04/12/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers are joined by Diane Abbott and Nick Clegg. Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn and Toby Young are on the political panel.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson accepts we might continue to pay EU


budget contributions even after we leave, but says


Tim Farron says his party's dramatic win in the Richmond Park by-election


is a vote against a so-called "hard" Brexit.


But do the Lib Dems really want any kind of Brexit at all?


We speak to former party leader Nick Clegg.


Ukip's new leader says he wants to "replace Labour".


And in Northern Ireland... because of the party leadership's


He's balanced his flagship projects to the east


and west of the Bann, but the demands continue


The Infrastructure Minister, Chris Hazzard, joins us live -


Why did the people of Richmond Park vote the way they did?


And with me - as always - three fully paid-up members


of the metropolitan elite - although which metropolis,


Toby Young, Helen Lewis and Tom Newton Dunn, who'll be


So, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has accepted that


Britain might pay something into the EU budget after Brexit,


though he says there is no reason why they should be too onerous.


That was after the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU,


David Davis, suggested earlier this week that Britain would indeed


consider paying for access to EU markets after Brexit.


Here is what Mr Johnson said on the Marr Show earlier.


A lot of people will be watching, thinking -


hold on a second, after Brexit, are we are going to be paying large


amounts of money to the EU, in return for access to markets?


Well, I've given you an indication of the kind of payments that


My own view is, I see no reason why those payments should be large.


And as I say, I do see a big opportunity for us to take the money


that we're getting back and spend it on other priorities.


Toby, the papers this morning, they are awash with the minutiae of


Brexit, spinning whatever they have got depending on whether they are


Remain or Leave. Is it not getting as close to ridiculous? It does feel


a bit absurd and it is unfortunately the effect of the Government not


announcing, not declaring what its Brexit strategy is going to be.


Because the Dortmund has said it cannot do that without showing its


hand in the forthcoming negotiations, it is difficult to go


back on that -- the Government. I think we will see this fee per


speculation for months if not years. The observer is leading with a


couple of die-hard Remain Tories, not happy, surprise, surprise! The


Telegraph, in Leave paper, saying the Italian Ambassador did not say


this about Boris Johnson this week. Sky News ran the story endlessly


last week. But Toby is right, this sort of flotsam and gets in, the


Government has itself to blame. Yes, and we have now got Queen of Brexit,


dirty Brexit, white, grey, hard, soft. This is about Single Market


and that is what this is about. No wait pays more per capita into the


budget to access this European Economic Area and that is what we


need more clarity about. Not more than we do but a lot. More per


capita, I believe it is 79. It pays a what! . Boris Johnson said we do


not want to pay, only a small amount. This is the bad news that


would suggest, this is going to continue until the Government fills


the vacuum, which means not this year. No, probably not next year


either because we should not expect anything revolutionary from the


Government when Theresa May does trigger Article 50. Maybe not even


in 2018 because we will only know the shape of the deal and what we


get in 2019. They will have the alpine strategic goals. No, I don't


think they will do. They can keep going along with this line of the


best possible trade deal and controlling immigration with maybe a


couple more details of, we are prepared to consider contributions.


