators

Brian Feeney and Felicity Huston.

It was billed as a speech

which would shed more detail

on the sort of trading relationship

Theresa May wants to see after

the UK's left the European Union.

She restated her commitment

to avoiding a hard border,

but gave no new detail on how

that is to be achieved.

We'll hear what the Ulster

Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson

and Sinn Fein's Martina Anderson

make of it in just a moment,

but first, here are the Prime

Minister and the Tanaiste,

Simon Coveney, speaking

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

As ever, the border proved

to be the big issue.

And there are various elements of

ensuring we don't have a hard

border. After that is the customs

arrangements, after that is the

standards we abide by. What've sing

on standards is we will be looking

to say where does it make sense any

practical sense, it's important for

people and their prosperity, where

does it make sense for us to say we

will abide by these items? This is

important, because we talk about EU

standards, but often what we have

talked about aren't EU standards,

they are international standards.

Often these are developed in an

international markets, so what we

would be doing is making sure we are

meeting standards that enable us to

trade elsewhere.

And do you think

the borderline between Islington and

Camden as a useful comparison?

I

think the Irish border is something

to which we are all committed. All

the parties in Northern Ireland and

ourselves are committed to make sure

there is no hard border. I am

pleased the commission and the

governments will be able to sit down

and see how the proposals we put

forward will work.

Boris Johnson

thinks might have to be a hard

border.

No, Boris Johnson is clear

there will not be a hard border.

There will be no hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland. We

have proposals as to how we can

achieve that, we will now be able to

sit down and talk with others to how

we do that. That is back my message

in this speech overall, we're set

out our ideas for the future on this

ambitious relationship, let's get on

and start the negotiation.

This was

the mistake made in Britain all the

time, I think, when someone

definitively says something will be

the case from the British

governments, people will assume that

is the negotiated outcome. Of

course, it's not. I'm not sure the

European Union will be able to spot

the situation whereby 80% of

companies which trades across the

border will protect the integrity of

the European single market. While of

course we will explore and look at

all at the proposed British

solutions, there are essentially a

starting point in negotiations, as

opposed to an end point. Our

responsibility and Ireland is to

work with Britain. We will work

positively with Britain to explore

solutions, but if we can't agree on

solutions, what will happen is the

backstop, a commitment by the

British Government to rent an full

alignment with the

alignment with the rules and customs

of the single market.

Theresa May and Simon Coveney.

And joining me now from Brussels

is Sinn Fein's Martina Anderson.

With me in studio is the Ulster

Unionist MEP, Jim Nicholson.

Martina, it do you welcome the clear

change in tone from Theresa May's

speech, clearly acknowledging the

need to find a solution to the

border situation?

I don't know what

speech you were listening to,

because tone is not what we were

looking for. We needed precise

proposals, and we didn't get that.

Theresa May signed up on the 8th of

December to three options. The

first, preferred option, was that

there would be an agreement at this

stage. Claiming that, she would

bring back proposals in relation to

the

the border in Ireland. And of both

those proposals fails, there would

be the third option, and that would

be done in the context of moving

from phase one phase two that you

would fully and faithfully implement

her commitments. We got none of that

in this speech. It was full of fluff

and nonsense.

She made it clear she

doesn't like option C, the backstop

option, she wants to flesh out

options A and B. She said things

like we will not introduce a hard

border, if the EU forces Ireland to

that, it's to learn. She says,

that's not acceptable, we chose to

leave, we have to help find a

solution. She now needs to flesh out

the meat on the bones, that is what

happened next.

She is a co-parent of

the Good Friday Agreement, so it is

obvious it is our responsibility to

find a solution. We are less then 51

weeks away from the end of this

process. We haven't had one concrete

proposal brought forward by the

British Government. She may not like

option Charlie, but she signed up to

it on the 8th of December, and the

Parliament and Council was very

clear, that we have to make sure

that what was committed to by the

British Government would be fully

and faithfully implemented in this

draft treaty in order for us to

phase two, which is about the future

relationship. We want that. What we

all have to do is provide legal

certainty for the traders, for

businesses and to make sure there's

no diminution of rights and

no diminution of rights and we have

that is going to be rejected and

protected for people in the North.

