:00:40. > :00:48.Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the
:00:49. > :00:52.coalition is fighting over cuts. Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance
:00:53. > :00:56.the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he
:00:57. > :01:01.will cut. That is the top story. Chris Grayling called for a
:01:02. > :01:05.completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the
:01:06. > :01:10.European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.
:01:11. > :01:12.Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how
:01:13. > :01:16.will they house-building up a gear, but how
:01:17. > :01:19.And coming up here: With the political fall-out
:01:20. > :01:23.continuing after the Haass talks, we hear live from the five parties who
:01:24. > :01:25.failed to reach a deal on flags, parades and the past. Join me in
:01:26. > :01:26.half an hour. parades and the past. Join me in
:01:27. > :01:33.be serious. Have cuts left to the service being overstretched?
:01:34. > :01:42.With me for the duration, a top trio of political pundits, Helen Lewis,
:01:43. > :01:50.Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They will be tweeting faster than France
:01:51. > :01:54.or long scoots through Paris. Nick Clegg sticks to his New Year
:01:55. > :01:58.resolution to sock it to the Tories, the is how he described Tory plans
:01:59. > :02:02.for another 12 billion of cuts on welfare after the next election.
:02:03. > :02:07.You cannot say, as the Conservatives are, that we are all in it together
:02:08. > :02:09.and then say that the welfare will not make any additional
:02:10. > :02:14.contributions from their taxes if there is a Conservative government
:02:15. > :02:20.after 2015 in the ongoing effort to balance the books. We are not even
:02:21. > :02:27.going to ask that very wealthy people who have retired who have
:02:28. > :02:30.benefits, paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a
:02:31. > :02:36.sacrifice. The Conservatives appear to be saying only the working age
:02:37. > :02:39.pork will be asked to make additional sacrifices to fill the
:02:40. > :02:44.remaining buckle in the public finances.
:02:45. > :02:50.Nick Legg eating up on the Tories a, happens almost every day. I
:02:51. > :02:56.understand it is called aggressive differentiation. Will it work for
:02:57. > :03:01.them? It has not for the past two years. This began around the time of
:03:02. > :03:05.the AV referendum campaign, that is what poisoned the relations between
:03:06. > :03:12.the parties. They have been trying to differentiation since then, they
:03:13. > :03:18.are still at barely 10% in the polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings
:03:19. > :03:23.are horrendous, so I doubt they will do much before the next election. It
:03:24. > :03:27.is interesting it has been combined with aggressive flirtation with Ed
:03:28. > :03:31.Balls and the Labour Party. There was always going to be some sort of
:03:32. > :03:37.rapprochement between them and the Labour Party, it is in the Labour
:03:38. > :03:40.Party's interests, and it is intent macro's interests, not to be defined
:03:41. > :03:46.as somebody who can only do deals with the centre-right. A colleague
:03:47. > :03:49.of yours, Helen, told me there was more talk behind closed doors in the
:03:50. > :03:56.Labour Party high command, they have to think about winning the election
:03:57. > :04:00.in terms of being the largest party, but not necessarily an overall
:04:01. > :04:03.majority. There is a feeling it was foolish before the last election not
:04:04. > :04:08.to have any thought about what a coalition might be, but the language
:04:09. > :04:12.has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I cannot deal with this man, but now,
:04:13. > :04:19.I have to be prismatic, it is about principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick
:04:20. > :04:24.Clegg had specifically said that Ed Balls was the man in politics that
:04:25. > :04:30.he hated. He said that was just a joke. Of course, it is about
:04:31. > :04:34.principles, not people! When Ed Balls said those nice things about
:04:35. > :04:38.Nick Clegg, he said, I understood the need to get a credible deficit
:04:39. > :04:43.reduction programme, although he said Nick Clegg went too far. The
:04:44. > :04:47.thing about Nick Clegg, he feels liberated, he bears the wounds from
:04:48. > :04:53.the early days of the coalition, and maybe those winds will haunt him all