And on that, I would suggest the BBC is misreporting Boris Johnson. I did


not hear him at any stage this morning say he is happy with budget


contributions, he is merely happy to contribute a small schemes like


Rasmus. Contributing to the budget is different, it is paying billions


potentially into a pool of money which if you are out of the EU, you


have even less control. David Davis was talking of a bit more than that


but it wasn't specified. It is a red flag for a lot of people who thought


there would be more money to spend this country if we left the EU. The


famous figure on the bus. The more they spend in other ways, the less


there will be. That is true, but the Helen is right. It looks as though


we are beginning to glimpse a government strategy and they are


willing to pay to access the Single Market and a negotiation will partly


be about how much. One aspect often overlooked is the Article 50


negotiation is separate from a free trade negotiation. They often get


run together and we do not know if the negotiations towards agreeing a


free trade agreement can begin at the same time as the Article 50


negotiations or whether they have to wait until the Article 50


deal has been concluded before embarking on the free trade


negotiation. They have to do that, there will be speculation about what


that looks like 45, maybe ten years. I understand they intend to do it in


parallel but do not take that to the bank! That is a caveat otherwise she


would be criticising us again! After a devastating


general election, you'd be forgiven for thinking


that the Liberal Democrats were But earlier this week,


the party won a stunning by-election victory in Richmond Park,


overturning Zac Goldsmith's 23,000 The new MP, Sarah Olney,


has even gone as far as to suggest that the result paved the way


for Parliament to "override" Here she is talking


to reporters after her victory. Are you still going to vote


against Article 50, and isn't that flying in the face of what the rest


of the country voted That's the commitment


I made in my campaign. My by-election victory means I have


got a personal mandate from the voters of Richmond Park


that that is what A third of Tory Leavers


voted Liberal Democrat yesterday because they say,


hang about, this is not what we voted for, Theresa May


is taking a Ukip-ish slant They want a country that is open,


tolerant and united. It is not 48 versus 52,


it's about the country coming together behind a moderate,


progressive opposition I'm joined now by the former leader


of the Liberal Democrats and former Deputy Prime Minister,


Nick Clegg. He is now the party's


Brexit spokesman. Welcome back to the programme. Tim


Farron says Richmond is a rejection of Brexit and the 2015 General


Election, even Donald Trump, which will be news to America. In what way


does 20,000 people voting for the Lib Dems in one of the most affluent


anti-Brexit constituencies in the country mean any of that? I think


when these by-elections happen, people quite rightly both for and


against say all sorts of things which either turn out or not to be


true. I think clearly you cannot extrapolate from one part of


south-west London to the rest of the country. I heard the result in South


West Sheffield, very different in south-west London. Having spent a


lot of time in the Richmond campaign, the most significant thing


was not about the details of Article 50 and Single Market, it was a very


strong feeling among those kind of people, and there are millions


around the country, who feel that because they disagreed with the


outcome on June 23rd, they are being delegitimised and no longer entitled


to hold those views, they are shouted down as moaners and people


living in denial. It is always emotion driving these things more


than cerebral ideas. It was that emotion that came through in the


by-election. Next week, we have a by-election in a place that voted


60% to leave and I would suggest your party will not win that is, a


Brexit supporter will win that comfortably. So a big Remain


constituency votes to remain and a big Leave votes to leave. Ukip might


win and if that happens, it might reveal that as politics becomes more


defined buying Brexit, it is the parties with the clearest positions,


in this case Ukip and the Liberal Democrats, who communicate more


clearly with the public. And the mainstream parties are increasingly


divided and opaque in what they really mean. We will see what


happens. Let's look at how clear cut your party's position is. Sarah


Olney, your new MP for Richmond, will vote against triggering Article


50, what may, is that Liberal Democrat policy? No, that is her


personal mandate as the clip shows that is has a mandate she feels she


has received because that is the basis upon which she put herself


forward to the people of Richmond. You will not vote against Article


50? There are certain cases in which I would. If you got a second


referendum, you would not? If I got a second and the Government would


keep us in the Single Market, I would not. You brought this idea of


a second referendum on the deal itself. Most EU leaders do not want


us to leave and they are the ones we negotiate with. If they know there


is a vote on the terms, surely they have a massive incentive to give the


worst possible deal? This goes back to the origins of the debate prior


to the vote on June 23rd. What is haunting the nation is the fact that


the Brexit backers did not spell out what they meant. You will no doubt


quote this and that but there is no manifesto from Nigel Farage, Michael


Gove and Boris Johnson, United and coherent, not talking about


television clips watched by fractions of the electorate... On


crucial things like whether we stay in the Single Market, absolutely


not. The official Leave campaign, the framework document widely


covered by the media said, we want the supremacy of EU law and the


European Court of jurisdiction the end, we want budget contributions to


end, we want the EU's control over UK borders the end and we want the


UK to leave the common commercial policy. A way of describing the


Single Market. No, it is the Customs Union. The only person in British


politics... Plenty of leaders of the Leave campaign said they wanted to


leave the Single Market. The common commercial policy is not the Single


Market. They talk about the Single Market, they want to leave the


Customs Union as well. They want to leave the Single Market. We should


be really clear, why is it in that case that ministers from this Brexit


government do not come before Parliament now to say we stick to


what we apparently said so clearly? They did not, it was much more


opaque. We will rule out the Norway option. Let's look at what the


leaders of your side of the campaign and the leaders of the Leave


campaign said when asked about the Single Market. Can we see that now?


The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the EU and


still be the Single Market. Should we come out of the Single Market? I


think that almost certainly would be the case, yes. Do you want is to


stay inside the Single Market, yes or no? No, we should be outside the


Single Market. I said to Michael Gove, after Brexit, will we be


inside the Single Market, and he said no. He was right. We would be


out of the Single Market, that is the reality, Britain would be


quitting. Quitting the Single Market.


Where was the manifesto? Where was the document? Where was the


manifesto from the key Brexiteers, Johnson, Gove and Farrage, saying,


British people, this is what will happen if you read the European


Union. It was not there because it is not as if we were not warned.


Dominik Commons, apparently the intellectual architect of the


campaign, said it is very important we do not say what we mean. People


watching this programme will see clearly what they said. Sorry to


break this to you but what someone says to you and mumbles in admission


on the cross questioning from you in a television studio watched by a


fraction of the Electric is not the same as putting me for the British


people a clear plan. Wear with a policy documents? It is very


important because you have gone round in circles on this for weeks.


Let me explain... I am trying to get you to understand reading people in


the campaign made it clear we would leave the Single Market as members.


Why did David Steve said after the referendum, not even before, in a


post on this famous essay before he became Brexit Secretary, why did he


say he bought Single Market arrangement should continue? Why did


Greg Clark, a Minister when negotiating with Nissan, say, we are


pursuing not only trade arrangements with the rest of the European Union


free of tariffs, free of bureaucratic impediments. You know


as well as I do that you cannot have tried very bureaucratic impediments


other than being a member of the Single Market.


