07/02/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

We finally know what David Cameron wants

as he attempts to reform our relationship with the EU.

Does it deliver on his promises - and will it be enough to convince

and most of us can't name our MEP.

Is there a democratic crisis in the EU?

Former Respect MP George Galloway and Labour's Stephen Kinnock go

Jeremy Corbyn has plenty of new grassroots support.

But is Labour facing a cash crisis thanks to a loss of money from big

donors, taxpayers and Government plans to restrict union funding?

It is an affront on British democracy.

And coming up here... agreement which changed the funding

Mike Nesbitt and Colum Eastwood on dealing with the past.

And we look at the state of the parties at the end of week

one in the Republic's general election campaign.

about his priorities these last two years?

And joining me as always, three journalists who've got more

opinions than the campaign to leave the EU has splinter groups.

Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

We'll see if they're still on speaking terms by the end

Let's start today by talking about what the Government in England

is or isn't going to do about a sugar tax.

Health experts have been calling for one, to tackle

is a crisis in child obesity - but so far ministers

Well, this morning the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said

to "get ninja" to force the Government to act.

Here's the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, responding

on The Andrew Marr Show this morning.

It has to be a game changing moment, a robust strategy.

The issue here is, do what it takes to make sure

that children consume less sugar, because we have got

We are the most obese nation in the EU

Well, we are going to be announcing in due course -

David Cameron has said, if it isn't a sugar tax,

it needs to be something that is equally robust.

But he hasn't taken a sugar tax off the table.

Will there be a sugar tax? His instinct is to say no, I do not want

to run the nanny state that Jeremy Hunt says his one-year-old daughter,

by the time she is an adult, one third of the population will be

clinically obese and Public Health England shows if you introduce a

sugar tax, you will reduce that some Jeremy Hunt is in favour but the

Prime Minister is inching towards some decision, whether that is a

sugar tax or not... Regional and devolved governments, Wales has been

very keen on that. I feel I am at liberty to say this but Scotland

also has greater tax-raising powers so he could get outflanked. Or wait

and see how it does in Scotland and Wales and then decide to follow?

Yes. I want to make the liberal case against this but that ship has

sailed decades ago, we tax alcohol and tobacco and this is more like a

revenue raiser because that isn't -- a justifiable cause, we have a

population with a sweet tooth that you can hit the revenue. That is the

reasoning to deal with rather than the more censorious reason of

monitoring behaviour. And junior doctors, scheduled to be back on

strike on Wednesday in England, which means that some of the talks

so far have failed? There is bad feeling but as Andrew Marr was

saying, the turnout on the vote was very high, and the 8%. The

government is really struggling to shake this debate and it is

interesting with that interview, Jeremy Hunt has said until now that

the cost of the new contract would be revenue neutral, he now admits

there would not only be a transitional cost but longer term

and the government is really struggling on this. It is not affect

emergency services this time. It was a big week for

David Cameron's renegotiation He once promised a fundamental

change in that relationship as a condition for backing

the campaign to stay in. Well, there are changes -

but perhaps not quite as fundamental And what he has achieved still needs

to be agreed by EU leaders at a summit in a fortnight's

time, where it could be But Mr Cameron says what he's

achieved is so significant that if Britain was not an EU member,

this would make him want to join. Here he is speaking

earlier in the week. I can say, hand on heart,

I've delivered the commitments that I made in my manifesto,

and I think the whole country knows that if you, for instance,

pay people ?5,000, ?10,000 additional to their wages,

then that is a draw to Britain, and that's one of

the reasons why we've seen such high levels

of migration and movement. So David Cameron says it lives up

to everything that was promised in the Conservative

election manifesto. I'm joined by former Cabinet

minister Eric Pickles. Welcome back. You said this week the

Prime Minister has kept to the letter and spirit of his manifesto

promise. Let us look at what this promise. The manifesto said we will

insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit

must live here and contribute to the economy for a minimum of four years.

The emergency rig on tax credits does not achieve that? -- brake. You

must bear in mind the things we can do through domestic law, a

job-seeker from Europe who cannot find a job within six months, you

are obliged to leave and that has been achieved through domestic law.