:04:54. > :04:59.the way to the general election. But he feels liberated, he says, we will
:05:00. > :05:02.be the restraining influence on both the Conservatives, who cannot insure
:05:03. > :05:06.that the recovery is fair, and the Labour Party, that do not have
:05:07. > :05:09.economic red ability. He feels relaxed, and that is why he is
:05:10. > :05:18.attacking the Tories and appearing pretty relaxed. He could also be
:05:19. > :05:22.falling into a trap. The Tories think what they suggesting on
:05:23. > :05:27.welfare cuts is possible. The more he attacks it, the more Tories will
:05:28. > :05:32.say, if you gave us an overall majority, he is the one it. He keeps
:05:33. > :05:36.taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense
:05:37. > :05:41.when you talk to them behind the scenes, they are going after a tiny
:05:42. > :05:47.slice of the electorate, 20%, who are open to the idea of voting Lib
:05:48. > :05:54.Dem, and their views are a bit more left liberal than the bulk of the
:05:55. > :06:00.public. There is a perverse logic in them aggressively targeting that
:06:01. > :06:03.section of voters. In the end, ten macro's problem, if you do not like
:06:04. > :06:09.what this coalition has been doing, you will not vote for somebody who
:06:10. > :06:17.was part of it, you will vote for the Labour Party. The Tories are too
:06:18. > :06:20.nasty, Labour are to spendthrift, Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has
:06:21. > :06:26.gone to Labour, and that is what could hand the largest party to
:06:27. > :06:30.Labour. That small number of voters, soft Tory voters, the problem for
:06:31. > :06:35.the Liberal Democrats is, if you fight, as they did, three general
:06:36. > :06:38.elections to the left of the Labour Party, and at the end of the third,
:06:39. > :06:44.you find yourself in Colour Vision with the Conservatives, you have a
:06:45. > :06:51.problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has
:06:52. > :06:55.had to deal with aid riot at HM Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike
:06:56. > :07:06.and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.
:07:07. > :07:16.Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers
:07:17. > :07:25.and rapists. It makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice.
:07:26. > :07:29.Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough
:07:30. > :07:34.talking and tough dealing. Not only have they tended to think what they
:07:35. > :07:38.are offering is right, but have had the feeling, you thinking what they
:07:39. > :07:44.thinking. But nearly two decades after Michael Howard's message, his
:07:45. > :07:47.party, in Colour Vision government, is finding prison has to work like
:07:48. > :07:52.everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice
:07:53. > :07:58.Secretary for two years after the election had previous in this field.
:07:59. > :08:05.Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a change of direction. Just binding up
:08:06. > :08:09.more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change
:08:10. > :08:18.them is, in my opinion, what you would expect of Victorian England.
:08:19. > :08:25.The key to keeping people out of prison now, it seems, is giving them
:08:26. > :08:29.in a job, on release. Ironically, Ken Clarke was released from his job
:08:30. > :08:37.15 months ago and replaced by Chris Grayling. But here, within HM Prison
:08:38. > :08:39.Liverpool, Timpson has been working since 2009 with chosen offenders to
:08:40. > :08:43.offer training and the chance of a job. Before you ask, they do not
:08:44. > :08:48.teach them keep cutting in a category B prison. The Academy is
:08:49. > :08:54.deliberately meant to look like a company store, not a prison. It
:08:55. > :08:58.helps. You forget where you are at times, it feels weird, going back to
:08:59. > :09:06.a wing at the end of the day. It is different. A different atmosphere.
:09:07. > :09:10.That is why people like it. Timpson have six academies in prisons,
:09:11. > :09:14.training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to
:09:15. > :09:18.ex-offenders, who make up 8% of their staff. It has been hard work
:09:19. > :09:25.persuading some governors that such cooperation can work. I have seen a
:09:26. > :09:29.dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the
:09:30. > :09:36.last five years. They understand now what business's expectation is.