shutter If the second referendum also important, why didn't you


mention it? We were fighting to stay in. But you never said that if you


lost there would have to be a referendum on the deal itself? Let's


look at you said. It's quite, quite different


to any other kind of vote It's not like a general election,


however important they seem, that binds the hands of the next


Parliament, for the next five years, or set expectations


about what a government will do. Once in a generation. It is clear


now that was only a few won. If you lost, you wanted a second? This is


getting us nowhere. That is entirely consistent with saying that since


the victorious side, the Brexiteers, did not spell out to the British


public what Brexit means, and we still don't know what it means, we


still have absolutely no notion if they want to pay contributions or


not, if they want to be part of foreign policy arrangements or


not... Why didn't you say that at the time? That was the 27th of


April, one clip from the wider debate. We, as the Liberal


Democrats, are quite logically saying, since the victors in the


referendum, yes, they have a mandate to pull out of the European Union,


they did not have a mandate how to do it because they did not spell it


out to the British people. It is not a second referendum. It is the first


referendum, or it would be the first referendum on the terms of


departure. The terms of the new re-engagement with the rest of the


union. The position on soft Brexit, that we would remain a member of the


single market, right? Which means that we would accept free movement


of people, that goes with membership? It is a bit more


complicated than that, as you know. My own view is that there is plenty


of scope, if this Government was intelligent about it, to say to


other European member states, look, it is now time to grant to Britain,


in return for continued membership of the single market, the least


economically destructive form of Brexit, granted to Britain a Europe


wide migration frees. We could get that? The government EU doesn't


appear to be trying. At the moment, membership of the single market


means free movement. Norway, for instance... Norway has free


movement, it is even in Schengen. They have a legal ability to


constrain free movement. Which they haven't done. But it is their


choice, it is an entitlement. We would remain subject to the


jurisdiction of the European Court? Here is the issue with the single


market, I hear constantly, politicians and commentators, saying


it is just a day with tariffs. The most important thing, as identified


by Margaret Thatcher, is the body of rules. And that would be the


European Court? Well, if you really want to get into a... It follows the


case law. They have more discretion. They have never gone against ECJ


law? It would have to be the European Court? Whether you have a


direct Amaq one ruling, or another body, call is Mary all Paul eyecare,


if you want to trade into a single market of rules... Call it maryjane,


for all I care. You would abide by those rules. If we were to trade


inside the single market, we would do so anyway. You would stay in the


customs union? I would. I want to add up what this means. We remain


single market membership, we continue with EU contributions, free


movement of people, said the jurisdiction of the European Court,


we remain in a customs union, so we can't do most of our own trade


deals. You know what that is called? Membership of the EU. Know it is


not. There are a number of countries in the EEA, which do make financial


contributions. They have the ability for people to come in and out of the


European Union. Of course, I accept, for the hardest, hardline


Brexiteers... But this has always been the dilemma as a country. What


is right for the prosperity of future generations is not


politically convenient for the Conservative Party, what is


politically convenient to them is economically self harming. What my


party chooses is the least economically self harming future for


our children. Given that you say you accept the result, when you add up


everything that you want to happen, it is clear that you don't. You want


an arrangement of soft Brexit, very little different from the status


quo. You want a second referendum that would incentivise Europeans to


give such a bad deal that we would vote against it, and you would


encourage that? To somehow claim that the status Norway and other EEA


countries have is equivalent to membership is nonsense. They have a


common agricultural policy which is their own. You described Norway as


powerless and voiceless. But that is not my problem, that is the problem


of the Brexiteers promising, as you know, to have their cake and eat it.


They have won. I am now in opposition. With victory should come


clarity, responsibility and a duty to the country not to your own


party. These are the ones that are hoisted by their own petard. They


will claim they have an economic utopia by pulling out all the


largest single market, a single market we created under Margaret


Thatcher. It is not my problem that they cannot regard the Leeds resolve


their own dilemma that having access to the British manufactured single


market does, in one way or another, have to abide by the rules. That is


not my problem, it is theirs. Your party is called the Liberal


Democrats. Many people watching this will think maybe it is time for a


rebrand? Just drop the Democrat bit. I don't know what you are driving


at? You seem to want to fly in the face of the Democratic vote. We are


saying there are choices in how we leave. Yes, some compromises, but it


safeguards the safety, the clean environment, the jobs and prosperity


of our children and grandchildren. If it comes to the point that


anybody who suggests we put our country before the narrow lanes of


Brexiteers is shouted down, we have come to a very sorry place. Thank


you for joining us. Ukip's new leader, Paul Nuttall,


says his party can gain at least ten And he hopes to do it at the expense


of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, which he says doesn't represent


working people anymore. Some Labour MPs, particularly those


in working-class Northern seats, Ellie Price has been


to Barnsley to investigate. I want to replace the Labour Party


and make Ukip the patriotic Ukip says it will take the fight


to Labour in its very heartland, places like the north of England,


places like here in Barnsley, where 70% of people voted


for Brexit and where, in the last general election,


Ukip came a strong second in two It is surely in the back


of Dan Jarvis's mind. He has been the Labour


MP here since 2011. Do you worry that they're going


to vote Ukip at the next election? We should not be complacent


about the fact that a resurgent Ukip could provide a significant


challenge for us and we have to make The big issue here is immigration,


in a town that he says He is worried Labour doesn't


currently have the answers. We are not getting it


quite right just yet, because we haven't demonstrated


to the public that we I don't think we were able to do


that in the previous parliament, and I think there is still


a specific concern that people look at us and think we don't take it


as seriously as they take it, because we can't ever afford to go


into a general election with the public thinking we don't


take the issue of Diane Abbott doesn't seem


to think there should be I think if you're trying


to achieve anything, it's useful to have a target,


because it's quite a useful waymarker as to whether you


are making progress. So, my own view is that there should


be some sort of target. I think it's a bit early to say


precisely what that should be, But my instinct is,


if you want to demonstrate to the public that you take this


very seriously, the notion that you should have some sort


of target is the right one. But the plan is to park tanks


on the lawns of places like this. Fresh from coming second in Ukip's


recent leadership contest, she is now the chair of the party's


Policy Committee. That's why we invited her to get


a taste of what people A party that sticks


for the working class people. I think they are standing


for the beliefs of the people in the north of England more


than the south of England. Her impromptu canvassing


session here went well. But the challenge for


the new leader, Paul Nuttall, will be to break the voting habits


of generations of Labour supporters. With Paul Nuttall as our new leader,


we have a real opportunity here. A Bootle man, Liverpool,


working-class accent, a guy who has grown up in the North


of England and can talk to people in a different way


than perhaps Nigel Farage did. If Nigel Farage couldn't do it


why would Paul Nuttall, who just happens to have a northern


accent, make any difference? I think with Nigel standing down


as leader, I think also there will be more people


in the front line of Ukip. I think, perhaps rightly,


we have sometimes been criticised I think that is going to change very


swiftly and very dramatically. Will you have a target


list here in the North? I think we will be looking to target


in particular those seats where there is a Labour member


of Parliament who does not want to leave the European Union,


but his constituents, or her constituents,


want to get out. They have got to be our top


priorities, particularly if we are looking at constituencies


where we ran Labour a close second Ukip came second to Labour in 44


constituencies in last That was before people in most


of those areas voted this With that in mind, Paul Nuttall


predicts his party will have There is no floor


under the Labour vote. The connection between these voters


and the Labour Party The party, for so long,


has dismissed their concerns and not That prediction is,


I think, realistic. I think that is probably a central


case, but it could be much worse. Even if it is lower,


it is still probably going to be a disaster for Labour,


because a big chunk of working class That means the seat will go Tory,


because the Tory vote stays solid, If voters here have felt


forgotten by Westminster, they may want to be careful


what they wish for. Places like this will become


a battle ground for two parties that I'm joined now by the Shadow Home


Secretary, Diane Abbott. Welcome back to the programme. We


had the new immigration statistics out this week. Let's look at the


numbers on the screen. The numbers have never been higher. 650,000


people came here, migrants, in the year, to June. Take away those that


are leaving, it comes to a net figure of 330 5000. That level of


immigration, too high, too low or about right? Any politician who


thinks you can set targets for immigration has got a fool for an


economic adviser. What the Labour Party is talking about is trying to


bear down on the reasons immigrants come here. Without setting a target,


is it too high or about right? Targets don't set a difference. I'm


not asking you to set a target, I'm asking if that is about right or


not? It reflects underlying economic conditions and we would like to


adjust those. It reflects the underlying economic situation. We


have to deal with that. Do you want to reduce immigration numbers? You


can bear down on immigration. There are two main reasons why immigrants


come here. The main one is to work. That is partly about the skills gap


in the UK, partly about the fact that predatory employers use


immigration to undercut British workers, black and white. How many


immigrants are subject to predatory employers? How many are waiting for


below the minimum wage? We don't know, because the whole point about


them working for less than the minimum wage is that it is not


properly documented. What we want to do is prosecute employers who pay


below the minimum wage. The figures for prosecution or about seven. Many


employers have been named and shamed and they have had to pay arrears to


the people that were not getting the minimum wage and they have had to


pay penalties, about ?3.5 million. It only covers about 10,000 people.