The manifesto promised no in work benefits until you have been here

for four years. The reality is graduated, they rise, and after four

years you get the full benefit? That is not unreasonable. After four

years to get full benefit but we know that the criteria for putting

on the brake for four years has already been passed and the largest

political party in the EU agrees that has happened and we should have

this in place after the next referendum. It will have to be

approved by the European Parliament and the other 27 members and what

constitution, emergency, the cost to migrants is five billion pounds

every year, we are 1.6 5 trillion economy, public spending is 750

billion pounds. Why is ?500 million and emergency, only 1.6% of the

bill? My earlier answer was, we already know the political leader of

the largest political party in the Parliament of Europe has said it is

the fact that we have arrived at those conditions and an emergency

brake will be placed. What emergency? It is an emergency in the

views of the European partners, they have accrued -- agreed to this

emergency brake but in terms have the mechanism of Britain future for

other countries, that will be decided over the next two weeks but

what we do know as far as the UK is concerned, we will get that

emergency brake. If a migrant Eilidh Child lives abroad, they should

receive no child tax credit or benefit, no matter how long they

have worked in the UK or how much tax they have paid. There it is. The

sentiment does not deliver on that either? What it does deliver is

harmonisation of benefits so the level of benefits will be exactly

the same as it would be in their own country. You are going to have 28

different levels of child benefit! In many cases it can be as much as

the quarter. And in some cases, more? Not many people to pay the

same level that we don't but the point I was making is that in Poland

it is a quarter of the level as it is here. You promised no child

benefit for migrants and you're delivering index linked child

benefit for migrants? It is a big improvement on the current

situation. When you go into negotiation, but do precisely that

and I think it is within the spirit of what we said. The manifesto said

that you will control migration from the European Union by reforming

welfare rolls and Mr Cameron at one stage said that reducing immigration

from the European Union would be at the heart of this. Can you give us

an idea of how much these changes will reduce European Union

migration? I am not part of the negotiating team so all I can go

wrong is what I have seen in newspapers and given that we know

that in work benefits, 40% of new arrivals are supported by that and

given that the average is ?6,000 in addition and can be as much as

?10,000, it will have an effect. You said 40% but that is not the figure,

we know from the Freedom of Information release that if there

had been any emergency brake in the last four years it would have

affected 84,000 families. That is it, not 40%. I said that 40% of the

new immigrants that, in, new migrants, claiming in work benefit,

you are comparing apples and pears? I am not. 80,000 families is nowhere

near 40%. Last year, 180,000 net migration from the EU. Do you have

any idea by how much the figure will be reduced as a result of the

settlement? Were not trying to prevent people living inside the

European Union, we are trying to stop people coming for something for

nothing, to claim from our innovative system and secondly, to

ensure there is an equalisation inside the market of people coming

here just because of our in work benefits. Since this will apply only

to new migrants and not those that are already here, is unlikely to be

a rush to come in before these restrictions in? And the figure

could rise? As part of the negotiations we have to ensure that

doesn't happen. We would have two ask as part of the negotiation... To

ensure that there isn't this new influx. In the manifesto you also

said that we want national partners to be able to work together to block

unwanted European legislation. In the Lisbon Treaty there is an orange

card system that does that and we have the red card with Mr Cameron,

is this an improvement? The Orange card has been used twice. That was

yellow, orange has never been used. I beg your pardon. It is confusing!

How many different cards? Three, yellow and orange and this red card.

In what way would the red card be any improvement on the existing

Orange card, which means 51% of national parliaments can make the

commission rethink? We can move much quicker in terms of trying to knock

out any deal between European Parliaments and secondly, national

parliaments are becoming much more assertive in terms of their session

and that is a massively important step in the re-establishment in the

importance of national parliaments. It is not just our Parliament, we

would need to get 56% of national parliaments, at least 15 others, and

in many cases we would only have 12 weeks to ask them to vote against

the policy of their own national government. That is not credible? Of

course it is. I think this is a very important step on the way of

ensuring national parliaments are much more assertive and don't

forget, read this in line of stopping them moving towards ever

closer union and protecting sterling. Let us look at that. It

was meant to be one of the big wins for the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk,

the President of the Council, says we have always had that, it need not

mean integration for Britain, the settlement confirms only the status

quo. It is very interesting for him to

say that but on every programme that I've ever been on, it has been this

drift towards ever closer union, political union, that has been

important. If it means we have now re-established that it is about give

and take and cooperation, that is a great thing. Given how little the

prime and this has achieved -- the Prime Minister has achieved, would

his position not be undermined, or become untenable, if this draft

settlement was further undermined before being finally agreed? I'm

very confident, given that this Prime Minister is the only Prime

Minister ever to take powers back from Europe, that it will be

successful. But could you stomach of further watering down? It would

depend what the overall position is but my position comes not from any

enthusiasm for Europe. It's just a lack of any decent ideas that we

would be better off outside. To come back to this business of the

European Parliament, there are number of areas in which the

European Parliament has to approve this settlement, including the work

benefits, child benefit element, perhaps even the red card. What

guarantees can you give, because the European Parliament won't to do

this, if it does it at all, until after the referendum... So how can

you guarantee that we will vote to stay in and the European Parliament

will not pass the legislation? We've had indications from the European

Parliament that they will do precisely that. What I would hope...

Where? Just a second. The leader of the largest party has said that. I

think what we would want to see over the next couple of weeks are more

codification in terms of how this would come to operate, not just for

us but for other parties. But if the European Parliament doesn't pass

this, it is not legally binding. The Prime Minister has told us that. It

can only be eagerly binding under the existing treaties with

legislation through the European Parliament. You are asking the

British people to vote blind, to vote yes, without really knowing

what the European Parliament might do down the road in the autumn at

the end of the year. I'm very confident that will be the case. --

won't be the case. It will be an appalling abuse of trust and would

undermine the European Union, were it not to do so. But sooner or

later, we are going to have to go on to discuss, what would the

consequences be thus leaving? Because that would not be a

pain-free experience. I really want the guarantees for those that want

us to leave to say that my constituents and my constituents'

