07/02/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew's guests include MPs Eric Pickles and Stephen Kinnock, and George Galloway.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers look at the current state of the European Union renegotiations with Eric Pickles, and debate the question of sovereignty in the EU with George Galloway and Stephen Kinnock. Andrew also speaks to the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Smith, about government plans to alter union funding of the Labour Party. Keeping Andrew company throughout the show are Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, the Guardian's Nick Watt and Helen Lewis from the New Statesman.

Download Subtitles