We know that the number of illegal migrants here, we have no evidence


that there are huge numbers below the minimum wage. Illegal is another


matter. But you cannot show to me whether that would make a


difference, because you don't know the numbers? Of course we don't know


the numbers. As for the people that have been named and shamed, the fact


they only cover a small number of people, that just shows how weak the


policy is. What we would do is to strengthen the factories


Inspectorate, we would ramp up penalties on people who are not...


Prosecutions on people. They paid penalties and paid arrears. But you


don't know by how much migration would reduce, even if there was full


enforcement of the minimum wage. And a lot of these people are not


migrants, they are people that were here. It is hard to see how much, if


at all, that would reduce immigration numbers?


Brexiteers The anxiety in constituencies like Bradford is the


sense they are being undercut and losing job because of migrants and


we would look to address that. He said at the last election that


Labour's manifesto which pledged to bear down on immigration numbers


were shameful. Why are you now advocating something you thought


were shameful? What I thought was shameful was the immigration


controls that did nothing for us and played very badly in some parts of


the country. You are talking about your own form of control, to bed


down is your phrase, to bed down on numbers means to control it. The


current leadership is very clear that we want to stop the


undercutting British workers and we want to stop the exploitation of


immigrants. What I think is shameful is to play a game with


anti-immigrant rhetoric. We have seen across the Atlantic where that


leads to pursue. Donald Trump. Staying on the side of the Atlantic,


you cannot tell me how many legal migrants are paid less than the


minimum wage. He said the party policy was clear but we have had a


number of statements from your party about policy. This is Jeremy


Corbyn's spokesman... Which one is Labour policy? Our


policy is fair rules and reasonable management of migration. Which one


of these three is Labour policy? Jeremy Corbyn's spokesperson, we can


discount that, Jeremy has never said anything like that. But he has been


very clear we must not play politics with migration. We discount Jeremy


Corbyn's spokesman? Yes. Emily Thornbury, is that the policy? Our


policy is fair rules and reasonable management of migration and that is


what she was saying. Clive Lewis, Shadow Business Secretary, proposes


migrants should only be allowed to come here if they belong to a trade


union is that your policy? He has gone back on that, you cannot insist


that people during a union. But we should do everything we can to


encourage people to join a union. They would not have to be a member


to join? Clive Lewis is no longer saying that. Dan Jarvis, in the


film, and other prominent Labour MP, says Labour should have a target to


cut immigration can you don't agree? I am a former home Office civil


servant and I can tell you targets never work, look at the humiliation


of the Tories, immigration is as high as it has ever been. Targets


are not the point, the point is to look at the underlying economic


issues which bring migrants to our shores. But if you were to do that


and do it successfully, what is the scale to cut the numbers? You cannot


count illegal migrants and you cannot count employers who pay less


than the minimum wage. Let me show you something you said at a fringe


event of the Labour conference in Liverpool.


It would be wrong to unnecessarily throwaway access to the Single


Market in the name of controlling migration through ending single


movement. Ending free movement. Because ending free movement has


become a synonym for anti immigrant races and the Labour Party... --


racism. The Labour Party should never be on the wrong side of that


argument. Chuka Umunna, Rachel Greaves, Ed


Balls, they have called to an end of free movement of Labour from the EU,


they all guilty of anti-immigrant racism? I am aware of what they said


and Keir Starmer and I went to Brussels last month and we spoke to


a series of spokespeople, both for the Parliament and for the


Commission on freedom of movement. And they were very clear that there


will be no deal on freedom of movement. I did not ask about a


deal, but if you are against free movement as these three Labour


colleagues are, prominent colleagues, you have said to take


that position is to be guilty of anti-immigrant racism. Is that what


they are guilty of? I am not accusing them of that, I am saying


they are not facing facts. You cannot have access to the Single


Market without freedom of movement. You can have access, just not


membership. Membership brings full freedom of movement, access does


not. I spoke with Keir Starmer to every major European Commission


spokesperson on this and they were clear there is no deal to be done on


freedom of movement. And if we negotiated a deal which appeared to


involve a condition of freedom of movement, the European Parliament


simply would not vote for it. Canada has substantial access to the Single


Market, it is not a member, but it has substantial access and there is


no freedom of movement for Canada. I am telling you you can have any


European spokesperson in the studio and ask them, can we have access


without freedom of movement? They will tell you know. Why has Canada


got a robust free trade movement agreement with the EU that does not


involve freedom of movement? Why could Britain not have that as well?


Because our geographical situation across the Channel from the European


continent is across the Channel from the European


continent is very different from Canada. Whether people like it or


not, it is not whether you or against freedom of movement or not,


it is like the weather. If the UK of the Channel from continental Europe


wants access to the Single Market, there has to be commensurate freedom


of movement. Otherwise, the European Parliament will not vote for that


deal. You understand the difference between access and membership? I


understand we could not have membership without freedom of


movement, I am puzzled as to why we could not have some degree of


access, it would have to be negotiated, but some degree of


access not involving free movement. There are about 30 countries around


the world which have substantial access to the EU and not free


movement. Europe is saying something different, you need to ask European


spokespeople into the studio and ask them why they refuse to accept there


can be a deal which involves no freedom of movement. If and when we


leave the EU, what would Labour's policy be towards immigration from


the EU? If and when we leave the EU, we would want fair rules and


reasonable management. What would that mean in practice? For instance,


we would prevent employers going to Europe to recruit directly for jobs


here without making those jobs open to British people. But we do not


know again how much that difference would make? You would have the


freedom to have a policy, would you have a policy on immigration? The


Labour Party has always had a policy. The EU. We do not have a


policy because we do not have one, when free movement comes to an end,


on what basis would we allow EU citizens to work here? On the basis


of fairness and on the basis of what is good for the economy because that


is what has been lost sight of in this debate. Your Shadow Cabinet


colleague John Healy said this week Labour just does not understand what


matters to many working class communities. Is he wrong? He is


wrong if what he's saying is that we have to right on immigration to save


seats from Ukip. My belief is if the Labour Party starts saying Ukip is


right and immigration is the course of these people's problems, if we


start to say that, that gives credence to Ukip. Thank you very


much, you made that clear, thank you.