children will be materially better off by leaving. Not just the same

but better off by leaving. Eric Pickles, thanks for being with us

this morning. Thank you. In recent weeks we've been debating

some of the big issues at the heart We've covered immigration

and the economy. Today we're going to look

at Britain's sovereignty within the European Union and ask,

is the EU a democratic club There are about 500 million people

across the 28 member states Voters from these countries go

to the polls every five years to elect 751 members

of the European Parliament. The UK currently has

73 MEPs, who have some say over the EU budget

and new legislation. But it's the unelected Commission,

led by President Jean-Claude Juncker, that is responsible

for day-to-day management, plus proposing and

implementing new laws. Later this month, David Cameron

will attend a crucial meeting of the European Council

to press for his draft settlement, the outcome of his

efforts to renegotiate our terms The Council is made up of the 28

heads of state or government of EU members and decides

the Union's overall political But it's not to be confused with

the Council of the European Union, where ministers from each

country meet to discuss, There's always been

concern about a so-called democratic deficit and at the last

elections in 2014, turnout In the UK, where few people can

even name a local MEP, I'm joined now by former Respect

MP George Galloway - he's said this week he'll campaign

for Britain to leave the EU - and by the Labour MP

Stephen Kinnock, who wants Stephen Kinnock, let me come to you

first. Turnout at the last election was under 36%. Only 11% can name

their MEP. Richie Gray the EU has a massive democratic deficit and the

Cameron settlement does nothing to address it, does it? On the

democratic deficit, of course it would be good if more people voted

in democratic elections but let's not forget there is another

democratically elected institution in Brussels and that's the council

of the vistas and the European council. They are ministers. Our

Prime Minister, directly elected by the British people, going to

Brussels to exert influence for Britain. The democratic deficit

sometimes gets tied up with the European Parliament. That's an

element of it but the council is a major part. On the renegotiation, I

think the really important point is that this referendum is not about

David Cameron's renegotiation. This referendum is about the future of

the United Kingdom as a trading nation, as a proud nation in terms

of a diplomatic big player and where we are actually going in terms of

the long-term future of the country. It's not about the precise details

of David Cameron's renegotiation. Mr Cameron think that is important.

George Galloway, you said you believe in a union of the peoples of

Europe but surely the only realistic way to achieve that is to work for a

reformed EU. Anything else is just rhetoric. No, because I think it is

in the Brits of the EU. You pointed to the visibility of the European

Parliament, its credibility and standing but you didn't add that the

European Parliament itself, even if AT the centre people were turning

out to vote for it, has almost no power. The power lies in this

council of ministers and in a bureaucracy well entrenched, very

lavishly funded, which has meant of its own. I could answer your

question in two words - Catherine Ashton. Never heard of her? No. Ever

elected to? No. She was the European Foreign Minister, dictating to other

countries outside the world with no democratic mandate of any kind. I

think we have to be more sensible about the way we talk about these

things. There is a process of co-decision which is enshrined in

the treaties of the European Union. The vast majority of the legislation

which goes through has to be agreed by both the European Parliament and

by the European council on the basis of proposals from the European

Commission. Not necessarily all the council. Politics is the art of the

possible and when you are part of a system of pooled sovereignty is,

when we come together as nation states because we believe our

sovereignty is actually strengthened through cooperation, of course you

have to make compromises. You don't win absolutely 100% of everything

that you go for but actually, I believe that through corporation and

pulling our sovereignty our sovereignty is strengthened. There

has been a lot of talk by the Prime Minister about asserting the

sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to be one of the carrots to attract

Mr Boris Johnson to come onside. But surely you have to accept that in

many areas, the EU and the European Court of Justice, they are sovereign

and Parliament has to recognise that sovereignty or we have to leave. I

think that we have to also look at the likes of Google or the big

multinational companies. They don't recognise the concept of

sovereignty. For people on the left, such as George and myself, the key

point of the European Union is, it's a transnational body that regulating

transnational business. Not very well. It is not regulating them very

well. Much better than we could do them alone. I don't think so. The

bottom line is... And this is to be, on the left. Mr Kinnock senior and I

shared many platforms on this, as well as the late Mr Benn, the late

Mr foot. This was commonplace on the left. We don't want to be dictated

to by other countries. We want our people to choose our government and

thus our direction. And I'd rather take my chance with changing things

in Britain than waiting for a change in Bulgaria or in Poland. But you

are nationalists and doesn't but inevitably involve some kind of

pooling sovereignty? The whole basis of the European Union... As we

always said from 1975 onwards, on the left, the European Community,

now the EU, is actually built on neoliberal economic principles,

which are ironclad and unchangeable. However people want to vote. Are you

comfortable with the manner in which Greece's sovereignty was overturned

by the European institutions and above all by companies -- countries

like Germany? We live in a highly globalised, interdependent world and

the idea that the UK alone can exert influence and regulate the big

multinationals on its own is absurd. The other key point on Greece is,

how would we help the people of Greece by leaving the EU? Our

principles are about solidarity, a key value on which European Union is

founded, which is a value of the left. What was the solidarity that

the EU showed Greece? I think what we need is a Labour Prime Minister

in Brussels arguing against the politics of austerity. We are not

part of the eurozone. This was a eurozone argument. We can still

exert our influence. What many would think is your natural allies on the

European left, so reads the increase, and a party in Spain, want

to stay in the EU. Why are you right and your comrades wrong? The people

of Greece were crushed underfoot by this neoliberal consensus on which

the EU and administrations are built. Portugal actually had an

election and elected a majority of left-wing MPs and we're told by the

European Union, the president of Portugal was told, you mustn't

summon these people to your palace to allow them to form a government.

This is unconscionable. It's not because I love the people of Greece,

though I do, or the people of Spain. I don't want us to face the same

fate as them. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell's economic policies, which

I believe in and which are badly needed, are illegal under the EU. If

we were to save our steel industry, for example, we would be acting out

with the European Union's legal framework. You've been closely

involved in the steel industry. What do you say to that? I fail to see

how our principles of solidarity and reaching out to our brothers and

sisters in other parts of the year are helped by the idea that we

suddenly leave. But to me seems to be going against the founding value

of the Labour Party, which is solidarity. On steel, this is a

classic example but it is up to your member state government to play the

game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been

asleep at the wheel on steel for four or five years. An energy

compensation package should have been put in place years ago. The

government has done nothing about it. The massive flooding of Chinese

steel into the British market has only been happening over the last

four years. That could only be done by Europe, not Britain. It took them

for years to get the stated clearance because nobody was

knocking on the door properly in Brussels and because we are cosying

up to Beijing. Cameron and Osborne seem to be putting the interests of

our relationship with China ahead of British industry. We are allowing

them to damp massive amounts of Chinese steel in the market. The

European Court of Justice is preventing us from deporting

Moroccan citizen, the daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza, Abu

Hamza himself convicted of 11 terrorist offences. She has done

time, too, for a terrorist elated offence. We still can't deport her.