Shisha is developed option C

brother.

It has been said this was a

triumph of style over substance. We

haven't seen any new details

whatsoever in how precisely the

Prime Minister wants to move the

process forward comedy exit that?

I

do not. This speech should have been

made some time ago, but this has

been a pragmatic speech by her. She

made it clear she accepts the

responsibility that the UK has a

role to play in finding a solution.

She made clear because it was Europe

and the Irish Government who said it

is up to the UK to find a solution

on the border. Theresa May has come

back and said, I'm sorry, it's up to

all three of us. I was here and I

said at the time of the Council

agreement at the time that was a

fudge, and it has proved to be a

budget, and they have greater

difficulty in putting legal

certainty under that. The thing I am

not clear about now as we move

forward is how long it's going to

take the UK and the other 27 to find

a solution before we move on to the

more important talks on trade and

the second stage of this process,

which is I want to see us go on to.

In that, we will find a lot of

solutions to the problems we do

face.

I think everyone is keen to

move on to substantive trade talks

and the future relationship, but

Theresa May said three things the

other day, no hard border, no hard

border between Northern Ireland and

Great Britain, and no continuing

membership of the customs union. A

lot of people say it is not possible

to achieve those three commitments.

Do you think

it remains to be seen.

There is a lot of negotiation to go

through. The one thing I am clear

about is there will be a lots of

compromise and nobody is going to

get all they once. Not the UK or the

EU. The amazing thing about this

process is that Mr Barnier and Mr

Juncker have been able to keep the

member states very close together

Octonauts. We will watch what

happens as we come towards other

negotiations. Recently I visited the

port against,

port against, -- I visited the port

of Ghent, there will be many

borders, ports in the UK and on the

continent that face similar

difficulties and face major

problems. Have to face them as well.

We had to face them as well, but we

are so close and trying to find a

way forward out of this, but the

truth as this will be difficult.

Those who thought it was an easy

process that the

process that the UK was going to

leave the EU didn't work over all

the substance. This is the problem

we are now facing.

There are not

many people saying these days it

will be simple. Martina, Baxter that

backstop agreement that on the table

in December about full regulatory

alignment. Theresa May has indicated

she is not happy with that, but

there was a hint in the Mansion

House speech that he said, we are

leaving, taking back control, but

will continue to adopt the system of

rules and regulations we are tied

into. That is very interesting shift

potentially on the part of the

British Government?

What the British

Government wants is its cake and eat

it. It was some kind of Brexit

varied to magically resolve the

Brexit disaster. She is talking

about outcomes, regulatory outcomes.

She is not talking about regulatory

convergence. It's quite clear that

in the EU it is about being precise,

making sure it is in a treaty,

making sure you give certainty. Not

to just trust us on the day. And

even though our laws will be

different, the outcomes will be the

same. That is what she proposed on

Friday. House speech on Friday was

no different to any other speech

that she has given from the start of

this process. My responsibility is

that I need to make sure I protect

all the people of the North and of

the island as far as I can. I can

guarantee you that what is in the

backstop, while it refers to the

North remaining in the custom union

and the single market, will be

embraced by everyone who is trading

not just across the island but into

the largest market that there is in

the world. So what we have to do is

to capture what has been put

forward, and let's not forget, she

may not like it, but she agreed to

it on the 8th of December. She

agreed to do three things. She has

failed an option A and option B, we

need certainty in the North and I

have a responsibility to make sure

at the North stays in the custom

union and the single market, the ECJ

applies, and from Thursday next

week, I will be launching a legal

advice in London to show the charter

for fundamental rights not being in

this Brexit discussion by Theresa

May is also going to have

implications for the North.

That

maybe your aspiration, it doesn't

mean the British Government

necessarily agrees with you. I want

to ask you about what the World

Trade Organisation terms and

conditions may mean if the UK

doesn't reach a deal with EU. That

is what some Brexit supporters think

would be fine, Theresa May not that

on the head, he said that would not

be enough for the UK to keep its

border promises. In all at this, she

has made a commitment to no hard

border on the island of Ireland.