It's just gone 11:35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


He's balanced his flagship projects to the east


and west of the Bann, but the demands continue


The Infrastructure Minister, Chris Hazzard, is with us.


Plus, the battle over regeneration powers and who should control them


has led to some bitter accusations against Stormont.


The boss of the organisation which represents all the councils


here tells us what it means for local government


And giving us their thoughts on those issues - Chris Donnelly


It's been a fortnight of varying fortunes


for the Infrastructure Minister with legal rulings both holding up


plans for the A6 and moving things forward on the A5.


There's also the ever-present campaigning for the York Street


Interchange to be built, with Belfast city councillors asking


if the public-private funding model could be the answer.


Chris Hazzard is with us this morning...


Let's start with that good news on the A5 -


that brings you closer to starting on that next year?


There is a statutory process ongoing and we have a public enquiry. I'm


not due to get the report until next spring anyway. It has lifted a


hurdle, but it would not speed anything up and if we had lost that


angle and into a judicial review proceedings, the final destination


is unknown. It is a welcome decision, we are over the first


hurdle but there is a statutory process that is still ongoing. Do


you have a timescale? Can you say to people who are determined that this


should be top of the list of priorities when ground is likely to


be broken? I would like to be into construction mode this time next


year and I want to get that report from the independent


inspector. I cannot Expedia that process. It will likely be made next


year and I will consider the report and I would like to be in a position


next autumn to move into a construction phase for the A5.


A tweet from the Dept of Infrastructure in June said


"Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard to complete


A5 in this mandate" - but that's not the case, is it?


We want to move ahead. We know for the A5 that it is a massive project.


This is the Dublin to Donegal route and this will take massive


investment both from my -- department and the Southern


government. The first stage is from Newbuildings to Strabane, it will be


nine or ten miles, it is not a whole thing. I am determined to get as


much finance as possible and I am meeting with the Southern Transport


Minister in December and talks with the Southern government are ongoing.


They had put 400 million on the table for the project but that has


reduced to 75 and the Executive will spend money as well. I want to do as


much as I can, but a lot will depend on finance. The statutory


process as well. This is a road and also the A6 that people have been


waiting half a century for. I will do as much as I can to get it


completed but if it takes a bit longer, I think people would be


happy. They want construction to begin. In this mandate, what you are


likely to be able to complete in stage one of the process, not the


entire A5. Do you accept that? If you're going to break ground next


year, you cant finish the whole thing and do all of that work in


three and a half years, it wouldn't be possible! With a fair wind and we


can work on all three phases at the same time. There are statutory and


legal processes to go through and I cannot circumvent them. Certainly


the A5 and A6 remain priorities and I will do as much as I can to move


them forward. What about the money from the Republic of Ireland, do you


have a figure that you think is reasonable and acceptable and


doable? 400 million was originally the figure. It has gone away and


they are moving into a period of infrastructure review and I think it


is timely. I have met with councils and there is a determination to put


more money back on the table and when I meet with Shane Ross I will


talk about that. Let's talk about the A6 after the criticism that


Danny Kennedy faced over lack of consideration around environmental


issues, have your plans now fallen foul of precisely the same


difficulty? This is an application for leave. The bar is very low for


applying for a leave and I welcome the comments that this is a vital


project and we need resolution. My department are confident that we


will be successful and we will remain on track for starting


construction next March. That is the optimistic version, but you must


know that looking at what happened in terms of delays on A5 which went


on for years and as you have said has not started yet, if that is


replicated where the A6 is concerned, you will be long gone as


minister before anything substantial happens. It could happen. I don't


want to circumvent the judicial process, I am confident and


officials are confident that we have everything in place. We will have


our papers lodged quickly and I welcome justice Maguire who rejected


five of the six grams, we will have a hearing and I welcome that.


Preliminary hearings will continue. This is one section and I hope in


the New Year to make an announcement about the Dungiven bypass and


joining the road to Derry as well. These are rules that should have


been built decades ago. Can I address all of that in the next five


years? I will do as much as I can. For a lot of people hearing that


Dungiven would go ahead will be good news and they are likely to take the


attitude, we will believe it when we see it, because this has been


promised for decades and nothing has happened. I understand the


frustration, I have been to Derry and heard the frustration, people


saying they need investment and they are crying out for investment, we


know the unemployment figures in Derry are too high. We know what it


means to have good connectivity. That is the task I am setting myself


to do. I understand the frustrations and I want to do with them. Has


Dungiven jumped up the queue? It is part of the A6 plans. The bypass in


Dungiven and towards Derry we are progressing with that in the New


Year and I am coming to a stage where I hope to make an


announcement. We are going into a budgetary process and I would like


to think I would have the money to complete what I want to do with the


A6. It will all become clear to the budget. We talked about west of the


Bann and we also need to talk about Belfast and the calls being made for


you to deal with the York Street Interchange. City councillors have


been asking your department to develop a private public funding


model, is that on the table? Working in partnership with local government


and business in the years ahead is something we will have to look at.


We know the dire straits the public finances are in. I am open to look


at anything put in front of me. Even if that means tells? If a private


firm was involved, the way it would recoup its investment is through


that, are you prepared to consider tolling? I want a number of options.


Public transport, roads, we know there is investment needed in waste


water. I have established an alternative finance group to work


with the Department of Finance but it has to work in the public


interest. Is it in the public interest for motorist who have to


pay to use a road system and if they cannot afford to, to use a


second-best system, that is the question you have to deal with? It


is something I will continue to look at, tolling has become a feature of


many road projects in Europe and most of the western world. It is


prevalent in the Republic. Indeed. It has to be used where it works and


it has to work in the interest of the public. It is a possibility?


Anything is a possibility. I have approximately five or ?6 billion


worth of projects sitting with the Department and I can only get one or


1.5 billion to do that. Do I leave everything on the shelf or do I look


at ways to do it? It has to be in the public interest and does not


leave us with massive resource bills for years to come. York Street


Interchange and the fact that Belfast councillors want you to look


at the high-speed rail link between Belfast and Dublin, are they serious


priorities? Absolutely. We need to have a conversation about transport.