That is a pretty serious intrusion of our sovereignty. I don't know the

details of that case but I do know we live in a very interdependent

world... You said that. What people want to know is if we can deport

foreign citizens who have terrorist criminal convictions. We did manage

to do it with Abu Hamza, so there are ways. The EU is a rules -based

organisation. It sets the rules of the game. It's up to the member

states to play that game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government

that has failed to build alliances and coalitions in Brussels. That's

one of the reasons we have a difficult relationship with the EU

now. When you look at this leave site and the various factions of the

time they seem to be spending more time knocking lumps out of each

other, does that make you happy you joined? I campaigned against

breaking up Britain and for a no vote in the Scottish referendum.

That didn't mean I was with the Tories, didn't mean I was with the

Orange order. So are you solo again? There used to be a commonplace view

from the 1970s, and still standing now, for a democratic future for

Britain. We decide how many immigrants we have, who we deport,

what our levels of taxation are and what our foreign policy should be.

We will leave it there. Thank you both.

Labour says it faces losing more than a quarter of its funding,

thanks to Government plans to change the way the party gets money

from trade union members, along with moves to cut state

In a rare TV outing, the party's general secretary

Iain McNicol has told us just how damaging the changes could be.

An audience of around 800 people turning out on a Thursday night

in North London to watch well-known comedians,

artistic and political types talk about, well,

why Jeremy Corbyn ought to be Prime Minister.

He wasn't here and this wasn't a fundraiser but similar nights

to this have raised cash for the party.

Welcome, one and all, you bunch of loony lefties.

I started in my constituency in Brentford.

And then other constituencies asked me to do the same thing

and we've done 165 and raised ?100,000.

And it's just as well, because the Labour Party

says it could be about to lose about ?8 million of funding

if Government plans to change the way it collects

money from trade union members go through.

And they say it's no laughing matter.

It is an affront on British democracy.

If you look at any previous agreement which changed

the funding of a political party, it was done on a consensual,

cross-party basis, an agreement, because of the effect it had.

So is this an existential threat to the Labour Party?

It would be very difficult for the party.

funding would mean that we would not be able to operate in the current

way that we do, holding the Government to account

The cash goes towards staffing, reportedly around

half its costs, and, of course, campaigning.

Things like party election broadcasts, battle buses,

At the moment, trade union members have to actively opt

out of paying towards the Labour Party.

In the future, they would have to opt in, in writing,

within three months - something Labour fear

people just won't get round to doing.

It also coincides with a 19% cut to so-called short money,

cash given to all opposition parties to

help with the costs of Parliamentary business -

a sort of concession for not having the civil service

But the man who used to be in charge of said civil

service says the Government's plans are at best partisan.

It goes to this wider question of what I would see

as a worryingly authoritarian streak in government that finds it

difficult to live with and accept challenge.

I think that's something that people of all parties...

I'm actually a crossbencher, not in any

party, and I think, whichever party are in,

There's nothing authoritarian about having something

clearly flagged in our manifesto, voted for in a majority government

and delivered on, and there's nothing authoritarian about having

That's to say, if you're a Labour Party supporter and you're

a member of a trade union, you actively choose to do it,

rather than having it forced upon you

Frankly, I think the Labour Party needs to get

out and convince union members it's a good use of their money to give

that money to the Labour Party, just as the Conservatives

and Liberal Democrats have to convince people to give

We don't rely on people accidentally giving

Back in Kentish Town, the organisers here say a night

like this is as much about raising awareness and morale as it is cash.

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign relied on grassroots support.

As the party's funding streams start to dry

up, it it could well need to rely on people like this -

people willing to come to a night about Jeremy Corbyn

In fact, Mr Corbyn may prefer the thought of appealing

to the wallets of people like this, rather than the traditional big

donors, and number of whom have already publicly

But fundraising made up just 3% of the

The spotlight will now fall on how Labour pays its way in the future.

And we now say goodbye to viewers in Scotland,

who leave us for Sunday Politics Scotland.

Now, this week in the House of Lords, Labour's peers

will try to fight off the Government's plans to change

the way union members give money to the party.

The shadow leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, joins me now -

and I should add we asked to speak to a Government minister

For a change! Or not! If you join a trade union, why should part of the

membership fee be given to the Labour Party without your explicit

approval? It is a choice you can make and one of the things said

during the House of Lords debate is a Conservative peer said, when was

the evidence that people are forced to opt in? One of the key things is

the government says you must opt in rather than quite but when they gave

businesses two years to bring in the plastic bag levy, they gave trade

unions three months to change them into our system. In three years

would you change your mind? Well, no. It's not really a matter of

time, then? Within three months in writing, the government is making

this as difficult as possible. When this was looked at, it was amenable

of a number of -- context of a number of aspects and they are not

giving any other changes on those affecting themselves, only the

Labour Party. Many members do not vote Labour, why should they have to

opt out? Surely those who want to join Labour should have to opt in?

