04/12/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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...'