We talked far too often about moving cars in and out of Belfast and we


did not talk often enough about moving people. That is where the


great hope is for rail. There are discussions ongoing about linking


Belfast, Dublin and Derry with high-speed rail and I want to take


that forward. Thank you very much. Let's hear from our commentators


today - Felicity Houston What do you make of that? A lot on


the table for consideration. I think this comes back to the fact that


Sinn Fein decided to take the infrastructure ministry because they


saw an opportunity to advance key signature programmes that really


allow them to address a delivery deficit which has detrimentally


impact on our national as complement -- competence. We see that in the


national as turnout which has been declining. They see the A5 and A6 as


a massive prize which allows them to say they have delivered on the fresh


start plan. Those are the two priority programmes and in the time


ahead, he would hopefully be able to show that we are going to move


towards construction beginning on both of those which opens up the


point is, while that would perhaps benefit people who support Sinn


Fein, it does not benefit everyone, it is not just nationalist who would


support? Obviously there is a mixed community there and it should be a


benefit. Chris said that nationalists have lost faith in the


government to deliver but I don't think so. The whole population has.


I can think of the Belfast rapid transport programme which has


supposedly been planned and I have been living there are 40 years and I


remember this plan as a young girl. It still has not happened. Why on


earth isn't there a proper roadway to Derry? If any of these things


actually get built, people will be astonished and it will be a great


achievement if the Minister manages it, but people will not expect it. I


will come back to the Minister on that point, can you give any


reassurance to Felicity Houston on that rapid transport system


Others-macro I will be launching a project in 2018. We have tended the


vehicles. I have seen some of the design work. That is only phase one.


We need to look at South and North Belfast. We need to realise, that is


the type of system that will tackle congestion. We cannot build our way


out of the congestion problems. In Europe they have spent billions


doing that and they have just built -- Michael built concrete jungles.


Thanks to you both for now - we'll talk again soon but now


for a look back at the week - one of those weeks dominated


by a particular party - in sixty seconds with


In the run-up to world AIDS Day, an MLA thanked a charity for


enlightening him over HIV. For me that's a turning point, as someone


who was ignorant to the fact of this terrible disease that heterosexual


people can have it also. Possibly the only time Trevor Clark and Elton


John will appear in the same story. A Northern Ireland politician said


that he did not know that heterosexual people could get a HIV.


Where is like what planet are you living on? Sammy Wilson's claim that


other diseases more deserving of public attention got a rare rebuke


from a party colleague who wrote reveal that a person close to her


has HIV. It would not have been that difficult to wear the red ribbon in


support. It would not have been difficult for anyone to do.


Complaints that no Northern Ireland stars were on the short list for the


BBC sports personality of the year. Just one of the things the First


Minister found hard to swallow this week. We no doubt will be eating


some fair from China, the things we do for Ulster.


Power-grabbing and reneging on a promise are just two


of the accusations levelled at the Communities Minister,


Paul Givan, after his decision not to hand over regeneration


On Thursday Belfast City Council agreed to seek an urgent


Councils across Northern Ireland said it's a u-turn and one that


will have a signficiant impact on their ability to sustain


The chief executive of NILGA, which represents all the councils,


is Derek McCallan and he's joins me now... Did you see this coming?


We anticipated this, because the Northern Ireland Executive is about


as watertight as a tea bag. We were made aware of this and we


anticipated rather than reacted to it. We have already sought an


engagement and that has been confirmed with the Communities


Minister and the communities committee and the reason we are


doing that is because we want to make absolutely sure that as your


commentators mentioned, there is no democratic or delivery deficit as a


consequence of this. Regeneration is one of the absolute foundation


pieces of improving competition, economy, devolution, democratic


deficits, don't need to happen as a result of this. We don't think they


will, but crucial to this will be this programme for government.


Nobody is suggesting that regeneration is not going to happen,


the question is, how best to deliver it. Do you accept that the Minister,


Paul Givan, in his new Department of communities with new


responsibilities, is able to present himself as a one stop shop and


deliver a better regeneration programme across the whole of


Northern Ireland than would have been the case through the 11


councils separately and independently? We don't accept that.


We will be encouraging evidence to ensure that the councils are the


one-stop shop and here is why. There is an economic disadvantage if you


are an investor or a citizen in a local area, where there is an


inability to have building control, planning, the local economy, area


planning, land Assembly, comprehensive development schemes,


all of these things have to happen at the local level. Why is better


locally? Just ask the citizens in like Metropolitan dynamic areas like


Merthyr Tydfil, Cornwall, not just the Glasgow and Manchester 's of


this world. There has been a devolution of investment and powers


into the hands of local people to develop and sustain local


communities in local areas. The 11 community plans of the councils link


to this programme will be the litmus test. But the minister says is not


all of the councils where as ready as the better prepared councils to


actually deliver on regeneration. When there was an uneven picture as


far as he is concerned, in terms of delivery, potential, he had to step


in and take over, does that not make sense? Do you accept that is the


case? Of course. 11 councils were in the same place in terms of the local


government act and a submission since 2002, which said that


regeneration would be coming to those councils. They were in a state


of preparedness. There is a better way of doing it, that is the point


of the Minister. There is a policy imperative and a fractal in --


practical unheard of for the councils to be in charge of the


local economy. They will do that better with local people and with


investors. I do want to put words in your mouth, but do you see it as a


power grab by Paul Givan? The Northern Ireland Assembly like local


government is maturing. They want to see results. That is a good thing.


There is an element of this and let's be constructive about this,


there is an element of this which is positive and in the statement there


was a reference made to the fact that all communities regardless of


size, that there would be a coordination of effort around


regeneration. We are meeting a Minister on Tuesday and we hope that


as seen through because rural communities, this has to be good for


them as well. All of Northern Ireland at local level needs


regeneration. It is interesting that you mentioned that. Belfast City


Council on the one hand looks as though it is seeking to get the


powers from the Minister, on the other hand it is currently working


on the city growth deal which would give it regeneration powers anyway.