The

harsh truth is that no matter what

Theresa May will say, Martina

Anderson will not agree, because she

has taken a diametrically opposed

position. Quite frankly, I think as

we move forward, you're right, WTO

is the worst case of all. White

fleece some people would like that?

Some people would like that, but it

would end up being a total disaster

for us and the Republic of Ireland.

We keep talking about North/South,

but does the East/West relationship

we have to look to too. I am not

going to affect the single market of

the United Kingdom.

That is an

internal, UK issue and the European

Union doesn't want to get involved

in that at all. It is not arguing to

diminish the integrity of the

Constitution of the UK.

You talk

about alignments, what will that be

like in ten years' time? Who was

going to monitor that? We don't even

have a storm at executive to have

any input. Scotland, Wales and

everyone else is putting in inputs,

and we are not Ireland have no say.

And who in future is going to

monitor what that alignment will be?

Are we going to the simply told what

to do? Willet come to the stage

where what we produce will not be

accepted and the rest of the UK? I

will let out right away.

No meeting

of minds, but an interesting debate.

Martina Anderson and Jim

Nicholson, thank you.

Let's hear from my

guests of the day,

Brian Feeney and Felicity Huston.

Felicity, do you feel debate has

substantially moved on in the wake

of what the Prime Minister had to

say on Friday, I was simply a

restatement of previous commitments?

And things he was attempting to move

on. There is this delusional

suggestion she should be coming down

on the hard side. If she explained

the consulate have to be filled in

over a hard border, people don't

want to hear that...

Were not need

more than they commitments at this

stage?

I think there should be more

set from Brussels on their

commitments.

commitments. All we hear is no, I

think it is time we hear something

from there.

She bears some

responsible to providing solutions,

she is clear about that. The turn of

the speech was interesting. There is

a responsibility in the UK

Government to come up with solutions

because it was their decision to

leave.

As recently as May 17, the

commissioner down south was happy to

go ahead with an open border and

very little electronic changes. Why

has that changed?

Do you think the

change of tone is real or has it

been overplayed?

There has been a

change of tone and it is

significant, but not overly border.

She is accepting now that,

essentially, Britain is going to be

growing slower. People are going to

be more poor. Life has changed, they

will not be able to have the same

relationship if they leave the

customs union and the single market.

She said we will not have the same

access any more. There is a dose of

reality. Michael Heseltine this

morning said it's all platitudes,

there is nothing there. Felicity say

the EU aren't producing anything,

they have produced this draft

withdrawal treaty and she has

responded with platitudes. I am one

of the few people, apart from

officials, I have read this 120

pages. It is an enormously detailed

legal document. There is nothing

coming from the British Government

at all. They are going to have to

negotiate on this. Will get another

documents on Tuesday and on the 23rd

of March, European Council will

decide how to move on on the basis

of the withdrawal treaty. There is

nothing substantive. The 120 pages

aren't just the Irish border, there

are other things about data

protection, about the role of

different courts. She has changed

her talent, yes, she is excepting

the European Court of Justice will

have a continuing role. People

concentrate on the North/South,

East/West stuff, they are missing

that the European Court of Justice

will continue to have a role in

Northern Ireland.

Maybe this speech

was more about trying to hold the

very difficult Conservative Party

together than anything else? Cheese

instead succeeded in that?

Even Anna

Soubry was quite confirmatory, which

is quite an achievement.

Thanks, both.

Let's just pause for a moment

and have a look back at another

Brexit-focused week in

60 seconds with Gareth Gordon.

The European Commission of list is

Strata legal text, suggesting

Northern Ireland should remain part

of the customs union and share a

common regulatory area with the

Republic. The Prime Minister said

no.

Know UK Prime Minister could

ever agree to eight. I will make it

crystal clear to President Juncker

and others we will never do so.

Double hopes the backstop option

won't be needed.

I don't want a

border between the north and sell

than I want with the UK.

People keep

treating the border question is

little separates, it is not, it is a

metaphor for the overall dilemma.

Businesses in the border would now

like to start over.

We have three

different Britons, the only

alternative is to have a second

referendum would be people who

didn't realise what they were voting

for in the first place. -- we have

three different options, the

alternative.

Gareth Gordon reporting.

And let's have a final word

with our commentators.

I just want to look ahead to local

politics and pick up on a couple of

weeks of toxic exchanges between the

DUP and Sinn Fein on what was and

not agreed on the negotiation of the

draft agreement text. DC any sign of

Stormont is coming back in the short

time?

Not in the short term. It is

difficult to see how they can even

be renewed talks before the 20th

anniversary of the agreement. We

have a couple of difficult weeks to

with Brexit. It has been said there

is tension between the British and

Irish governments on the whole

thing. It is difficult to see how

they can bring the two parties

together, they are very far apart,

they are not even agreeing on what

they agreed.

The irony is, if you

look at that draft text and the fact

it has now been shown that Arlene

Foster did give a hard copy of that

to Michelle O'Neill on the Friday

nights, they were so close to a

remarkable deal.

It fell apart over

the weekend. Mary Lou McDonald said

she warned that if they didn't

agree, people would and picket. But

the suspicion and leaks that were

coming out over that weekend spoke

to elements in the DUP who say, we

can't service to the grassroots.

That is the key, DUP grassroots had

not been prepared for what is

coming?

Arlene had said they would

be no Irish Language Act, now there

appears to be one. It is important

to remember there is not just the

DUP by the idea of an Irish language

and difficult, it is widespread

concern.

It is also worth pointing

out it is not your Sinn Fein who

once one?

But they are the drivers

of it, they are driving the whole

interest and people say

weaponisation of the Irish Language

Act aback

but others want it?

They

are hanging on the coat-tails of

Sinn Fein who are very organised.

People are a bit incorrect of their

assessment that it is just the DUP

who don't want this and are very

uncomfortable with what comes with

its.

its.

A final word on that?

It is a

mistake to think it is just the

Irish Language Act, it is symbolic

of Unionists saying we will decide

how many rights you have.

Thank you

both very much, that is

Costanza, thank you very

much for coming in.

That's all we've got time

for for the London part of the show.

My thanks to you for

being my guests today.

Bye-bye.

welcome back.

So how about a bit of

a break from Brexit?

This morning the government

announced new plans to make it

easier for more houses to be built,

with rules to cut red

tape so that there can

be more homes in areas

where they are needed the most.

The government says they will take

on what they call the "Nimby

councils" who don't build enough.

However, their problem is that a lot

of these councils are Conservative.

So could we be about to see

a battle between local

and central government?

With me now with hopefully

all the answers is Cabinet Office

Minister David Lidington.

Thanks very much for coming in.

Good

morning. If you're going to try and

build more homes in the south-east

of England, which is where the

demand is highest, these are going

to be your own councillors you're

taking on over this?

If you talk to

most Conservative councillors they

will get the need for more homes and

their significant growth in house

building. Actually, if you talk to

councils in my area you will see

councils that are getting on in

doing it with one of the fastest new

house-building rates anywhere in the

country.

Under this government

house-building rates have fallen

significantly. Fewer new houses a

year than there were under the

Labour government, 223,000 in 2007,

217,000, fewer now than word being

built under the last Labour

government.

The number of new houses

last year was 217,000, the

second-highest annual house-building

figure in 30 years. That is not a

record to be ashamed of. We have

also increased considerably the

spending on affordable homes in the

delivery of affordable homes in

council homes compared with what the

Labour government achieved. More

council houses have been built since

2010 than the entire 13 years in the

Labour government before that.

The

number of affordable homes being

built is going down.

built is going down. In 2010 it was

61,000, last year was 40,000.

This

is exactly why we have put in £9

billion, an extra 2 billion in the

last year alone, into the affordable

housing programme. What we need to

do is to get the new homes built.

That takes us to the planning

announcement that is being made

tomorrow, with a new national

planning policy framework for public

consultation. Houses and residents'

groups can feedback their views on

that. When I talk to councils I

find, and I talk to residents

concerned about new development,

what they want is to know that there

is going to be the infrastructure,

there is going to be the public

services to support new housing. I

find increasingly people get the

need for new housing.