:09:37. > :09:41.Timpson do not just employ offenders, but as one ex-prisoner
:09:42. > :09:45.released in February and now managing his own store says, the
:09:46. > :09:51.point is many others will not employ offenders at all. From what I have
:09:52. > :09:56.experienced, on one hand, you have somebody with a criminal conviction,
:09:57. > :09:58.on the other, somebody who does not have one, so it is a case of
:09:59. > :10:03.favouring those who have a clean record. Anybody with a criminal
:10:04. > :10:09.conviction is passed to one side and overlooked. That, amongst myriad
:10:10. > :10:14.other changes to prison and how we deal with prisoners, is on the desk
:10:15. > :10:18.of the man at the top. Ever since Chris Grayling became Secretary of
:10:19. > :10:22.State for Justice, he has wanted to signal a change of direction of
:10:23. > :10:26.policy, and he is in a hurry to make radical reforms across the board,
:10:27. > :10:30.from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending
:10:31. > :10:34.rates, legal aid services, and there has been opposition to that from
:10:35. > :10:38.groups who do not agree with him. But what might actually shackle him
:10:39. > :10:40.is none of that. It is the fact that he is in government with a party
:10:41. > :10:45.that does not always agree with him, he has to abide by the rulings of
:10:46. > :10:50.the European Court of Human Rights, and in those famous words, there is
:10:51. > :10:57.no money left. We would like to go further and faster. I would like him
:10:58. > :11:00.too, but we are where we are. If the Liberal Democrats want to be wiped
:11:01. > :11:05.out at the next election based on what they believe, that is fair
:11:06. > :11:10.enough. We accept there has to be savings, but there are areas where
:11:11. > :11:17.we feel that there is ideological driven policy-making going on, and
:11:18. > :11:23.privatising may not save any money at all, and so does not make any
:11:24. > :11:31.sense. The question is, we'll all of that means some of Chris Grayling's
:11:32. > :11:41.reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.
:11:42. > :11:49.Welcome. We have a lot to cover. If you get your way, your own personal
:11:50. > :11:50.way, will be next Tory manifesto promise to withdraw from the
:11:51. > :11:59.European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise
:12:00. > :12:03.for radical changes. We have to curtail the role of the European
:12:04. > :12:08.court here, replace our human rights act from the late 1990s, make our
:12:09. > :12:13.Supreme Court our Supreme Court, they can be no question of decisions
:12:14. > :12:16.over riding it elsewhere, and we have to have a situation where our
:12:17. > :12:22.laws contain a balance of rights and responsibilities. People talk about
:12:23. > :12:27.knowing their rights, but they do not accept they have responsible it
:12:28. > :12:37.is. This is what you said last September, I want to see our Supreme
:12:38. > :12:41.Court being supreme again... That is clear, but let's be honest, the
:12:42. > :12:44.Supreme Court cannot be supreme as long as its decisions can be
:12:45. > :12:50.referred to the European Court in Strasbourg. There is clearly an
:12:51. > :12:55.issue, that was raised recency -- recently. We have been working on a
:12:56. > :13:00.detailed reform plan, we will publish that in the not too distant
:13:01. > :13:02.future. What we will set out is a direction of travel for a new
:13:03. > :13:08.Conservative government that will mean wholesale change in this area.
:13:09. > :13:14.You already tried to reform the European Court, who had this
:13:15. > :13:18.declaration in 2012, do you accept that the reform is off the table?
:13:19. > :13:23.There is still a process of reform, but it is not going fast enough and
:13:24. > :13:25.not delivering the kind of change we need. That is why we will bring
:13:26. > :13:30.forward a package that for the different from that and will set a
:13:31. > :13:34.different direction of travel. We are clear across the coalition, we
:13:35. > :13:40.have a different view from our colleagues. You cannot be half
:13:41. > :13:45.pregnant on this, either our decisions from our Supreme Court are
:13:46. > :13:51.subject to the European Cup or not, in which case, we are not part of
:13:52. > :13:54.the European court. I hope you will see from our proposals we have come
:13:55. > :13:57.up with a sensible strategy that deals with this issue once and for
:13:58. > :14:04.all. Can we be part of the Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme
:14:05. > :14:09.Court be supreme? That is by point, we have to curtail the role of the
:14:10. > :14:12.court in the UK. I am clear that is what we will seek to do. It is what
:14:13. > :14:19.we will do for this country. But how? I am not going to announce the
:14:20. > :14:23.package of policies today, but we will go into the next election with
:14:24. > :14:29.a clear strategy that will curtail the role of the European Court of
:14:30. > :14:34.Human Rights in the UK. The decisions have to be taken in
:14:35. > :14:37.Parliament in this country. Are you sure that you have got your own side
:14:38. > :14:55.on this? Look at what the Attorney General says.