Are you concerned that Belfast could pull away in terms of what it can do


and the way in which it can do it in future and have an unfair advantage


over the other ten councils, is that the possibility? No. Belfast just


wants to have the same competitive advantage as the Swansea 's and


Cardace of this world. In terms of a sector, local government is


unwavering in its commitment to have further investment and powers


devolved to it. The fact that there is some work being done by Belfast


will not be to the material disadvantage of any other community


in Northern Ireland as long as the councils are actually afforded the


opportunity to do it and what we are asking for now, in this mandate, is


for an all-party group on local governance, development and


investment in the future, because if we do not have that, we will not


have the highly laudable principles of this programme for government.


You will have that distortion that you referred to. The Minister says


that if people want regeneration on the ground, whether it is in Belfast


or anywhere else across Northern Ireland, they don't care how it is


delivered. It is the fact that it is deliberate and it will be delivered


that matters to them. This is an argument that matters a lot to you


and the councillors that you represent but the vast majority of


people don't care, so long as it happens! If it is Paul Givan, great.


In one respect it doesn't matter what institution delivers this but


in terms of local democracy and local investment and a competitive


economy, we need to have a local one-stop shop and the reason I


mention that, just by way of illustration, at the moment there


are three institutions dealing with regeneration and should be won


at the local level, it should be the councils and the reason for that is


that the council should not have to wait 16 weeks for an acknowledgement


to be able to use street lamps to make a Wi-Fi town. It should be


delivered locally and it is in Merthyr Tydfil, it is in Swansea, it


is in Glasgow, it is in Cornwall, why do we normalise our local


democracy? Interesting question. And let's have a final word


with Felicity and Chris... What make of that? Is there a real


tussle for control between Stormont and the 11 local councils? I don't


think it is between Stormont and the councils, I think it is between the


DUP specifically. We saw last year that Mervyn Storey as minister was


reluctant to move on the regeneration Bill and it has been


confirmed by Paul Givan that they want to hold the power with the


ministry at Stormont. I think the issue there is that the DUP want to


keep control because if it is seeded out to the council then obviously


some of those councils are majority nationalist and some have no


outright majority and the DUP would like to keep it centralised because


they can have a role in strategically developing it. There


could be grounds for friction to develop with Sinn Fein over that


because clearly Sinn Fein do not agree. How do you see it? It is one


of those things. I thought this was going ahead and suddenly the


minister announces the councils aren't getting it. It could strip


out unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. That has to be


beneficial. If we are going to have local councils that actually do


anything, the whole point of the reorganisation was that the councils


would actually have roles now, proper and realistic ones and they


are taking away this power from them which I hoped might have been


successful, because although we are very small country, we are also


parochial and everyone knows their own turf. That is the point. We


talked about Swansea and Glasgow and Merthyr Tydfil and Northern Ireland


are small and a lot of say if you want to compare like with like, you


should be comparing Stormont rather than the 11 local councils. It has


all the paraphernalia of a real government. This is the problem,


Stormont wants to be a real government. Things move at a clay


seal speed. There would be a possibility if that were done at


local level that things could move on. It is like what we talked about


with the roads. There was a disaster in Derry, it was run by two


government departments. It feeds into the logic of reorganising our


local government from 26 councils down to 11 which was about trying to


make them larger, to give them powers were they could be credibly


devolved powers so they could deliver on the ground, because they


are closer and I think that is the strongest argument in this regard.


It is going to be very interesting to see how it plays out because


there cannot be two winners. Do you think that Paul Givan will end up in


control? I think he is going to at the moment but I think over time it


is something that Sinn Fein will want to see and the local councils.


That's it for now - but we can't finish the programme


without paying tribute to our former colleague, Austin Hunter, who's died


suddenly and whom we remember with great affection.


Many fitting and well-deserved tributes have been paid to him


in the past few hours - and we're thinking about his family,


and in particular, his son, Simon, who's part of our team.


The Government's Supreme Court appeal against


And, are the Lib Dems "back in the game"?


The Italians have this constitutional referendum today,


Matteo Renzi says if he loses, he will resign and that will spark a


political crisis on top of the potential banking crisis, 18% of


Italian bank loans on non-performing so they will not be paid back. He


needs a 40 billion bailout and for complicated reasons, he cannot do


it. By tomorrow morning, Italy could be the European story and not


Britain. Britain is an age long forgotten problem in the world. We


have had Trump, Italy and also Austria. Italy has long been the


forgotten eurozone crisis about happen. It is not banking but also


sovereign debt, they have a ridiculous deficit and this is what


Mr Renzi is trying to tackle with constitutional reform. I do not


think it is a necessary given that just because Renzi loses the


referendum which he could do, he is behind in the polls, he will resign.


Politicians have a funny way of digging themselves out of holes. He


said he would resign and then he said he would not and now he is


saying he is again. The Italian President who appoints the Prime


Minister might talk him out of it. If it is against, the signal it


sends to the markets is that Italy cannot reform itself. And so the


chances of ever getting on top of a sovereign debt which is 135% of


Italy's GDP, in an economy that has not grown since it joined the euro,


that would be a strong signal to the markets. There is an echo of David


Cameron's slightly back me or sack me approach to the EU referendum. A


loan is 56 words long. Incredible. A bundle of reforms on the original


idea of cutting the number of people in the second chamber and increasing


the speed of legislation. It has turned into a confidence vote in


Renzi. Before they stopped polling and they have two in the run-up to


something like this, it looked like the No vote was quite for a head, so


the insurgency vote. Given the record of the polls, I guess Renzi


should go to bed early because he has won! A poll early today said the


public will losing confidence in pollsters, surprise surprise.


Another reason it would mean a financial crisis if there is a vote


of no is that the Five Star Movement which would put up a candidate at a


general election, which there could be, depending on what the President


decides to do, the likelihood is the Five Star Movement might win. One of


their policy commitments is to hold a referendum about whether Italy


remains in the euro. And they will campaign against, so that is no


comfort to the markets. Italian polls do not close until ten o'clock


our time, 11 o'clock in Italy and we will get exit polls earlier. The


South, we think, will be very much a No vote and the North could be


different. By the morning, we will have a clear-cut idea. Meanwhile,


the Supreme Court he is the appeal from the Government on Article 50


and what the role of Parliament should be. It is not look like we


will get a decision until January. I would suggest this Supreme Court


ruling will be quite historic in that, I get the impression the


judges intends to lay down quite clear parameters on what Executive


powers are. They are taking it very seriously, instead of a panel of


three judges, there is a bank of them. They acknowledge this is big.