People get the

need for new housing, they just do

not want it anywhere near them. That

is where the phrase Nimby comes

from.

I think that is being unfair.

When I say to

people, all can your children or

grandchildren afford to get on the

housing ladder, you see the heads

nodding, even among older residents.

They get the importance of this,

just as people get the significance

that we are living independently for

longer. That is great, but we also

need more accommodation, there are

more households for any given level

of population than we had in the

past. As well as having the house is

planned for, so that the locations,

as in the new guard in towns and

cities programme are being properly

planned for, you also need the

infrastructure, the transport, the

broadband to support that. That is

why the housing infrastructure fund

has been set up, so that local

councils can bid for that to support

unlocking development opportunities.

The government has said this morning

that Nimbys need to be tackled. But

the Nimbys and in the Cabinet. You

have said this needs to be done in a

way that protects the green belt.

The housing minister says every

effort must be made to avoid

building in the green belt. The

Prime Minister Minister said that

local authorities may only alter

green belt boundaries in exceptional

circumstances.

circumstances.

No, not at all, you

are underestimating the way green

belt is important. If you come back

to the Chilterns green belt area,

for people living in London, living

in Luton, High Wycombe, Milton

Keynes, Watford, these are places

expanding, new houses are being

built. Having that nearby is

something that is really important

so we need to plan housing alongside

conservation which is why when the

planning framework is announced

tomorrow and the Prime Minister

makes her big speech on housing, we

are also saying this will be

developed alongside and taking full

account of what Michael Gove and the

environment Department are doing

with a 25 year plans to improve the

environment of our country.

Let me

take you back to the speech the

Prime Minister made on Friday, her

Brexit speech. She made it clear one

of the hard facts was we weren't

going to get everything we wanted.

You are as close as you can beat her

thinking on this, what will she

compromise on?

Tempted as I am, I'm

not going to go into a detailed

negotiating position. We accept that

what we put forward is ambitious,

also credible idea for a close

economic partnership with the EU in

the future. The PM said in the text

of the speech that neither of us

will end up with everything they

wanted. What we need to do now is

see the EU's opening position, to

sit down and start to work through

in detail some of these points about

the law, how you deliver our

objectives of as frictionless trade

as possible, our economic

partnership in the future that

allows cross-border spy chains to

continue in a way that works to our

advantage and that of the EU 27

countries alike.

The Irish

government don't seem to be happy

about this, Simon Coveney said this

morning he doesn't then -- think the

EU will agree to it so we are no

closer to fixing the problem.

Simon

Coveney and the Taoiseach as well as

others have also the way to solving

the responsibilities over the Irish

border and avoiding the hard border

as to do that in the context of an

overall EU UK economic partnership

for the future, and go back to the

PM's speech on Friday and she set

out a number of elements of that. A

deal on goods that would mean the

and the EU recognise each other's

standards so British and European

goods circulated freely without the

need for border checks or paperwork.

That's what the Irish said they

don't think the EU will agree to.

I

think it is in the interests of the

EU to have this arrangement and

these sorts of detail are what we

need to get into to understand where

difficulties lie. The Prime Minister

also talks about a customs

arrangement or partnership with the

EU 27 in the future that would allow

us to simplify and eliminate some of

these problems. We already have

agreement on the continuation of the

Common travel area which means free

movement of people across the

jurisdiction border between the

island of Ireland and Ireland and

the UK. What the Cabinet are

committed to, and it was laid out in

the PM's speech, is that we see it

as essential to ensure there is not

a hard border on the island of

Ireland, that every aspect of the

Good Friday Agreement, both

east-west and north-south, is upheld

in full.

Moving onto President

Trump, he's threatening tariffs on

cars imported into the US which

would include cars coming from the

UK, Jaguar Land Rover brought over

100,000 into the US. If he makes

good on the threat of 10% tariffs,

what will the UK do about that?

At

the moment we are part of the EU and

would be talking with the commission

and European partners about our

collective response to this. I just

think that the United States is not

taking an advisable course. Trade

wars don't do anybody any good.

But

you know there's every possibility

Donald will go with this so what

would the EU do?

We would have to

see what happens. There's a lot of

concern recently about something

comparable as regards to aviation

and the aircraft we produced in part

in Belfast and the American

authorities at the end of the day to

drop back down and said no, that is

not the way we should be going.

We

tried in Britain in the 1960s

getting our car industry from

competition. It didn't work, it

protected inefficiencies, we lost

all our export markets because our

competitors went out and gobble them

up and the car industry had to go

through a very painful restructuring

to get to the success story it is

now.

Once we have left the European Union

and customs union, we will be able

to respond to a tariff or trade war

like this entirely differently so if

this were happening in three years,

what would the British government be

able to do in response to American

president threatening tariffs?

That

is likely piling hypothesis on

hypothesis, but it would also depend

in part on the nature of the

agreement that I hope we conclude

with the EU on industrial goods and

cross-border supply chains but we

would be free to impose our own

trade defence measures against any

country that is trying to dump on

the UK market and the bill is

currently going through Parliament

will give the UK authorities the

power to do just that.

David

Lidington, thanks for talking to us

this morning. We will now turn to

our expert Anil and what they think

it means for the future. Steve, this

idea of the potential of a trade

battle going on between the EU and

US takes us to part of whether the

UK can make up its own responses,

doesn't it?

Yes, and it's very

interesting David Lidington saying

we are leaping several hurdles here

because he hopes that post Brexit

the UK and the EU are lined terms of

other sectors. Whether they get that

sector by sector deal is highly

questionable so that's one of the

several hoops that it is very hard

to navigate. If you have a president

of the United States who is a

protectionist butting up tariffs,

that will have an impact on the rest

of the world. No country operates

alone in this global market. That is

the harsh reality. It has been lost

sometimes in arguments about

sovereignty and Britain going it

alone and the rest of it. It has an

immediate impact on every other

country and they are partly

powerless to do very much about it.

Is Donald Trump threatening this is

a clearer example as to why Britain

needs to leave the customs union,

Isabel?

I think we will have a

better deal with the EU than Donald

Trump does.

Trump does. Trump hates the EU, he

doesn't hate Britain, he wants

things to work well for us. He has

been very consistent about that and

always said America first so I

agree, it is possible he will go

ahead with this but also equally it

is possible that we will strike

something very positive with the US.

We did promise we will talk about

something other than Brexit for

small parts of the programme so

let's pick up on the housing

announcement coming tomorrow from

the Government. It feels like every

six months or so the Government will

-- promised they will build more

homes, and I being cynical?

I think

what they are promising now is

exactly what they promised in the

White Paper on housing, this is just

fleshing it out. It is the exact

same announcement. That said, what's

quite good about this, to some

extent I think the language is too

aggressive about councils and that

is what Labour is picking up on. For

a long time, politicians have

focused on things which are demand

side in the housing market because

it is sexier. Help to buy, right to

buy, and yet they can exacerbate the

problem because if anything while

helping a few people they are

pushing up prices potentially. What

they are doing here unapologetically

is focusing on the supply side and

that's what they need to do. It

isn't very sexy, it is not on every

front page today, the speech

tomorrow won't have as much of an

effect as the speech on Friday but

this is probably one of the biggest

crisis facing the country.

Probably

something voters care more about

than Brexit?

And the timing of this

is very interesting, coming up to

local elections in London Tories are

is very interesting, coming up to

expected to do very badly. Sadiq

Khan's record on housing is

extremely questionable to say the

Khan's record on housing is

least and I think this is an area

where the Tory party senses it

least and I think this is an area

be more proactive.

Is there enough

least and I think this is an area

oxygen in the room for people to

least and I think this is an area

concentrate on housing for voters to

get the message or ministers to push

concentrate on housing for voters to

this through?

Voters have got the

this through?

Voters have got the

message. Grandparents understand it

even if they don't want house

building near them because their

grandchildren cannot buy because

building near them because their

they cannot afford to in certain