There does not seem to be any problem with people being asked to

opt out. Look at this in the context of funding for all parties, the

government have picked one recommendation from the committee of

standards in public life, the one that reflects the Labour Party adds

nothing to look at Conservative Party funding, blatantly partisan

and unfair. But is it wrong within its own right? Labour depends on

inertia, people pay the levy but they don't want to and they do not

know about opting out? Isn't it time we stopped tracking nonlabour

voters? Nobody is tracking anybody, that is grossly misrepresenting. In

the context of all of these public life issues, you can do it but they

say themselves, tracking, the Conservatives talk about the burden

on trade unions, this is unfair. It will ensure that in that short space

of time they will not be able to reach everybody. You said that even

in two years you would still be against it. That is not exactly what

I said, over a longer period of time, in the context of all the

other measures that have been addressed on party funding, what is

unfair is this is one measure affecting one party. You understand

the government is picking on you. Not just me! In the United States,

Bernie Sanders, on the left of the party, he has no union backing or

big donors or business backing. He managed to get, not even running

nationwide, over 3 million individual donations. He raised $20

million in January. Jeremy Corbyn is striking a chord with people who

have never been involved before. Why not raise more money from ordinary

sympathisers. Do not think for one moment that trade unionists who

could opt in are not ordinary Labour Party, many of them are and over

longer period you would not see the drop off the Conservative Party is

hoping for. $20 million in one month. That is amazing and I would

like to change how we can fund political parties and that is what

the committee looked at, reducing the cap on donations, reducing the

spending limits and it did look at -- look at trade unionists funding.

How much do you raise from individual members? About two thirds

of funding. Excluding a good donors? I could not give you that figure.

Isn't that the way the Labour should reduce its dependence on the unions,

?8 million from the unions at the moment, and many people in the party

used to think that kind of funding was a disadvantage for the party

because you are more than unions. Would that not be one way of getting

small, individual donations to bring in a lot of money and show that you

are not in the pocket of anybody? Over the course of Parliament it is

about ?8 million every year that is just one third of the money that we

get from all areas, donations from members also. What I am looking at

is the Conservative Party that so dislikes the unions, it wants to cut

their funding to not just us but in the work they do. If they want to do

that, look at parting funding overall but it is ill-conceived to

just look at modelling the opposition. I take your point that

they are not stopping big donors from giving themselves money but

have you not become more dependent on the unions? At one stage we

thought you were becoming less so but more than ever, and the leader

seems to make that dependency even greater? According to a recent

report, Jeremy Corbyn treats big Labour donors with disdain and has

abandoned fundraising. We look at all members and supporters for

donations but I will not apologise for our relationship with trade

unions, we grew out of them and we work together on issues. What I am

asking is, are you not becoming overly dependent on them? And

becoming vulnerable to this time of action from a Conservative

government? Our donations continue to increase, I cannot give you

figures, I do not do those sums. I cannot remember them. I haven't got

a photographic memory! I know the problem! Are you going to block this

in the House of Lords? You may not like this but it was in the Tory

manifesto? This came from cross-party, let us investigate this

properly, let us take not just my word or the word of the Labour

Party, let's have a cross-party look at what the Tory party is trying to

do and I would put store by that. Let's look at the report on the 29th

of the brewery. Thank you very much. -- February.

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll be talking to an MP

from the latest Eurosceptic group hoping to be chosen as the official

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

Deadlock over legacy continues to dominate

the political agenda, so is there the will to resolve

We'll hear from the leaders of the UUP and the SDLP.

The battle is in full swing in the Republic,

with polling in the general election less than three weeks away.

And our guests of the day are Dawn Purvis

If anyone needed a reminder of the importance of legacy issues,

in recent days, we've had former and current chief constables -

as well as the authors of the Eames-Bradley Report -

all taking to the airwaves to say what needs to happen.

This is what Sir Hugh Orde and George Hamilton had to say

First of all, their different perspectives on the Historical

Enquiries Team, which Sir Hugh maintains was the first step

My ambition was to be part of a wider process. That is why we set it

up. Sadly, no-one came in the windows, leaving the Historical

Enquiries Team to be the only show in town and now sadly even that has

gone. We have gone backwards, not forwards. It was based on trying to

do something fundamentally different to what police services did now

passed. It was trying to understand what victims wanted to know and

doing our level best to give them some form of resolution in terms of

what had gone on when their loved one was killed. It started off on

the right footing but there were problems as we developed it. There

was not confidence in the work of the ACT. So you said in his piece

that this was a different approach and that was to be welcomed and

defended. It was to be victim centred, and suing questions for

families, all of which is important. But under the Police Act, I have to

collect evidence, and bring offenders to justice. We want to do

that in a way that is sensitive and informative to families. But that

was the problem. They did not have a firm grounding on the purpose.

There was agreement between the two, though, about the need for political

leadership to resolve for good the outstanding legacy problems.

These processes around what people can see, what they cannot see, needs

a political solution rather than a legal one. If we hide behind the

law, we will see is more demands for inquests, public enquiries and more

investigations. There simply are not the resources for any of that to

happen. It is a reality check and political leadership will resolve

that issue if they wanted to be resolved. It is interesting that the

first Duke Constable on your programme to make believed it will

be -- it had been resolved soon after 2003. I hope the progress we

have made means of me will resolve it in NXT you'll spot it has been

huge problem. -- means we will get resolved in the next few years but

it has been a big problem. We want to move this thing forward.

The Chief Constable, George Hamilton.

Let's pursue some of those issues now with the leaders

of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP.

Mike Nesbitt is with me in Belfast and Colum Eastwood

Welcome. Mike Nesbitt, George Hamilton talked about the need for

compromise and rate decisions. Do you see any evidence

of that happening? Not at all and I have been involved

in talks for probably three years on these issues. I do not think we have

a common understanding of what we mean with dealing with the past.

What we mean to deal with it and for whose benefit? People talk about

being victim centred. IKEA that a lot from Sinn Fein but look at what

we have had an last few days. The IRA are trying to say, we are not

responsible for the Shankill bomb, the police were. Going back to the

Castlereagh break-in, you have Gerry Kelly saying it was not the IRA. Now

the IRA, what they have got, it does not prove anything other than the

fact that they are responsible. The survivors and victims are being

re-traumatised because of the strategies of Republicans to cover

embarrassment for the seedy sectarian war by saying others are

responsible. It is a Regis to do that to victims and survivors. There

is no evidence that police knew about the Shankill bomb and every

evidence says it was the IRA. George Hamilton is very clear. Compromised,

compromise and brave decisions. Are you,? -- argue for that? That is not

compromise. Compromise means you have to give and take. Yes. I'm

prepared to look at the well-being of everyone, no matter how they got

past their mental health. We have forgotten the lesson of George

Mitchell. He said, you're focusing on the things that are most

intractable. Let's look at an agenda which means we can agree on

something. It is a really toxic legacy. Why don't we do with that

rather than allow people to suffer because of the mutual butyl between

the DUP and Sinn Fein? Colum Eastwood, George Hamilton talked

about compromise and brave decisions. You have what Mike

Nesbitt said in his response to the Chief Constable. What do you make of

it? One of the lessons in last couple of weeks around the Shankill

bombing, and I was on the Shankill with those families in the days

after that report came out, those families have again been

re-traumatised by the failure of all of us to do with the past. My

generation wants to move on, wants to move forward. I don't think we

can until we properly deal with the legacy of the past. It continues to

infect and affect the politics of today. If we want to look after the

victims, we want to look after those people who have been left behind,

and we want to look after the political process today, we have to

deal with the past. We can no longer pretend that does not exist. We can

no longer pretend it will go away. We have to engage in a serious

process of dealing with this. I'm not waiting until after the election

or anything else. When can it be resolved then? When you listen to

politicians individually, it sounds like the other million miles apart

on key issues and yet we hear from Martin McGuinness that if the issue

can't be solved before the election, it's be resolved after me's

election. The Secretary of State says, we're closer than ever before.

You believe that? In terms of structures, think we can agree. The

big gap is political will from the British Government, from the IRA and

other paramilitary groups. You have seen what Lord Justice Weir has said

in the last few weeks. The blockages bid in the way of justice and truth

from the MOD and paramilitary organisations. I think we can all

easily agree the structures but if people are not prepared and

organisations and governments are not prepared to move forward until

the full truth of what happened, we will always be on this

merry-go-round. I just want to ask you very quickly about Eames-Bradley

. Hugh Orde said he thinks it is high time that the Eames-Bradley

Report be lifted off the shelf where it has gathered dust for the past

seven years. Does that make sense and would that help nudge people

forward? We have always said that Eames-Bradley was an attempt to do

with the past and it is an opportunity lost. In number of

victims and survivors have unfortunately passed away. We have

missed the opportunity to give them truth and justice that they so

desperately require. What we do need now is a political will from those

people who have the truth to tell. That has been the big gap. It is

very unfortunate that we are re-traumatising victims every day

with different approaches to how we actually deal with the past. I think

it does hurt our future and it does not do our future any good. The

prospects of a different type of society here. If we continue to

re-traumatised victims with issues that affect them.

The big sticking point for some unionists was the ?12,000

recognition payment for victims of the Troubles.

Denis Bradley said on Friday he believes the DUP's acceptance

of the Evason Report shows that the party has

Has he got that right? That is a question for the DUP but he is

certainly right to raise the question. It does seem to set a

precedent and you wonder where that is going and whether that is the DUP

taking their eye off the ball on whether they know exactly where they

are going with this potentially in terms of the proposal for those

carrying serious physical injury, which has not come forward because a

small number of the 250 or so who qualified had suffered injury at

their own hands through their own terrorist acts. Jeffrey Donaldson

was very clear in responding that the DUP's position is not shifted.

Clearly, people do think that the position has shifted. He said it is

not a question for you, but I am asking you, does it look like the

DUP has shifted its position, and if it has, without necessarily be a bad

thing for Unionism? They have either shifted their position they are

sleep at the wheel. Either way, we need to know. Neither is

particularly edifying. What we are looking for here are processes that

unblock something that is badly blocked. Colum talks about truth.

But there is not a truth. What we have proposed thinking about this is

that the one thing you cannot disagree about is that certain

things happen in some places at some times. With the Shankill bomb, you

can lay down a factual spine and allow people to record their own

impressions of that. Because the search for an agreed narrative is

the search for Holy Grail that will not happen. Would you be prepared to

compromise on an issue like this if the bigger picture was resolved?

This has been toxic for as long as anyone can remember and it will

continue to be so. It seems to get worse as time passes rather than

better. Might it be today better -- betterment of Unionists to swallow

hard and deal with this for the greater good? The easy bite, which

would make a big impact, is to recognise so many victims suffer

from them until health and well-being and it is

intergenerational. People born after ceasefires are suffering the toxic

legacy of the conflict. Let's do that as a confidence builder.

Another thing I am very keen on is acknowledgement statements. I would

be prepared as the leader of Unionism to make a statement about

what Unionism did and did not do in the years we were in charge if

others were prepared to speak out. Colum Eastwood, 20 seconds left. Is

there a failure for politicians to face up to making the difficult

decisions that have got to be taking? We need to recognise that

this is an issue for people that have the most truth to tell and they

should be telling it. I would encourage the British Government, in

terms of David Cameron, he needs to step in. This is why above the

Secretary of State's pay grade and he needs to recognise that the good

thing he did around Bloody Sunday, you can do that again and offer lots

of people that same level of truth and justice. Thank you both very

much indeed. Let's hear from Cathy

Gormley-Heenan and Dawn Purvis. Welcome. Do you think there is some

merit in it Eames-Bradley being back in the mix? It was one of the

documents that most people find a lot of merit in in the peace

process. What has happened since his Bradley Dack my, it was a big

document and the issue of dealing with the past got reduced and

reduced. It is right down to about five pages in the Stormont House

agreement. The detail of it was not there. There are certainly have been

many calls for Eames-Bradley to be dusted down and looked at again. But

there is the role of the British Government in terms of this process

going forward and now one use the words of national-security, which we

know is one of the main sticking points at the minute and is not

something that Eames-Bradley focused on. If you look at any international

cases of the peace processes, no-one ever puts into peace agreements the

need for a national-security veto. The British Government is out of

step with the rest of international processes on this. Do you detect any

shifts in emphasis, significant shifts, on the part of nationalism

or Unionism recently? Yes, I do. I recognise a shift from the DUP. When

we look at when Eames-Bradley was published in the recognition

payment, people were not happy. It is pragmatic by the DUP to sign up

to the Evason Report and it paves the way for the pension fund was

seriously injured. Jeffrey Donaldson was very clear, it is not a U-turn

and does not necessarily connect with Eames-Bradley. He made the

point that the two things are quite separate. Fair enough, but it is

still a step forward. People are recognised for a long time that

there are people waiting on this pension and they should have it.

What I do detect is that whilst there is some political will to

reach agreement on these issues around the Stormont is agreement, I

do not detect that all the parties in those negotiations. At the

minute, it falls down to Sinn Fein and the Secretary of State and it

should involve all parties. We will hear more from both of you later.

For now, thank you. Time now for a look back

at the week in 60 seconds, This woman missed out on being

selected for the Assembly. Jonathan Bell claimed, we did not know the EU

referendum question. It is very foolish person who answers before

they know the exact nature of the question.

Jim Allister was on hand to put the minister right. Why is the Minister

coming to this House pretending they don't know the question when the law

of the landscapes what the question is? The Assembly consider downsizing

but the numbers matter? It could be five, four, it is being

streamlined and efficient for our people. Phil Flannigan faced a

massive legal bill after libelling Tom Elliott.

And bird fanciers got rates relief as our MLAs ruled out pigeon puns.

We think the policy does have wings and they should get their rates

cheaper. Stephen Walker, still in a flap over

the pigeon puns this week. Next to the election

in the Republic. The starting gun was fired last week

on a very short campaign. Muiris MacCartaigh

from Queen's University You have been following developments

very closely. Enda Kenny had a bit

of an economic wobble in week one. Not good for him. Your Mac that is

right. In contrast with 2011 elections, it is extraordinary. The

campaign was about cuts to economies and freefall. Now, economic growth

is very good in the Republic. What happened during the week is, the

byword for the election was about the long-term economic plan, and

they came out and said there would be something to the turn of 12

billion in the next five years in terms of extra revenues. Whilst not

breaching the very strict EU stability and growth figures. The

party started to probe into this and he said, actually, that is not quite

true. By Friday, or foster, they released a statement

true. By Friday, or foster, they drop-down. For a party saying that

we know how to handle the Connolly, not an ideal start. Not great and a

personal level. How much will this come down to economic stability

versus chaos scenario? As you said, the outgoing administration, this is

the key card. Both said they would like to go into Government with each

other. They say, you know, vote for us, we can provide, we can keep

economic growth going that is currently taking place. The other

parties... There is this issue about fairness. How will resources be

used? The opposition parties, other smaller parties are saying, well,

yes, the economy has turned a corner but a lot of families, working

families are not feeling this at all. So it is about the economy,

economic growth, versus strength and distribution. When you look at the

polls out today, one has Sinn Fein down a couple of points, others

suggest something similar are bit different, all within the margins of

error. It is very difficult to read. It is. There are two elements to

this. It is absolutely remarkable in terms of the number of parties

entering this election. A vast number of independents as well.

There has been a lot of stability, when you take into consideration the

margin of error, there is a lot of stability. Sinn Fein is around 20%.

The Labour Party trying to breach that 10% mark. And about 20% more

for independence and smaller parties. There are nine or ten

possible College and options which is very strange. Indeed, in my

lifetime, in fact, in the history of Ireland, I do not recall it being

one where finny -- where the incumbent looks like the largest

party and Enda Kenny could be the Taoiseach for two elections. I think

of it 6-9 months ago, there was talk about this and understand they met

with the people who worked with the Tory party in the British system,

trying to work towards this because it is a slightly reduced Parliament

chamber of parliament is in this election. It is down from 166 6158.

So I think they have been thing, if we maintain our vote, we were not to

fire off a majority last time, it could go a different way. But that

is off the table now. The party has accepted numbers will drop. The

current numbers, they don't have enough majority. So the save money

is Will there be a thug element to the coalition? A lot of the smaller

parties are saying, that is instability. We might have another

five-year Government. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.

And let's have a final word with Cathy and Dawn.

Loads of interesting things happening.

The Alliance MLAs Stewart Dickson and Trevor Lunn have

tabled an amendment to the Justice Bill this week

which would allow for abortion here in cases

Abortion stigma has always got political discourse running through

it. In terms of how it is unfolding, I think the most interesting thing

that we have to remember when this is tabled next week is that everyone

involved in the policy-making process around this is male, bar

one. The Lord Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the Minister for

Justice, all of the Department, all of the committee for Justice are one

committee and the church leaders are male. This is a male dominated

political policy environment that is charged effectively with something

that will never be a personal reality for any of them. Is there

any chance of it being a free vote at Stormont? I am not entirely sure.

I will defer to dawn on this. I do not think so on this point. It is

too soon. The reality is that how MLAs think privately is very

different from what they are necessity to say publicly and we

know that from surveys with Assembly members have been surveyed. They are

not out of kilter with oblique sentiment, which is support of other

members. That is an interesting point. You have a particular

interest in this issue, given your previous involvement with the Marie

Stopes clinic. We'll MLAs back legislative change? If there was a

free vote next week, they would support legislative change. Sinn

Fein's policy to support abortion in cases of beetle at the martyr. We

will not see a petition of concern coming from them. -- fatal foetal

abnormality. If Arlene Foster allows a free vote in her Assembly, we

might see the amendment going through. I do not think she will

allow a free vote at this stage in advance of an election. I think she

will want to keep the party tight and make sure that there is no

strange moves coming from the DUP and that when people come to the

polls later in May, they know that. There are many public

representatives and members of the public who take the view that there

should not be abortion in any circumstances and that includes

sexual crime or foetal foetal up the Marty. Sure. What opinion poll after

opinion poll shows that people want to see legislative change. -- fatal

foetal abnormality. If you believe some of the polls -

and we're not much inclined to these days - those arguing for Britain

to leave the EU could be ahead of those who want us

to remain a member. If true, it can't have much to do

with the unity shown by those jostling to be picked

as the official, designated leave campaign, as they've spent all week

fighting like ferrets in a sack. UKIP MP Douglas Carswell

was speaking to Andrew Marr earlier about one of the newer leave groups,

called Grassroots Out or GO for short, which is

hoping to be chosen. I was out at the weekend

and the weekend before We've got a great ground

game in Vote Leave. We've delivered

millions of leaflets. I'm not going to be

disrespectful of any They're led by people

who've done this before. And I think what's important

is that we make sure that people realise that David Cameron's

deal is pretty duff. Well, Peter Bone is one

of the MPs behind GO. Why should you get the official

designation? Were not united and still 37, 43%, but it looks good,

there are 42 grassroot campaigns made up of different people, and I

think who should get designation, it is an establishment view that you

have to have a top-down organisation like BSE, imposed from the top,

there was nobody going out on the February morning is knocking on

doors, there are 42 campaigns so this is from the grassroots up. It

is not another campaigning organisation bringing everyone

together and they still have independence. With this umbrella

stop you from knocking each other? Aaron Banks, he has put money into

Grassroots Out? It is funded by a number of individuals. Conservative

donors... Here's one of them and he said that people in vote leave where

two of the nastiest individuals I ever had the misfortune to leave.

Kate Hoey, voting to quit. She is also voting for Vote Leave. Let us

bring everyone together, this has to stop, last week whenever we had 100

people from all of the different groups and parties working together,

why cannot we get that at the top? One happy family working under the

grassroots movement. You have that bright Grassroots Out tie on. This

picture has more than just a tie on it. One of your colleagues,

launching the campaign with the Union Jack jacket. People might

remember the John Redwood leadership campaign would wonder if politicians

want to be seen on the same platform as that? People are going out across

the country, campaigning to come out of the EU. Not looking like that,

looking like me! No, they don't want to look like me! Is this just

journalist from? The poll has them ahead? The Electoral Commission in

the next few weeks will have to designate one of these groups as the

main out and in group and both sides are fighting like bad. The danger

for the leaving camp is the group to win this referendum will be the

group that wins the argument that it represents the safest option and the

losing group will be portrayed as the riskiest. People like Douglas

Carswell or deeply fearful of Nigel Farage as one of the main figures on

the outside because in a good day he can get 30% of the electorate and

that is why Grassroots Out is established, because the Aaron Banks

group, he is funding the other group which has cross-party support and

that will be important. Vote Leave, the more stable, steady safer option

is now struggling on the cross-party option, particularly in that box.

How do you know all that) it is also quite true. Why are you talking

about the personalities and the policies and that is a reflection

of, when we talk about policies people would enter a coma. Neither

side has key messages, I don't think you could stop 100 people in the

street and one could tell you anything that was in this and that

is why we talk about personalities. We are doing our best! We have

always exaggerated the importance of campaigns on election results and

referendums and last I was told that because of Labour's assiduous work

at ground level they would end up counteracting disadvantages like

leadership and economic credibility so I have never believed that the

internal rivalry would really hold them back and recent opinion polls

have stood up to that. What really goes on their favour is the nature

of the deal that David Cameron extracted last week because it is

less impressive than was instigated in the Bloomberg speech and it will

have to fight the referendum on the existing terms of membership and I

think he can win that but he would have gone into the last four months

of this campaign with something drastically different and not

cosmetically different. That is right, the fundamental issues will

be debated and we are all innovative this Westminster bubble thinking

that Joe Bloggs says this and it matters but on the street, nobody

can name any of these campaigns and the simple question is, in or out

were undecided? That is what we're finding and a lot of people are

undecided who say we have not heard the arguments and we clearly have to

get our message out on leaving and that does concern emigration and

controlling borders but also the fact that we pay 55th -- ?55 million

every week to Europe and get nothing. You get half of that act.

We don't. You do! We get a bit of that back. They decide how we spend

it. You get it back as a rebate and you also get it back in funding from

the EU? The facts will matter. How many billions of pounds each week

goes to the EU that we have no control over? You said the gross

figures... The net figure is about half of that. It is not. If you go

into the detail I can assure you it is. Can you win this without any

front person? Behead Minister of is heading up the game campaign. If he

does not get what he wants he will be heading up the Grassroots Out

campaign. -- I will be. You are not holding your breath. Who should be

heading up your side? I don't want any figurehead. Who would debate

with the Prime Minister? It depends on the issues. In or out, how about

that? If you are talking about dozens, a businessman, trade unions,

somebody from Labour Leave. Belgian rambler that a government... I will

have to stop you expect thanks to all of the guests.

Join us next Sunday at 11, when we'll be taking stock

made by the Conservatives at last year's election and asking

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