And it could be a slight anticlimax. There is a majority for this very


simple bill, passing Article 50. Labour have said they will try to


amend it but they will not block it. You might end up with enormous rage


about these unelected judges and they might make their ruling and


there is a simply -- there is a simple bill which passes. The


interesting thing is the process. It will lay out a historical precedent


for years and years to come by the Supreme Court. The Sunday Telegraph


this morning said that the Government was ready with a very


short Bill saying, this House votes to trigger Article 50. Words to that


effect. Can it get away with that? I think it probably can because no MP


and no political party really wants to be seen to stand on the way of


Brexit quite yet. The Government whips I have spoken to and other


opposition party leaders, they all say the fight is on the great repeal


Bill and not less. There is one really interesting thing that has


happened as a result of this great legal fight which we expect the


Supreme Court will hide -- will hold at the High Court verdict. It is


already significantly softening the Government's view on Brexit as we


discussed earlier. Talking about a grey or a less hard Brexit. You look


at what David Davis said in the House of Commons on Thursday about


painting the budget contributions, still keeping some element of


freedom of movement. There is a really important thing, if you want


to get something through the House of Commons to trigger Article 50,


you have to have the numbers with you and there is not a majority for


a hard Brexit. You do wonder in a way wider government, unless it


wants some kind of authoritative, historic statement one way or


another on this, why if it has got the votes as they are saying, it did


not just go and trigger Article 50. After it lost in the lower court. I


think it is concerned about a bill to trigger Article 50 being amended


and the process being frustrated by the opponents of Brexit. There is a


risk the Supreme Court will refer the decision to the European Court


of Justice. Earlier this week, the most senior British member of the


ECJ, said it had ultimate authority when it came to Article 50 and the


Supreme Court may take that view as well and refer it. From the point of


view of Brexit, nothing could be better than Britain and its


powerlessness expose and we have to see permission from a European court


to leave the European Union and if Theresa May wanted to trigger a


second general election before the ECJ has ruled, that would be the


second referendum that Nick Clegg and others have been wishing for and


I think the Brexiteers would win that hands down. We shall see,


interesting development if that does go to the macro 3. Earlier, we


listened to Diane Abbott on immigration -- Diane Abbott. There


was a bit on Diane Jarvis we did not put in about Mr Jarvis and his


reaction to Diane as Shadow Home Secretary, let's listen to that.


She is the Shadow Home Secretary, so this whole issue of immigration,


she is the mouthpiece for Labour, is she robust enough?


Well, all of us in the Labour Party who believe this


is an important issue - which I hope would be


pretty much everybody - have an absolute responsibility


to discuss this in a very grown-up way.


But I cannot lose sight of the fact that in my constituency


and around the country, and I've spoken to thousands


of people about it, immigration is a very important issue.


I think the proof of the pudding always will be in the eating.


Dan Jarvis, we thought you would like to see that! Did we learn


something about Labour's immigration policy this morning? Definitely, it


is no secret Labour backbenchers are unhappy with the leadership on an


enormous range of issues. What is more interesting is the view of


Diane Abbott that Labour should defend the principle of immigration,


not the view of Kai Di sky blue is an John McDonnell, the other close


advisers of Jeremy Corbyn. There is a split within the people around


Jeremy Corbyn and so absolutely we did learn something. We learned


about the split? We're not miracle workers, we did not learn about the


policy! It is close to Christmas, I can as for a present! The fact that


there is a split on the Labour frontbench is probably not news so I


argued there was nothing we learned at all! What was amazing about that


Diane Abbott interview, she was able to contradict or dismiss or offend


five different members of the Labour front bench. I counted John Healy,


Keir Starmer, Clive Lewis, Emily Thornberry and Jeremy Corbyn's


spokesman. That is extraordinary and that also will not make news because


we think that is now normal. It will not make column inches of the great


volcano on the front bench. Brief but before we finish on the Liberal


Democrats? The danger of the Richmond Park by-election victory


for Labour and the resurgence of the Liberal Democrats is that they now


become the official opposition and they will move into that space which


Labour has essentially vacated by being leaderless. I have got the


Labour calendar, I got you a present for 2017. Great photographs of Keir


Hardie and the founding of the health service. Thomas Attlee.


Homosexuality being legalised and decriminalised in 1967. Funnily


enough, no picture of Tony Blair, the man that won more elections for


Labour. Just a little thing and made the first which was the year that


Tony Blair won an election. Liberal Democrats, you can see it, on this


day under Tony Blair, Labour win a landslide general election. 20th


anniversary. Sarah Olney is the new MP for Richmond. I interviewed her


in the middle of the night. Just after she had won, and she gave an


interview to LBC and we thought you would like to see a clip of that.


They voted for a departure, but not a destination.


You know, there was no clear manifesto for what happened to,


you know, our membership of the Single Market, or what...


The Remain campaign said we were going to leave


Every single leading member of the Remain campaign said a vote


to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market.


I'm really sorry, but Sarah has to leave now.


Sarah, if you want to be an elected Member of Parliament,


I think you should probably be able to answer some simple


Can you get Sarah back on the line, please?


There you go, always helpful to have a PR man! At least Nick Clegg did


not do that today. No, he took his punches and heat threw some back.


Yes, he stood his ground well. Lib Dems, is this significant or not?


There are not many seats like Richmond were 72% voted to remain.


But there are many were Labour could be squeezed, it is a tactical


anti-Tory vote and the best place for that is Lib Dems. For tips on


strategy, the Lib Dems potentially think they have 40% is now flocking


to them who voted Remain and it does not add up in constituency seats,


especially in the south-west where they lost their seats. It is a


Brexit area and they will not win them back there. It gives the Lib


Dems something distinctive to say. Completely, they have a big yellow


flag right in the middle of British politics and they have not had that


for seven, eight years. We will leave it there, thank you.


We will have more politics throughout the week.


That's all for today, I'll be back at the same time next weekend.


Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


'Sometimes all that's needed is a helping hand...'


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers are joined by Diane Abbott and Nick Clegg. Helen Lewis of The New Statesman, Tom Newton Dunn of The Sun and Toby Young of The Spectator are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles