11/02/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

After all the waiting we're

finally going to hear

the Prime Minister's vision

for Britain's future relationship

with the European Union,

but not for another couple of weeks.

We'll look at what she might say.

Key to any agreement will be

whether we should bind our customs'

arrangements closely to the EU,

or strike out on our own.

We'll speak to leading figures

from both sides of the argument.

And Labour argue public

ownership of services

like the railways are

an "economic necessity".

We'll look at how

the policy could work

And coming up here -

amid speculation that a Stormont

deal is getting ever closer,

I'll be talking live

to the newly elected

president of Sinn Fein,

Mary-Lou McDonald.

Join me in half an hour.

Who needs the Winter Olympics

when there's plenty

of thrills, spills and potential

wipeouts in the world

of Westminster.

And with me today are three experts

who may very well go off piste:

Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun,

the Guardian's Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin from the Times.

So we hear that Theresa May

will finally be giving her

vision of a Brexit deal

in the next few weeks.

The news follows Mrs May hosting two

Brexit cabinet meetings this week

in an attempt to thrash out

the government's

negotiating position.

If reports are to be believed

not much was decided,

and so there will now have to be

a team building session

at the prime minister's

country residence Chequers.

Maybe a few trust exercises

will be in order.

At the moment however we're none

the wiser and the EU's Chief

Negotiator Michel Barnier seems

less than impressed.

To start the week the EU chief

negotiator, Michel Barnier,

made a trip to Downing Street

with Brexit secretary David Davis.

Pleasantries with the PM,

but the warning was clear.

Time has come to make choice.

All week the question was,

are the Cabinet running

away from making tough

decisions on Brexit?

As America woke up, the President

took a pop at the

National Health Service on Twitter.

But was it all fake news?

The Health Secretary hit back.

The Transport Secretary,

Chris Grayling, told the Commons

that yet again the East Coast

mainline franchise had failed,

with renationalisation an option.

While tensions in the

Conservative Party on Brexit

were on full display.

One leading Tory Remainer

did not hold back.

35 hard ideological Brexiteers

who are not Tories.

It's about time Theresa May stood up

to them and slung them out.

On Tuesday, deeds and words,

MPs celebrated 100 years since

some women were given the vote.

Westminster awash with suffragette

colours purple, green, and white.

Wednesday and Thursday,

the Brexit War Cabinet settled

in for crunch talks.

They were meant to decide

what the end state should look like.

Breakthrough?

Not yet.

Also on Thursday, a leaked EU paper

warned that the UK's single market

access in the Brexit transition

period could be revoked

in the event of a dispute.

Discourteous?

The Brexit secretary thought so.

It's not in good faith.

We think it's unwise

to publish that.

The week ended as it

began, with more warnings

from Michel Barnier on Ireland,

the customs union,

and continuing EU UK disputes.

If this disagreement persists,

the transition is not a given.

So, at the end of a busy week why

not let off steam with a glass

or two of Brexit juice,

that's English sparkling wine

to you and me, at the annual

Conservative fundraiser the black

and white ball.

The highest bid of the night?

£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.

We could not afford to get her on to

this programme but we will talk to

our panel of experts to find out

what is going on behind the

headlines. Iain Martin, by now we

thought we would know more about the

government's final negotiating

position. We had two Brexit

subcommittee meetings this week.

They were meant to come to a

conclusion I thought. Are we any

further forward?

No. It is possible

this is a cunning baldric style plan

to make Britain look as confused as

possible.

A very, very cunning plan.

Very cunning. But the chances of

that are highly unlikely. It seems

the meeting has happened, there was

discussion, the Prime Minister did

not express an opinion. The Prime

Minister was more interested in

secrecy and in fear of a leak, but

it seems there was not much to leak

anyway, because there was not a

decision. Actually, the UK's closer

to a position than people commonly

understand, definitely out of the

single market, but on this crucial

question of the customs union, or a

customs agreement after, there is

still no decision taken. I think the

feeling at Westminster, people on

both sides of the argument seems to

be will someone decide, make the

case and then get stuck into the

talks which lets remember our

supposed to begin in six or seven

weeks' time.

This Brexit

subcommittee is split between

Brexiteers and Remainers. The Prime

Minister sits in the middle we

understand not really expressing a

view, that is put together for

careful political reasons but it

cannot continue, can it?

I think the

presentation at the minute cannot

come to a decision because they have

not done their homework, student

essay style crisis conclusion and in

the case of David Davis you could

believe that is true but the main

reason they cannot come together is

because of an implacable deadlock.

There is no compromise between in

the customs union or not in the

customs union. One side has to

vanquish the other. The Remainers

really have to think it would be

economic suicide to leave the

customs union but they are also

really aware that this deadlock is

grinding government to halt. It is

national duty pulling them in two

directions. They will ultimately be

the ones to say I do not want to cut

the baby in half, you have the baby.

At some point it will have to go to

the country because it is a stupid

idea to cut a baby in half expect

what will happen for the Prime

Minister who will have to make a

decision for the kind Brexit she has

advocated?

She will do that and the

danger is huge. She will have to get

off the perch at some point. We have

been sitting in these chairs for 20

months saying the Prime Minister has

to choose between prioritising

market access and prioritise and

sovereignty. That is the simple

case. You may get a bit of both out

of the EU but you will get more of

one than the other. I think

interestingly, there is a lot of

movement going on under the surface

which Number Ten are desperate not

to show any of the machinations of

it because they want to present a

complete finished article. There is

some sense of consensus growing in

the Brexit community I am told, not

to sign off on a customs union but

to sign off on a semi-single market

alignment, soap aligning with all

the single market rules on

manufactured goods is what I am told

they are beginning to agree to do,

which they feel they should do

because British companies will go

ahead and stand by all the EU

regulations because that is what

they want to continue to sell into

the EU. There are some members of

the committee who are opposed to

this. Boris Johnson is the main one.

If they do agree to allow heavily on

manufactured goods but not on

services, in other words they choose

what to Jerry picked and can agree

what to cherish pick -- cherry pick,

but if they choose what to align on

Ben Boris Johnson has do make a

decision himself.

decision himself. We could

potentially see some Cabinet

resignations and I put Boris Johnson

at the head of it in two or three

weeks' time. That is the root of the

potential compromise.

On services,

on financial services, there is not

a functioning single market. The

question comes down to manufactured

goods. A lot of the regulations have

their origins in global standards,

something like the car industry. Is

Boris Johnson going to find himself

in a position where he will die in a

ditch over trying to make the UK

diverged from globally set standards

on carburettors? It would be an

interesting position if he does.

It

sounds ridiculous but it also sounds

like the sort of thing he will do.

We will come back to this later in

the programme.

As it's still not clear

what the government wants its final

relationship with the EU will look

like, we thought we'd

try to help out by looking

in detail at the key dilemma,

when it comes to working out

a customs arrangement,

should we hug the EU close,

or break out on our own?

We've lined up two politicians

from either side of the argument

and, just for a change,

they'll be asking

the questions not me.

So I'm joined by the soon to be

former Conservative MEP and leading

figure in the Leave campaign

Daniel Hannan and by the former

Labour frontbencher and supporter

of Open Britain Seema Malhotra.

Earlier this morning we tossed

a coin to see who would go first.

Daniel Hannan won and he agreed that

he would go first.

So here with thoughts

on what our end

relationship should be.

90% of the world's economic growth

over the next 15 years will come

from outside the European Union.

Britain is a maritime nation, linked

to the world's fastest-growing

economies by language, law, culture

and kinship. But we cannot sign

trade deals, not while we are in the

EU's customs union. Staying in the

customs union after we leave, would

be the worst of all worlds. It would

give Brussels 100% of our trade

policy with 0% input from us. In

order to take advantage of Brexit,

we need to set our own regulations.

Sometimes, for reasons of economies

of scale, we might want to match

what the EU is doing. If we do want

to keep elements of the single

market, it must be through agreement

and on a case-by-case basis. In

1980, the states now in the European

Union counted for 30% of the world's

GDP. Today that figure is 15% and

falling. Britain needs to raise its

size. Our future bright, our future

is global.

Well, Seema and Dan are with me now.

And just to explain the rules.

Seema Malhotra has five minutes to

interrogate down.

This week a Tory

MP said I think the real concern

about the direction of travel when

it comes to Brexit, we are to real

crunch point and the government has

not worked out 19 months on what the

endgame is and we need to know. That

is pretty clear, isn't it? You and

others said Brexit will be easy so

why is this the case?

Nothing

worthwhile is ever easy. I do not

accept that the government has not

made it position clear. It made it

clear in Lancaster House beach and a

series of white papers since. As

Theresa May says we want to keep

control of our laws, taxes and

borders. But within that, we want to

have the closest possible

relationship with the rest of the

EU, compatible with being a

sovereign country. We want to be its

best friend and ally. We will align

with other countries but on our own

terms.

Things are not going

according to plan. You and others

said we will be keeping key

agencies. David Davis said we would

keep the agencies but now they are

leaving. The European medicines

agency is heading for Amsterdam, the

European banking agency will go to

Paris. That is 2000 highly skilled

jobs being lost from the capital.

Isn't this a high price we are

paying for certainty?

If you're that

fixated on Eurocrats jobs then you

there is something wrong with your

priorities. All of the worries we

had about job losses turned out to

be nonsense. Instead of losing half

a million, we have gained half a

million. More people are working

than ever before. I never claimed we

would be keeping these Euro agencies

in the UK. Of course if you leave

the EU you leave these Euro agencies

and you no longer have them on our

soil. We will make our own

regulations.

You are calling these

agencies Eurocrats, these are people

helping with key sectors of our

economy, scientists, those who are

experts in finance and other

sectors. I agree that Britain could

trade more with the world and we

need to, but evidence of leaks from

the government this week shows that

the impact of free trade deals

around the world will no way

compensate for the loss of trade

with the EU which a hard Brexit

would do for the UK. If you don't

believe me, you can listen to the

words of the Prime Minister who said

during the referendum we export more

to Ireland than we do to China,

twice as much to Belgium as we do to

India, it is not realistic to think

we could replace European trade than

these markets.

We export more to

Ireland than China, that is our

problem! Which is the better

long-term growth prospects?

Don't

you agree that there will be an

impact on British businesses and

families even in the short term and

isn't it right that you raise that

risk with the British people?

Obviously we want free and

frictionless trade with the EU and

the freedom to my trade deals

further of broad. EU does not have a

trade deal with US, with India and

old friends like Australia, the idea

that we cannot do trade deals and

bring benefits to this country I

think is incredibly defeatist. Are

we really saying it is a good idea

to sell more to Ireland with five

mil in people than to China with

more than a billion. -- 5 million

people.

Their study after study

which shows the proximity we have

two nations goes a long way to

determining our economic links, that

is not just the case for us but for

countries around the world. Of

course we can do more. We have a

trade surplus with the US already. I

have spoken to investors from other

countries who say they want to come

and do more in the UK but the point

is, part of the reason they do that

is because we have access and they

have access to the European markets

of 500 million people to sell those

goods as well. What do you say to

the genuine concerns from Nissan and

Honda, now even the Japanese

ambassador talking about a challenge

to the profitability of those

companies in the UK, and the threat

they may have to leave those

operations and go elsewhere?

They

made those threats during the

referendum and after the vote was in

they confirmed that not only were

they staying here but Nissan was

increasing its productivity and

activity in the UK. I think you

should look at what they are doing

rather than what they are saying.

This idea that we are defined by our

geography is an old-fashioned

18th-century way of looking at

trade. In the modern age where we

have low freight costs, the Internet

and cheap flights, geographical

proximity has never mattered less.

We are linked by language, law,

cultural, legal systems and

accountancy systems to the fastest

growing con is the planet.

I would like to ask you, you have

set all your vision for how you

would like to see our future

relationship with the EU. How

confident are you the Prime Minister

will outline a clear vision soon and

it will outline with Ewels?

She's

outlined the broad principles

already. -- with yours. Fleshing out

issues like how to make the Irish

border were, how to make the

facilitation of customs work. This

thing nobody has explained what we

can do in terms of customs is not

true. The government produced a

lengthy paper talking about how we

can do things like expand the ...

It's worth noting that both ahead of

HMR see here and his equivalent in

the Republic of Ireland have said

there is no need for a Customs

border, that companies can make

their customs declarations in the

way they make their tax

declarations. They are now

emphatically not choosing to listen

to the experts when they say they

don't need a hard order in Ireland.

Thanks.

Now it's the turn of Seema

to be grilled but first,

here's her thoughts on how

our future relationship

with the EU should look.

I respect the result of the

referendum. We need to move forward

to find a deal that protects jobs in

the economy. 43% of all of our trade

is done with the EU. Staying inside

the customs union gives us tariff

free trade access to our many new

partners. Issues surrounding

immigration and sovereignty can be

addressed while staying in the

customs union and the single market.

But on terms that we negotiate. We

can also then trade freely with

countries the EU has deals with.

Deals that we have helped negotiate.

And staying in the customs union is

key to a solution on Ireland. Our

select committee found that it is

unclear how we can avoid a hardboard

if we leave the customs union. I

agree we need reform and greater

controls on the freedom of movement,

but people did not vote to become

poorer. Let's leave the European

Union in a way that puts the

prosperity of families and

businesses first.

So as before you have five

minutes to give a grilling.

Off you go.

Two weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn says

said he was against staying in the

customs union because it is

protectionist against developing

countries, do you agree?

It's

important to balance what we do need

to see change in terms of

international trade and support for

developing countries. But also to

recognise the contribution that

being in the customs union and the

European Union has made for our

prosperity...

Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn?

I think that a lot

has been done to support

development, International

development...

Forgive me, that's a

different question... We're not

talking about that, do you agree

that the customs union is

protectionist against developing

countries?

It can be for those

countries that are in the customs

union. That's very understood

economics. It encourages trade

creation and development between

those countries, but it doesn't

preclude, as has been shown by the

over 60 trade agreements we have is

a European Union with countries

around the rolled, from having

strong relationships with other

countries. That's what I believe. --

countries around the world.

There

are lots of things we do not produce

ourselves. We have to impose tariffs

on oranges. In yours and my

constituencies there are not orange

plantations. Is it a reasonable

thing that to protect Mediterranean

orange growers we should be

discriminating against producers in

Africa, the Americas, developing

countries, at a cost our own

consumers?

I believe what you can do

is negotiate across the world in

terms of how you encourage greater

free trade and greater ways in which

we can trade with different nations.

That's what we do also already. We

had no Norma 's track record in

investing in farmers in Africa...

On

that point... -- we have had an

enormous track record. That means we

are giving Brussels total control of

our trade policies but we are no

longer EU members so we have no

control.

Almost 50% of our trade is

with the EU. Over 70% of the

companies... Over 70% of companies

that export to the EU, that is jobs

your constituents and my

constituents will be dependent on,

over 90% of that being small and

medium-size enterprises. They

look...

I'm not having much joy

getting answers to my questions. You

are going off on a tangent. Let me

have another go.

I'm saying we can

do both and that is what we should

be doing.

You think leaving the EU

but staying in the customs union so

Brussels controls 100% of our

Brussels controls 100% of our trade

but we have zero input... You think

that gives us more influence in

world trade than taking our own

voice and vote in the world trade

organisation and be able to do our

own deals, is that what you are

saying?

When you talk about the WTO

rules, if you look at the

government's analysis which was an

average of other studies, it shows

even in the South East if there is a

withdrawal based on...

I'm going to

have one more go to get an answer

because you are telling me lots of

interesting things which are nothing

to do with what I'm asking. Let me

have another go... The highest

tariffs imposed by the customs union

are on the items that most

negatively impact people on low

incomes, particularly food,

clothing, and footwear. They pay a

proportionately higher chunk of

their weekly Budget on these

commodities, these basic things.

They are the most badly hit. We are

clobbering poor people in this

country in order to hurt developing

nations. How can you come as a

progressive politician with a proud

history of standing up for people

who are underprivileged, now stand

there and defend a system that

forces us to give more to wealthy

French farmers than poor African

farmers, and forces the highest

bills to be paid by the lowest

income people in Britain?

I will

fundamentally disagree with you. I

believe being a member of the EU has

been fundamental for our prosperity,

for families and businesses. What

you fail to highlight is numerous

studies that show many British

families are worse off as a result

of us having had the referendum and

now the uncertainty that is

followed. People have already

suffered. -- that has followed.

You

are still not answering. Let me have

another crack at this. The countries

closest to the EU economically. The

countries that have opted to

parallel or join the single market

Norway, Switzerland, Iceland,

Liechtenstein, none of them is

interested in joining the customs

union. Why do you think that is?

They have separate arrangements.

They have arrangements with each

other. They have ways of resolving

disputes. It is like a mini European

Union in the way that they work

together. I believe that we could

consider approaching those countries

to see whether that would be an

arrangement that could work for

Britain.

That would mean leaving the

customs union, right?

Potentially

alongside how we negotiate being in

the customs union. Fundamental for

peace in Northern Ireland and the

Good Friday Agreement. It's not just

me saying that, it's the Irish

government, the head of the Irish

police, and the Irish people.

Time

is up. Thank you for your questions.

What you are advocating is not

Labour policy. Do you believe you

will change the mind of Jeremy

Corbyn?

You know there is a debate

going on in the Labour Party. That

is not unexpected, because as the

situation changes, as new facts come

to light, as we have to consider

what life will be like with the end

state post the transition, we will

have that debate. It is certainly

the case that the range of views

across the Labour Party are far less

in terms of the spectrum of what's

going on in the Conservative Party.

The fundamental issue is we have a

Prime Minister and cabinet that have

no idea about end state. They have

failed to reach any sort of

agreement after two days away this

week. And I think it is embarrassing

for us as a nation that 19 months

after the referendum we are in such

disarray.

Thank you both very much

for coming in and asking the

questions.

And those of you in the South

of England will be lucky

enough to see more of Dan Hannan

as he'll be appearing

in the Sunday Politics South

in just over ten minutes.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

The recent collapse

of Carillion and the ending

of the East Coast Rail franchise

early has emboldened the

Labour Party to push its agenda

for renationalising key services

such as rail, water and energy.

But that's not all, the party

is looking into supporting local

economies by helping councils do

things like bringing

more services in house,

using local small businesses

where possible and helping to set up

new small scale energy companies.

So, is the plan workable,

and can it help Labour shed

the image that more state control

will lead to inefficiency and a lack

of innovation and investment?

Elizabeth Glinka has

travelled to Preston,

a Labour council the party

are championing as a model

for the future, to find out more.

When he visited in the 1850s car

Marks said industrial Preston might

be the staging post for an economic

revolution. It's taken 160 years but

he may have been onto. -- Karl Marx

said.

Preston described in the press

as a pilgrimage for London folk.