:14:56. > :15:08.I would be asking Strasberg a different question to that. If the
:15:09. > :15:11.best in class, he is saying is enough is enough, actually somebody
:15:12. > :15:16.in Strasberg should be asking if this has gone the way it should have
:15:17. > :15:19.done. I would love to see wholesale reform in the court tomorrow, I'm
:15:20. > :15:24.not sure it is going to happen which is why we are going to the election
:15:25. > :15:30.with a clear plan for this country. Would you want that to be a red line
:15:31. > :15:36.in any coalition agreement? My mission is to win the next election
:15:37. > :15:41.with a majority. But you have to say where your red lines would be. We
:15:42. > :15:47.have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties, but
:15:48. > :15:51.in my view the public in this country are overwhelmingly behind
:15:52. > :15:55.the Conservative party. 95 Conservative MPs have written to the
:15:56. > :16:00.Prime Minister, demanding he gives the House of Commons the authority
:16:01. > :16:04.to veto any aspect of European Union law. Are you one of the people who
:16:05. > :16:09.wanted to sign that letter but you couldn't because you are minister? I
:16:10. > :16:23.haven't been asked to sign the letter. We need a red card system
:16:24. > :16:28.for European law. I'm not convinced my colleagues... I don't think it is
:16:29. > :16:33.realistic to have a situation where one parliament can veto laws across
:16:34. > :16:36.the European Union. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but when
:16:37. > :16:42.we set out to renegotiate our membership, we have got to deliver
:16:43. > :16:46.renegotiation and deliver a system which is viable, and I'm not
:16:47. > :16:49.convinced we can have a situation where one Parliament can prevent
:16:50. > :16:57.laws across the whole European Union. So you wouldn't have signed
:16:58. > :17:05.this letter? I'm not sure it is the right approach. I support the system
:17:06. > :17:08.I just talked about. Iain Duncan Smith has suggested EU migrants
:17:09. > :17:12.coming to work in this country should have to wait for two years
:17:13. > :17:20.before they qualify for welfare benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think
:17:21. > :17:24.there should be an assumption that before you can move from one country
:17:25. > :17:28.to another, before you can start to take back from that country's social
:17:29. > :17:34.welfare system, you should have made a contribution to it. I spent two
:17:35. > :17:37.and a half years working in Brussels trying to get the European
:17:38. > :17:42.Commission to accept the need for change. There is a groundswell of
:17:43. > :17:47.opinion out there which is behind Iain Duncan Smith in what he is
:17:48. > :17:50.saying. I think we should push for a clear system that says people should
:17:51. > :17:57.be able to move from one country to get a job, but to move to another
:17:58. > :18:04.country to live off the state is not acceptable. You are planning a new
:18:05. > :18:08.2000 capacity mega prison and other smaller presence which will be run
:18:09. > :18:14.by private firms. After what has happened with G4S, why would you do
:18:15. > :18:21.that? No decision has been made about whether it will be public or
:18:22. > :18:28.private. What do you think it will be? I'm not sure yet. There is no
:18:29. > :18:33.clear correlation over public and private prisons and whether there
:18:34. > :18:38.are problems or otherwise. Oakwood is in its early stages, it has had
:18:39. > :18:44.teething problems at the start, but the rate of disturbance there is
:18:45. > :18:50.only typical for an average prison of its category. If you take an
:18:51. > :18:56.example of Parc prison in Wales, a big private run prison, run by G4S,
:18:57. > :19:00.when it was first launched under the last government it had teething
:19:01. > :19:05.problems of the same kind as Oakwood and is now regarded as one of the
:19:06. > :19:11.best performing prisons. Why would you give it to a private company
:19:12. > :19:16.then? We have only just got planning permission for the so we will not be
:19:17. > :19:23.thinking about this for another few years. Some of the companies who run
:19:24. > :19:30.prisons are under investigation with dreadful track records. In the case
:19:31. > :19:33.of G4S, what we have experienced is acceptable and they have not been
:19:34. > :19:37.able to go ahead with a number of contracts they might have otherwise
:19:38. > :19:44.got. They are having to prove to the Government they are fit to win
:19:45. > :19:49.contracts from the Government again. They are having to pay compensation
:19:50. > :19:54.to the Government and the taxpayer. What has happened is unacceptable.