LAUGHTER

The Shadow Chancellor just dropping

in this week to heap praise on

Preston's new locally focused

economic plan. Nowhere is that plan

more visible than at the city's

trendy undercover market. Traders

rush to finish their new stalls

ahead of next week's reopening. The

so-called Preston model borrows

heavily from similar schemes in the

American rust belt. It installs the

virtues of keeping more services

in-house using worker let

cooperatives. And when it comes to

big contracts like the redevelopment

of this beautiful Victorian market,

they go not to the overextended big

boys like a religion but to smaller,

local firms, keeping the money in

the area. -- like Carillion but to

smaller, local firms. Matt Brown, a

local boy motivated by what he saw

as the continued decline of a once

great city, is behind this.

We came

to the conclusion that a fightback

we've got to do it ourselves. We

cannot be dependent on central

government that is cutting back on

money. The public sector is pretty

much buying locally from local

suppliers. We are looking to form

cooperatives. We're selling our own

energy in partnership with other

councils. Pensions are invested

locally. These alternatives around

the world. In American cities like

York, Cleveland, and Barcelona,

people are waking up to the fact

that we have an economy that works

for the top 1%. -- like New York and

Cleveland. And the rest of us are

basically fighting for the scraps.

Under the model the council has

spent an additional £4 million

locally since 2012. It has also

persuaded universities and hospitals

to redirect their spending towards

local suppliers. And it isn't just

Preston, a number of other Labour

authorities are trying something

new.

We have local councils now that

have set up energy companies to

provide cheaper, renewable energy

foot we have others running bus

networks. -- cheaper, renewable

energy and we have others running

bus networks. It is a way of getting

best value for money as well as

Democratic controlled of services.

Your critics might say this is

cuddly, cooperative windowdressing

for an agenda which, long-term, is

about mass renationalisation, which

you think the public would not be

keen on.

CHUCKLES

How sceptical people can be. I am a

socialist. We should share our

wealth. We have councillors going

out to get elected. When they get

elected they say they will use our

council resources locally and in

that way we can benefit local

people.

Is it back to the future? It

was revealed this week the

government may be on the brink of

renationalising the East Coast

mainline. Labour's frontbencher has

been clear about its aspiration to

renationalise not just a rail but

energy, the Post Office, and even

water. This weekend the party held a

conference to discuss the expansion

of the Preston model, but others

remain less convinced by its wisdom.

This idea is very popular nowadays,

both on the political right, people

like Trump promoting it, and on the

political left. But it is a failure

to understand the benefits of trade.

The idea you can enrich yourself

with the border. I draw a line

around an area. And somehow that

will make us better off is magical

thinking. How you become better off

is through becoming more productive.

These ideas are tricks for becoming

richer that involve boundaries. It

is an abiding fantasy, but it is a

fantasy.

The doubters may doubt, but

in a post-Carillion world labour is

convinced public opinion is pulling

in its direction.

Well, to help me to understand

more about Labour's

plans I'm joined by Labour's Shadow

Transport Secretary Andy McDonald

who's in Newcastle.

Good morning, thank you for joining

us.

John McDonnell says the plans to

re-nationalise energy, water and

rail would cost absolutely nothing.

That sounds too good to be true.

Explain how it could work?

In terms

of the rail Wales, it would bring

the railways back into public

ownership at no cost at all. -- in

terms of the railways. We would

bring them back once the franchises

expire. That would be considerable

savings of £1 billion per annum.

Then you will have to find £70

billion for the water industry,

nearly 40 billion for the National

Grid, how can that cost nothing?

Because you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be paying back the

revenues which you derive over the

businesses over time and you would

keep the costs down for the

consumer.

So you would be adding to

the national debt and you would have

to pay interest on that debt which

you would do out of the revenue you

get from the companies, but you also

say it will cost less from the

consumers that bills would come

down.

If you have £30.5 billion of

dividends paid out, if you run

things on a not-for-profit basis, it

can ensure that customers can get

the best possible returns.

That

profit might be good for customers

but it does not sound good for

paying back the interest on the

loans that you took out for buying

the organisations in the first

place?

You heard John McDonnell

express the analogy of having a

mortgage over a property. You have

acquired the assets, you have the

income derived from renting it out,

it pays the gas it and you have

still got it. It makes consulate

sent to hold those acids and make

them work for the benefit of the

citizens.

If interest rates rise,

after you bought that house and you

are renting it out, it is important

that costs can derive from the

rental income. We know that rates

can rise. There is every possibility

that the interest you will be paying

will not cover the profits and cost?

It is no different to the position

now. If water companies and energy

companies are financed, they have

those structures in place, the rate

of interest that they pay on their

financing is passed through to the

consumer ultimately.

I tell you how

it is different now, and your system

it would be passed to the taxpayer

presumably. If any of these

industries started making a loss,

who picks up the tab for that?

Have

they made a loss since they were

privatised? They have not, they have

made very great profits.

The reason

they are giving up the east Coast

franchise is because they have lost

£200 million.

That shows how the

franchising system is completely and

utterly flawed and should be

abandoned.

If the government run

East Coast Mainline lost £2 billion,

who would be on the hook, the

taxpayer?

When the government last

ran East Coast Mainline they ran it

at a profit, it brought money into

the Treasury. We have a good history

of running the railways correctly

and not having this bailout to

Richard Branson and Brian Souter and

the rest of them or seeing the

dividends and profits overseas to

the state-owned companies of

continental Europe. We want to put

an end to that and make sure we run

our railways for the benefits of the

public.

Let's look at one company,

Bristol energy which looks like the

kind of company you are advocating.

It is set up locally and has ethical

behaviour. There are no shareholders

so nobody is taking a profit out of

it. It has lost 2 million over two

years and does not expect to be

profitable until 2021. But

sound like a great deal for the

taxpayer if that is how you're going

to run the National Grid.

If

taxpayer if that is how you're going

are recouping the losses and they

are recouping the losses and they

have the trajectory of growth and

are recouping the losses and they

greater incomes, they will look at

that and say to successful.

The

Labour government...

They got tax

breaks, public capital to set them

breaks, public capital to set them

up in the first instance, they were

heavily subsidised so they

up in the first instance, they were

on and enjoy the benefits of private

enterprise that does not benefit the

consumer or the taxpayer or

enterprise that does not benefit the

citizens, however you wish

enterprise that does not benefit the

describe it.

The consumer and the

taxpayer may be the same person but

describe it.

The consumer and the

they have a different financial

they have a different financial

relationship with these companies.

What comes first, using any profit

or revenue you have used to acquire

What comes first, using any profit

these assets or cutting bills?

You

What comes first, using any profit

do both. If you have got that income

you can use it for those purposes.

you can use it for those purposes.

Do cut energy bills or do you repay

the debt?

Those who have benefited

from privatisation of had

the debt?

Those who have benefited

benefit of not only using that money

to pay the debt they incurred

benefit of not only using that money

the assets, they are now using it to

make dividend payments out to their

shareholders. It clearly can be done

and we want to be in that position

so it works for the benefit of

people and not for corporate

entities.

The shareholders are not

all millionaire individuals. A lot

of this is owned by pension funds to

which many workers pensions are

held, can you guarantee that you

will reinforce the Leave reimburse

them at full market value so that

nobody's pension will lose out?

The

market value is the market value at

the time these assets are required.

John McDonnell has made it clear

that they will be acquired at that

rate.

But not for cash, in exchange

for government bonds?

They are still

in that strong position of having

the value fully reflected. What is

happening is that not everybody is a

shareholder. It means there is

greater equity for all of the

population, not only an narrow

segment of it, surely that has got

to be for the benefit of everybody.

Thank you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come:

We'll look at the implications

to the charity sector of the latest

Hello and welcome

to Sunday Politics.

It's the weekend when the curtain

came down on the extraordinary

political career of Gerry Adams

as President of Sinn Fein.

As Mary-Lou McDonald

now takes the stage,

I'll ask the party's new leader

about the challenges that face her.

And here with their thoughts on this

big change in republican leadership,

commentator Chris Donnelly

and Suzanne Breen from

the Belfast Telegraph.

So, it's all change at the top

of Sinn Fein with Mary Lou McDonald

and Michelle O'Neill as President

and Vice-President of Sinn Fein.

And what a time to take charge -

the possibility of a deal

at Stormont, the challenge

of winning over more

voters in the Republic,

and the debate over new abortion

laws will be dominating their

thoughts over the next few months.

Mary-Lou McDonald is live

in Dublin - and I'll be

talking to her in a moment.

But first, our Dublin Correspondent

Shane Harrison reports

from the Ard Fheis in south Dublin

yesterday, with a flavour

of the task that lies ahead.

It was a rugby weekend in Dublin.

That most middle class of games. But

few Irish supporters believed Mary

Lou McDonald, a middle-class South

Dublin woman taking over the

leadership of Sinn Fein would change

their view of the party.

There is a

lot of history. I think a lot of us

are not ready to move on yet from

what we remember that Sinn Fein

stands for.

They are probably better

off with Mary Lou but it is still

Sinn Fein.

No interest at all in

Sinn Fein.

I am not a follower of

Sinn Fein so it doesn't matter if it

is a man or woman but I wish well.

Inside the main hall as Michelle

O'Neill and Marylou McDonald were

being elected vice president and

president of Sinn Fein some

delegates believed the advent of

what was jokingly called girl power

would help the party appealed to new

voters.

Being a young woman I really

look up to Marylou, I think she is a

great leader and character. I think

she will bring a lot of freshness,

something we haven't seen.

The Ard

Fheis was given to understand that

negotiations at Stormont aimed at

restoring devolution were at a

crucial stage but one former

minister stressed the importance of

dealing with an Irish Language Act.

It has to stand alone. We are happy

to have other languages protected

but the Irish Language Act needs to

serve the needs of the Irish people

speaking community.

This weekend's

leadership Ard Fheis didn't deal

with the Republic's abortion

referendum to repeal the eighth

Amendment to the Constitution that

gives equal rights to life to mother

and the unborn. Those who self

described as progressive say they

favour unrestricted access to

abortion for the first 12 weeks of

pregnancy. While the party supports

repeal that are different views

about what should happen with regard

to the 12 week suggestion.

I don't

think we are ready for that yet.

Current Sinn Fein policy goes far

enough.

Sinn Fein has that

discussion to have and I will hold

the council until we have

opportunity to properly engage as a

party as we do in relation to all

policy positions and that is

something we will be addressing very

shortly.

It is a highly emotive

issue. I am on the progressive side

of the party but I abide with

whatever decision the party mix.

Sinn Fein's 2018 Ard Fheis is

expected to take place within

months. It is then when the party

will almost certainly come to its

decision on that most controversial

of subjects, unrestricted access to

abortion during the first 12 weeks.

Shane Harrison reporting

from yesterday's

special Ard Fheis in Dublin.

And joining me now live

from our studio there

is the new President

of Sinn Fein, Mary-Lou McDonald.

Hello - and congratulations

on your elevation.

Thank you so much.

It is great to be

on with you. Your predecessor Gerry

Adams was in the job of course for

almost 35 years. You described him

yesterday as your political mentor

and inspirational leader and great

friend but you also talked about the

need for innovation, fresh thinking,

bold ideas. Now with the time for

new leadership you said, so where

are you planning to take Sinn Fein?

I of course paid tribute to Gerry

and his many long and very

successful years of leadership of

our party, and I set out yesterday a

sense, a vision and energy to

advance Sinn Fein to the next level.

We have grown extraordinarily over

the last number of years, north and

south, we are a national

organisation. We have national

objectives, not least securing a

referendum on unity, the building of

a new Ireland. Our politics is very

expensive, very ambitious and I am

very clear in the years ahead that

we need to really have a very strong

sense of purpose as we go about the

business of building relationships

with unionism. Building

relationships with new communities,

building international understanding

and support for the changes that are

happening in Ireland, not least with

the advent or threat of Brexit. So

it is big politics and I was

encouraging our base to think big

come to be ambitious and not to be

afraid of innovation just because we

have always done things in a

particular way, doesn't mean that we

have to forever think or do things

in that same way, so we have lots of

new members and I want us to really

harness that energy of newer

members, younger members, a more

diverse membership. So that it feeds

into the broader politics that isn't

just the preserve of Sinn Fein, let

me emphasise, around not just

imagining our talking about a new

Ireland but getting to work and

making that happen.

But you need to

connect with those voters that Shane

Harrison was talking to yesterday

and so far it is about to say they

are not biting, they are not

persuaded with what Sinn Fein is

offering them so how do you make

that connection?

Well, our mandate

here in the South, as you call it,

has grown substantially over the

last number of years. Sinn Fein now

is regarded as one of the big three

political parties in politics in

this jurisdiction and we are only

starting. I don't pretend for a

second that we don't have a lot of

work to do. I don't pretend for a

second that there aren't sections of

our people and sections of society

that we don't need to reach out to

to have more contact with, to

convince them that the merit of

social equality and social justice,

to convince them of the merit of a

prosperous Ireland but where

prosperity is shared. To convince

them of the opportunity of new

Ireland. Of as you appreciate I only

in the 24 hours so I am guessing

you're going to give me a little bit

more breathing space to actually set

dollar that in train. We are after a

great start but we have a lot of

work do.

Do you think it will be

easier for you to connect with those

individuals because you are yourself

the product of a middle-class home,

very different in terms of your

background and perhaps your style

from your immediate predecessor?

Obviously I am different to Gerry in

many ways, generational latecomer

geographically, gender, all of that,

I bring my own approach and my own

style and own sense of myself and my

own personality, but whatever way

you go about this thing in political

life, it is all about people knowing

you, people having a sense of view,

people having trust in you and also

having confidence in your policy

platform and finally in your ability

to deliver on that policy platform.

So I don't underestimate my task for

a second. I am a great believer in

hard work, and effort, and as I was

saying yesterday that the Ard Fheis,

some things that are having with

achieving, it is worth maybe working

for and that is what I am doing I am

not taking anything for granted but

I think we have a very strong

progressive, hopeful, mother and

message for modern Ireland and I

believe that it transcends, we are a

party of working people and social

justice. I believe the middle

classes have an interest in that as

well.

We have got a lot to cover

here in a short period of time. I

will try and keep my questions you

would if you can try and keep your

answers short as well. The

leadership of Sinn Fein committee of

the president, Michelle O'Neill is

the vice president, how will you

divide the responsibility of the

Republic of Ireland and also for

what is happening at this critical

stage in Northern Ireland at the

moment? Do you believe that Michelle

O'Neill will be back or will be

serving as Deputy First Minister in

Northern Ireland sooner rather than

later? Is a deal imminent in your

view?

I will be back in Belfast

tomorrow morning. I believe a deal

can be done and we have said

repeatedly on the public record and

privately that we won the

institutions to work and we want

genuine grounded power-sharing that

delivers everybody right across the

community and for that to happen it

has to be on the basis of mutual

respect. It has to be genuine and

enthusiastic engagement with

power-sharing and I believe that our

universe -- unionist friends need to

come with the new dispensation in

that spirit and that way, we are

certainly willing to do that.

We are

proud rising comprises well because

you can't have a 10-0 win to the DUP

were Sinn Fein, do you accept your

idea of an Irish Language Act might

look a bit different from what you

would like and you make have to go

back on your previously stated

position that you would go back into

an Executive with Arlene Foster as

First Minister this side of the RHI

enquiry, reporting Michelle O'Neill

has been crystal clear about that.

This isn't a football match so it is

not a case of 10-0 or 5-0 or marking

up the scoresheet, this is issues

that referred to people's rights,

the right to marriage equality,

language rights, the issue around a

Bill of Rights, the issue around

funding for legacy and quests which

I don't believe anybody, I don't

care which party you are in, you can

stand over a situation where

families of survivors are left

decades waiting for something, a

standard norm of an inquest. I think

that is outrageous. I figured that

they just weary and discussing the

release of funding for those legacy

inquest.

These are contested issues

and my point is that across the

board in all of these issues, in

legacy, Irish Language Act, in who

serves as the DUP First Minister,

there needs to become the rise and

needs to become arise but going from

Sinn Fein and from the DUP.

This we

are a party that understand the

necessity for dialogue and to

accommodate others as well, maybe

better than others, there is no

issue there. We have said progress

but I want to make the point back to

you and I think this is where

politics needs to go, we need to

stop seeing things in those kind of

polarised sense, a win for me, a

loose preview, at the end of the day

whatever we are elected from we are

charged with shaping public policies

and legislation and frameworks that

actually serve a happy life, a

productive life and the rights of

people. I don't care if there are

orange or green, I am not willing to

get into Abe political dialogue with

anybody that is as crude as a win

for me and loss for you, and decided

the issue of legacy and dealing with

the past very specifically because I

am very aware of the fact that we

need to start in substantive ways

demonstrating leadership on these

issues. We are not going to agree on

the past. We're not going to get a

single shared narrative, so we have

to have respect for each other.

There are certain things upon we

have to simply agreed to disagree

and we need to respect each other

and allow wage of the space to

articulate our politics to remember

our past, and to move on. The talks

are underway. I think we are now at

decision time. I think the coming

week has to be decisive. I will be

up in Belfast alongside Michelle

O'Neill, a woman in whom I have the

utmost faith and confidence. And we

were together, we are a national

party, so it is not even a case of

divvying things out. I trust and

need the support of Michelle and

vice versa. I am believer, I am the

national leader, but be in no doubt

that Michelle is my wing woman. She

is absolutely a person of standing

and authority in her own right in

our party, nationally and deservedly

so.

That is an interesting point.

This is an issue that has been

talked about appear at the moment,

what about the senior republican

figures from the North who have been

influential in determining Sinn Fein

policy in the past, people who are

from the wider republican family who

aren't elected representatives but

who are well known to be influential

in the past? Will they still wield

influence under your leadership or

is this a clear break from the past?

We have people and influential

people within Sinn Fein at every

level. Local levels, regionally, we

have a number of people who are

political thinkers, political

activists, some of them have

considerable experience, others as I

was saying earlier are newer to the

party, and everybody brings their

analysis and politics.

But at the

end of the day will you be calling

the shots?

Yes. For the avoidance of

doubt, I am the leader of the party

and I will act as leader of the

party, I am a team player, I believe

in a collaborative effort. But where

there are calls to be made I will be

making them.

Just a final question

about abortion which is a hugely

contentious as you at the moment as

a move towards the referendum on

appealing the eighth Amendment, you

said you will consult the people and

listen to people, are you going to

give people a free vote on that

within the Dail in future will there

be a party policy which may back

abortion in 12 weeks which some of

your TDs and party membership could

be very uncomfortable about?

You are

right to say this is a contentious

issue and I absolutely accept that

it is a matter of private

conscience, but it is also a matter

of public policy and that is where

the party and where we, those of us

that are legislators, come into the

frame, it is a bad shaping law and

policy that protects women's lives

and health and allows doctors and

medics to actually do their job. You

ask me on the issue of a free vote.

That is not envisaged, no, and let

me just remind you that on three

occasions Sinn Fein Ard Fheis Mac

have had motions put them suggesting

a conscience clause or free vote and

on three occasions the party has

refused that, not because there are

different views on the party, there

are very clearly are, but because we

as a political party understand that

you don't duck the hard issues and

that as the master of Public policy

you have to have party policy and

leading the front and we trust

women.

Very interesting to trigger

thoughts. Thank you for talking to

us. Appreciate your time.

So, what do my guests

of the day make of that?

Suzanne Breen, Political Editor

of the Belfast Telegraph,

and commentator Chris Donnelly

are with me.

Suzanne, she is no stranger to

television studios and she is only

in the job 24 hours stopper is a

limit to what she can say and do.

But what do you think we can expect

from her in the top job?

She is

clearly a very good media performer.

She is never going to mess up and

have a car crash interviews during

leadership debates like Gerry Adams

her predecessor did. She is a woman

who is a great eye for detail and

policy. I think we can CC is a

people person and in a party

election playing those skills are

very important. She is good with the

ordinary man or woman on the street

on the ground will stop in terms of

will there be a huge difference in

her style of leadership and putting

the meat on the bones, I don't know.

I think that remains to be seen.

Certainly no one will ever ask Mary

Lou have you been in the IRA? And it

makes it easier for Fine Gael or

Fianna Fail to go in to government

with her after the next election.

She made clear, I am president of

Sinn Fein and I will call the shots.

What do you think unionists will

make of her and her apparent

enthusiasm are Stormont by Tom and

running again, willingness she said

to hold the principles but also

become almost?

One of the themes in

a speech yesterday, and it was quite

striking that the incoming Sinn Fein

leader, she pointed out the fact

that she last year took part in the

British -- reddish Remembrance

Sunday event in London. She wants to

be seen to respect the unionist

tradition but she was demanding the

same from unionists. She has been

coming on to that in her interview,

we won't have a shared narrative

about the past but what we can do is

respectably agree to disagree and

that is what she wants to bring

towards engagement with the unionist

tradition. I think it is quite

interesting, I do see, I think

within Sinn Fein they know someone

has to take the role that Martin

McGuinness played as Deputy First

Minister and in terms of our

preaching to unionist and they think

worse than Michelle O'Neill, Mary

Lou McDonald would see herself in

taking that role.

She said,

described Michelle O'Neill as her

wing woman in the north.

She is

making very clear because she is

heard talk that Mary Lou McDonald

will be influenced by other forces,

she is setting out that you will be

the party leader and the one that

takes in people to the party.

Other

individuals, we will get into

details, but people from the wider

republican family, people who served

in the IRA in the past two were

clearly influential alongside Gerry

Adams and Martin McGuinness, is

their influence waning now under the

leadership of Mary Lou McDonald?

Is

that what we can expect? I don't

think so. They think their influence

will only wane when the time is up

and they pass away. While they are

here think they always will have

enormous clout and I really struggle

to believe that Mary Lou McDonald,

she says she will be the boss of

Gerry Adams, will she be the boss of

them? I don't think so.

Interesting.

Thank you both for now.

Let's just pause for a moment

for a look back at the political

week gone past in sixty seconds -

with Stephen Walker.

Gerry Kelly's car was clamped. Later

he admitted he made a mistake.

It

was a bad decision. I moved ahead of

it and that was it but that don't

happen again.

Bolt cutters also

turned up at Westminster as we

marked 100 years of women getting

the vote.

Things like chaining

yourself to statues in the building

and they are still captured today.

Ian Paisley issued a familiar battle

cry when it came to Brexit.

It's

about time the Government

demonstrated a no surrender attitude

to the European bureaucrats...

Declan Kearney said it was the IRA

and Sinn Fein leaderships that

helped to form the civil rights

movement.

The civil rights movement

when you look at it through the lens

of historical objectivity had

multiple parents and gave birth to

many children.

But not everyone

agreed.

The article that Declan

Kearney wrote is delusional.

Stephen Walker there.

And let's have a few final thoughts

from Suzanne and Chris.

Suzanne, she was very clear about

Stormont, she says she is up for a

deal.

She does and I will be very

surprised that there isn't a deal

next week. In the Belfast Telegraph

we broke the story exclusively that

a deal was imminent and getting a

lot of journalists and commentators

have been asleep at the wheel on

this one. They have been looking at

previous talks and thinking this

isn't going to be any different,

nothing really much has changed. If

you look at the signs at what Arlene

Foster as saying, Colin Murphy said

at the weekend, really be mood music

is there. I think there are still

some things to sign off but they

would be very surprised if there

isn't a substantial movement,

commentators and journalists and

media outlets have got this wrong

and are out of touch.

Chris, do you

think that is the case? Certainly a

deal may be there, but it isn't

signed sealed and delivered and if

we are to believe everybody that

there was nary a deal in November

and that fell at the last hurdle.

I

think the difference this time

because we have seen in the past the

DUP have leaked more favourable

things and if that was jockey for

position, the difference is from

Sinn Fein, particularly Colum

Murphy, very positive soundings of

the weekend, very different language

from him, at a time from Sinn Fein

over the past 13 months so I would

say at this point it does look more

like they will be a deal will stop

briefly, comprising terms of the

Irish Language Act, legacy issues,

Arlene Foster returning as First

Minister, presumably they will be,

right?

I think I'll will be stunned

if Arlene Foster does not return as

First Minister. I think Sinn Fein

will comprise on that issue. There

is no way Arlene Foster won't be

First Minister from what I hear.

There will be some deal on the Irish

line would act that allows both

sides to save face so to speak, each

will be able to sell it as some sort

of victory. In terms of equal

marriage I think they can will be

kicked down the road on that and

that the DUP does acknowledge to

Sinn Fein but it doesn't have the

numbers for a petition of concern

any more.

Compromise isn't

necessarily a dirty word? Know but I

think people will look very clearly

at the implementation and what that

will entail.

Thank you. Back to

Sarah in London.

Thank you very much and thanks

to all of my guests.

Welcome back. A few minutes ago we

were talking about plans for

renationalisation, something which

they think is a good vote winning

policy in these times. Are they

right?

Nationalisation had a boom in

popularity. It never went out of

right?

Nationalisation had a boom in

favour. Since the bailouts of rail

companies, since the appalling

things which happen

companies, since the appalling

have to get a train every day, never

mind just the south-east, it has

been a nightmare and costs are

been a nightmare and costs are

ratcheting up. Even the water

companies are not opposing it. I

ratcheting up. Even the water

think they are pushing at

ratcheting up. Even the water

door and it is a worthwhile

ratcheting up. Even the water

for them to do.

John McDonnell

ratcheting up. Even the water

it can be done at absolutely no cost

you would have an asset on your

it can be done at absolutely no cost

government books, is that realistic?

No, that is the aspect of it. I can

see the political logic. That is

No, that is the aspect of it. I can

aspect I find most confusing. This

argument that Parliament rather than

aspect I find most confusing. This

the market dictates the price

aspect I find most confusing. This

which the acids is bought, the

signal is not just people who are in

those industries, the signal list

signal is not just people who are in

all other investors in just about

everything else. If you start with

everything else. If you start with

certain sectors, what will be

nationalised next? The impact that

certain sectors, what will be

then has on people who are investing

money in the UK is simply a dawning

money in the UK is simply a dawning

realisation that what they

money in the UK is simply a dawning

what they own, what they paid for

might be stolen or might be

discounted.

Labour were fairly clear

in their manifesto, they talked

discounted.

Labour were fairly clear

about the National Grid, water, rail

discounted.

Labour were fairly clear

and the Royal Mail, nothing else.

As

someone who has been

and the Royal Mail, nothing else.

As

attention to what John McDonnell and

attention to what John McDonnell and

Seamus Milne think, I will take

Seamus Milne think, I will take

their evidence of what they have

Seamus Milne think, I will take

written and said over the last 30

Seamus Milne think, I will take

years rather than what they

Seamus Milne think, I will take

trying to do now to win an election.

Seamus Milne think, I will take

I would not try and extrapolate what

Labour policy would be over what she

must have said, he has only been

Labour policy would be over what she

their communications guide for a few

years, before that he was a Guardian

columnist.

I'm judging people on

years, before that he was a Guardian

their record of what they have said

years, before that he was a Guardian

to Andrew Marr, what they

years, before that he was a Guardian

written and what John McDonnell

years, before that he was a Guardian

argued for. I simply question

whether we should accept their

guarantees when they are trying to

bargain their way into power.

Listen, nobody, it is something

which only happens to this lot of

Listen, nobody, it is something

Labour leaders, that if people

cannot critique the policy they

suggest, then critique what they

perceive to be the nefarious under

suggest, then critique what they

policy. The truth is, when we talk

about privatising industries we used

to talk about that, we never talked

about the outrageous bailouts they

about the outrageous bailouts they

would need, we never talked

about the outrageous bailouts they

what they would do to actual

about the outrageous bailouts they

we just talked about this in terms

of principle, do you want this

of principle, do you want this

privatised with efficiency or

nationalised?

There problems with

some things that now

nationalised?

There problems with

Thatcher would not say that was the

Thatcher would not say that was the

original intention. However, she and

those around her were completely

those around her were completely

clear and explicit about that

those around her were completely

were prepared to privatise almost

everything. They were unambiguous.

The fairest possible reading of the

way Thatcher went about it is she

The fairest possible reading of the

did not know how bad it would be.

She went into privatisation with the

did not know how bad it would be.

explicit agenda of more British

people owning shares in

explicit agenda of more British

and when she went into it, 40% of

explicit agenda of more British

people own shares, 12 years later

12% did.

We will need to leave it

12% did.

We will need to leave it

there and move on.

The charity Oxfam has said

it was "dismayed by what happened"

after the accusations of sexual

exploitation by its aid workers

and now the government has said

it's going to get tough.

I'm going to afford them the

opportunity to talk to me tomorrow,

but I'm broke clear, it does not

matter if you have got a

but I'm broke clear, it does not

whistle-blower hotline, it does not

whistle-blower hotline, it does not

matter if you have got good

whistle-blower hotline, it does not

safeguarding practices in place, if

safeguarding practices in place, if

the moral leadership at the top of

the moral leadership at the top of

the organisation is

the moral leadership at the top of

we cannot have you as a partner.

That was Penny Mordaunt talking

we cannot have you as a partner.

whom there have been

we cannot have you as a partner.

this week. This could have

implications for the aid sector

generally?

Yes, and that is

implications for the aid sector

Penny Mordaunt said that

implications for the aid sector

would be put off by the likes of

implications for the aid sector

giving to Oxfam because they

giving to Oxfam because they have no

idea where their money is being used

idea where their money is being used

your good hard earned cash could be

subsidising Oxfam executives sexual

your good hard earned cash could be

peccadilloes, at -- abusing the

people they are supposed to be

helping is not good. Penny Mordaunt

said we should all have done more.

Where this seems to be going as who

knew what? Furthermore, who was

happy to cover up what for the

greater good? If you shine a

greater good? If you shine a

spotlight on abuse will it kill off

the Holborn I'm concept of

the Holborn I'm concept of

international aid.

Oxfam does a lot

of good around the world.

international aid.

Oxfam does a lot

amounts of good. Why would you want

international aid.

Oxfam does a lot

to kill off a productive good

charity because of some horrendous

to kill off a productive good

abuse going on? The political damage

to kill off a productive good

for the government and we need to be

very careful, there are parallels

very careful, there are parallels

with for example the northern Asian

sexual grooming scandal. How

with for example the northern Asian

was a blind eye turned to these

with for example the northern Asian

politically sensitive subject

with for example the northern Asian

greater good, for

with for example the northern Asian

harmony, was not damaged? That will

be huge thing to unpick.

Tom was

talking about the damage

be huge thing to unpick.

Tom was

who donate to charities but defeat,

the government, committed huge

amount of

amount of money --

amount of money -- DFID. Not

everyone is happy about this.

everyone is happy about this.

everyone is happy about this.

this be used as a debate about

international aid?

I think it

international aid?

I think it

being used as a way to reopen

debate. It should be remembered that

sexual predators use

They used boarding schools, the

church and aid programmes. They use

places with high vulnerability to

the sexual predators. Notably says

places with high vulnerability to

let's close down the church. It is

mistaken to say this is a taint on

the entire aid industry when

mistaken to say this is a taint on

industry by its nature would attract

some predatory behaviour. It is much

industry by its nature would attract

more important to have the

conversation about how