:19:55. > :20:05.So why would you give them a 2000 capacity mega prison? Or anyone like
:20:06. > :20:10.them? It cannot be said that every private company is bad. In addition
:20:11. > :20:14.to problems at Oakwood, you are quite unique now in your position
:20:15. > :20:19.that you have managed to get the barristers out on strike the first
:20:20. > :20:26.time since history began. What happens if the bar refuses to do
:20:27. > :20:32.work at your new rates of legal aid and the courts grind to a halt? I
:20:33. > :20:36.don't believe that will happen. When the barristers came out on strike,
:20:37. > :20:40.three quarters of Crown Courts were operating normally, 95% of
:20:41. > :20:45.magistrates courts were operating normally. We are having to take
:20:46. > :20:50.difficult decisions across government, I have no desire to cut
:20:51. > :20:56.back lately but we are spending over ?2 billion on legal aid at the
:20:57. > :21:01.moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued
:21:02. > :21:07.misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of
:21:08. > :21:14.them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including
:21:15. > :21:19.VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their
:21:20. > :21:25.own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing
:21:26. > :21:31.this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats
:21:32. > :21:33.in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,
:21:34. > :21:39.where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried
:21:40. > :21:48.hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the
:21:49. > :21:55.income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100,000?
:21:56. > :21:59.I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like
:22:00. > :22:10.travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for
:22:11. > :22:16.travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of
:22:17. > :22:22.figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross
:22:23. > :22:27.figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even
:22:28. > :22:37.a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need
:22:38. > :22:41.well-financed legal aid? There is no chance that as a result
:22:42. > :22:53.well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court
:22:54. > :22:56.unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,
:22:57. > :23:00.if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no
:23:01. > :23:05.question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge,
:23:06. > :23:11.where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so
:23:12. > :23:16.many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the
:23:17. > :23:26.figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty, not
:23:27. > :23:33.jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures
:23:34. > :23:37.predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail
:23:38. > :23:42.has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,
:23:43. > :23:48.you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where
:23:49. > :23:52.everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will
:23:53. > :23:57.often decided to his more appropriate to give a community
:23:58. > :24:02.sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people
:24:03. > :24:08.going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail
:24:09. > :24:13.if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal
:24:14. > :24:24.avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his
:24:25. > :24:28.name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That
:24:29. > :24:34.is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn
:24:35. > :24:39.we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As
:24:40. > :24:43.of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the
:24:44. > :24:49.same offence twice within a two-year period you will go to court. You
:24:50. > :24:57.still might end up not going to jail. More and more people are going
:24:58. > :25:03.to jail. I cannot just magic another 34,000 prison places. You haven't
:25:04. > :25:07.got room to put bad people in jail? The courts will take the decisions,
:25:08. > :25:13.and it is for them to take the decisions and not me, that two men
:25:14. > :25:19.in a bar fight do not merit a jail sentence. These figures contain a
:25:20. > :25:24.huge amount of offences from the most minor of offences to the most
:25:25. > :25:28.despicable. Something is wrong if you can commit 300 offences and
:25:29. > :25:34.still not end up in jail. That's right, and we are taking steps so
:25:35. > :25:40.this cannot happen any more. Nick Clegg said this morning you are
:25:41. > :25:50.going to make 12 billion of welfare cuts on the back of this, he is
:25:51. > :25:57.right, isn't he? People on the lowest incomes are often not paying
:25:58. > :26:03.tax at all, the rich... But these cuts will fall disproportionately on
:26:04. > :26:10.average earners, correct? Let's look at the proposal to limit housing
:26:11. > :26:16.benefit for under 25s. Until today, after people have left school or
:26:17. > :26:20.college, the live for a time with their parents. For some, that is not
:26:21. > :26:24.possible and we will have to take that into account, but we have said
:26:25. > :26:29.there is a strong case for saying you will not get housing benefit
:26:30. > :26:33.until you are some years down the road and have properly established
:26:34. > :26:41.yourselves in work. And by definition these people are on lower
:26:42. > :26:45.than average salaries. Give me a case in which those on the higher
:26:46. > :26:51.tax band will contribute to the cuts. We have already put in place
:26:52. > :26:55.tax changes so that the highest tax rate is already higher than it was
:26:56. > :27:04.in every year of the last government. The amount of tax...
:27:05. > :27:09.There is no more expected of the rich. We will clearly look at future
:27:10. > :27:12.policy and work out how best to distribute the tax burden in this
:27:13. > :27:18.country and it is not for me to second-guess George Osborne's future
:27:19. > :27:23.plans, but we need to look at for example housing benefit for the
:27:24. > :27:30.under 25s. Is it right for those who are not working for the state to
:27:31. > :27:34.provide accommodation for them? Thank you for being with us.
:27:35. > :27:37.All three major parties at Westminster agree there's an urgent
:27:38. > :27:40.need to build more homes for Britain's growing population. But
:27:41. > :27:43.how they get built, and where, looks set to become a major battle ground
:27:44. > :27:45.in the run-up to the next general election.
:27:46. > :27:48.Although 16% more house-builds were started in 2012/13 than the previous
:27:49. > :27:56.year, the number actually completed fell by 8% - the lowest level in
:27:57. > :27:58.peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that
:27:59. > :28:05.between now and 2021 we should expect 220,000 new households to be
:28:06. > :28:08.created every year. At his party's conference last autumn, Ed Miliband
:28:09. > :28:17.promised a Labour government would massively increase house-building. I
:28:18. > :28:22.will have a clear aim but by the end of the parliament, Britain will be
:28:23. > :28:26.building 200,000 homes per year, more than at any time for a
:28:27. > :28:30.generation. That is how we make Britain better than this. The Labour
:28:31. > :28:33.leader also says he'd give urban councils a "right to grow" so rural
:28:34. > :28:37.neighbours can't block expansion and force developers with unused land to
:28:38. > :28:40.use it or lose it. The Government has been pursuing its own ideas,
:28:41. > :28:44.including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to
:28:45. > :28:48.boost new house-building. But David Cameron could have trouble keeping
:28:49. > :28:50.his supporters on side - this week the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi
:28:51. > :28:56.criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the
:28:57. > :29:00.countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand
:29:01. > :29:14.new garden cities in the south east of England. In a speech tomorrow,
:29:15. > :29:17.Labour's shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will give more details
:29:18. > :29:19.of how Labour would boost house-building, and she joins me
:29:20. > :29:24.now. It is not the politicians to blame, it is the lack of
:29:25. > :29:30.house-builders? We want a vibrant building industry, and at the moment
:29:31. > :29:34.that industry is dominated by big house-builders. I want to see a more
:29:35. > :29:40.diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater
:29:41. > :29:46.role. In France over 60% of new homes are built by self builders,
:29:47. > :29:51.but small builders build more homes as well. 25 years ago they were
:29:52. > :29:56.building two thirds of new homes, now they are not building even a
:29:57. > :29:59.third of new homes. That's because land policies have been so
:30:00. > :30:04.restrictive that it is only the big companies who can afford to buy the
:30:05. > :30:09.land, so little land is being released for house building. I
:30:10. > :30:12.agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land
:30:13. > :30:16.market and that is why we have said there doesn't just need to be
:30:17. > :30:21.tinkering around the edges, there needs to be real reforms to make
:30:22. > :30:25.sure that small builders and self build and custom-built have access
:30:26. > :30:30.to land. They are saying they have problems with access to land and
:30:31. > :30:37.finance. At the end of the day it will not be self, small builders who
:30:38. > :30:41.reach your target, it will be big builders. I think it is pretty
:30:42. > :30:49.shameful that in Western Europe the new houses built in the UK are
:30:50. > :30:54.smaller than our neighbours. But isn't not the land problem? France
:30:55. > :31:03.is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and we are and that is not a problem for
:31:04. > :31:07.them. There is a perception we are going to build on the countryside,
:31:08. > :31:17.but not even 10% is on the countryside. There is enough for us
:31:18. > :31:21.to have our golf courses. There is enough other land for us to build on
:31:22. > :31:24.that is not golf courses. The planning minister has said he wants
:31:25. > :31:28.to build our National Parks, I am not suggesting that. The single
:31:29. > :31:34.biggest land border is the public sector. It is not. There are great
:31:35. > :31:40.opportunities for releasing public land, that is why I have been asking
:31:41. > :31:44.the government, they say they are going to release and of public land
:31:45. > :31:48.for tens of thousands of new homes to be built, but they say they are
:31:49. > :31:54.not monitoring how many houses are being built on the site. When your
:31:55. > :32:00.leader says to landowners, housing development owners, either use the
:32:01. > :32:07.land or lose it, in what way will they lose it? Will you confiscated?
:32:08. > :32:12.This is about strengthening the hand of local authorities, and they say
:32:13. > :32:15.to us that in some cases, house-builders are sitting on land.
:32:16. > :32:22.In those cases, we would give the power to local authorities to
:32:23. > :32:27.escalate fees. This would be the compulsory purchase orders, a matter
:32:28. > :32:35.of last resort, and you would hope that by strengthening the hand of
:32:36. > :32:38.local authorities, you could get the house-builders to start building the
:32:39. > :32:44.homes that people want. Would you compulsory purchase it? We would
:32:45. > :32:49.give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,
:32:50. > :32:52.the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase
:32:53. > :32:57.orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build
:32:58. > :33:00.houses that we need. Can you name one report that has come back in
:33:01. > :33:04.recent years that shows that hoarding of land by house-builders
:33:05. > :33:08.is a major problem? The IMF, the Conservative mayor of London and the
:33:09. > :33:12.Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem
:33:13. > :33:16.with land hoarding. Therefore, we have said, where there is land with
:33:17. > :33:22.planning permission, and if plots are being sat on... Boris Johnson
:33:23. > :33:25.says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make
:33:26. > :33:26.says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make
:33:27. > :33:34.sure the house-builders are building the homes that young families need.
:33:35. > :33:38.They get planning permission and sell it on to the developer. There
:33:39. > :33:43.is a whole degree of complicity, but there is another problem before
:33:44. > :33:47.that. That is around transparency about land options. There is
:33:48. > :33:52.agricultural land that house-builders have land options on,
:33:53. > :33:56.and we do not know where that is. Where there is a need for housing,
:33:57. > :34:02.and the biggest demand is in the south-east of England, that is where
:34:03. > :34:07.many local authorities are most reluctant to do it, will you in
:34:08. > :34:11.central government take powers to force these authorities to give it?
:34:12. > :34:21.We have talked about the right to grow, we were in Stevenage
:34:22. > :34:26.recently. What we have said is we want to strengthen the hand of local
:34:27. > :34:31.authorities like Stevenage so they are not blocked every step of the
:34:32. > :34:35.way. They need 16,000 new homes, but they do not have the land supply.
:34:36. > :34:40.What about the authorities that do not want to do it? They should be
:34:41. > :34:44.forced to sit down and agree with the neighbouring authority. In
:34:45. > :34:47.Stevenage, it is estimated at ?500,000 has been spent on legal
:34:48. > :34:53.fees because North Hertfordshire is blocking Stevenage every step of the
:34:54. > :34:58.way. Michael Lyons says the national interest will have to take President
:34:59. > :35:03.over local interest. Voice cannot mean a veto. The local community in
:35:04. > :35:09.Stevenage is crying out for new homes. Do you agree? There has to be
:35:10. > :35:15.land available for new homes to be built, and in areas like Oxford,
:35:16. > :35:17.Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree with Michael Lyons? The national
:35:18. > :35:39.interest does have to be served, with Michael Lyons? The national
:35:40. > :35:44.will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can
:35:45. > :35:49.incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new
:35:50. > :35:55.towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will
:35:56. > :36:00.have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not
:36:01. > :36:04.at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to
:36:05. > :36:07.recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big
:36:08. > :36:11.difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs
:36:12. > :36:15.Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,
:36:16. > :36:20.we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour
:36:21. > :36:26.government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing
:36:27. > :36:33.stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour
:36:34. > :36:36.government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on
:36:37. > :36:41.this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We
:36:42. > :36:45.want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you
:36:46. > :36:50.the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the
:36:51. > :36:56.next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern
:36:57. > :36:58.programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because
:36:59. > :37:07.there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got
:37:08. > :37:09.there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes
:37:10. > :37:24.in the West Midlands Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics
:37:25. > :37:27.in Northern Ireland. It was a good deal, says Richard
:37:28. > :37:30.Haass, so why could our politicians not reach an agreement at the end of
:37:31. > :37:34.their marathon talks process? We've got the five parties gathered
:37:35. > :37:36.together to find out what stopped them getting a deal across the
:37:37. > :37:40.finish line. And we talk to the Secretary of
:37:41. > :37:43.State to find out if she can do anything at this stage to secure
:37:44. > :37:46.consensus on the key points. And despite the gloom, what brought
:37:47. > :37:50.about this reaction from Richard Haass?
:37:51. > :37:59.Find out later in our week in 60 Seconds.
:38:00. > :38:03.A lost opportunity or a firm foundation to build on? What are we
:38:04. > :38:06.to make of the Haass proposals now that he's gone home, amid
:38:07. > :38:09.disagreement and retribution? Sinn Fein and the SDLP have backed the
:38:10. > :38:11.package, the two unionist parties haven't, while Alliance is
:38:12. > :38:15.supportive of some proposals but very unhappy with others. In a
:38:16. > :38:18.moment, I'll be talking to representatives of the five main
:38:19. > :38:20.parties, but first our correspondent, Martina Purdy,
:38:21. > :38:30.examines the political drama over the latest proposals to tackle
:38:31. > :38:35.flags, parades and the past. Richard Haass, you are very welcome.
:38:36. > :38:42.This is a very serious attempt to find a solution. I would not be here
:38:43. > :39:02.unless that. I believe that the process is on life support.
:39:03. > :39:06.Some commentators have displayed -- declared the Haass process dead, and
:39:07. > :39:14.are already on the postmortem. We have a process that runs for many
:39:15. > :39:17.years, and are too many issues needing to be solved. Even one of
:39:18. > :39:22.those issues being resolved would have been a miracle, but expecting
:39:23. > :39:27.three of the issues to be done in that time frame was a nonsense right
:39:28. > :39:34.the start. Others have a more optimistic prognosis. I think there
:39:35. > :39:39.is still life there. The emphasis is on the local parties to find a
:39:40. > :39:43.remedy to the problems in the process. That requires all of them
:39:44. > :39:47.to buy in. Whether that means that there will be discussions or
:39:48. > :39:50.full-scale negotiations, we are yet to see.
:39:51. > :40:00.In the meantime, the drama can be excruciating. Some parties seem to
:40:01. > :40:04.be re-trench in now. It sends a bad example out internationally. It is
:40:05. > :40:07.embarrassing to explain this to my colleagues. On the back of the
:40:08. > :40:12.conference that we did a few months ago, will we are now having to say
:40:13. > :40:19.that we cannot get our act together, and that sends a bad message. Since
:40:20. > :40:24.the talks have ended, Unionists have complained about the process. There
:40:25. > :40:29.is a code of conduct, and they say that the balance is against the
:40:30. > :40:34.state forces and do not like the fact that the word terrorist is not
:40:35. > :40:41.in the tech will stop Richard Haass is saying that it is unrealistic to
:40:42. > :40:44.expect everything that you want in negotiations.
:40:45. > :40:50.I do not understand why anyone would ink that is not moving ahead would
:40:51. > :40:53.be preferable. I think it is unfair to the victims and survivors who
:40:54. > :41:01.deserve better full is. I think it is very bad for Northern Ireland.
:41:02. > :41:04.Republicans want Haass indicated, not more negotiations, but are being
:41:05. > :41:11.urged to return to the table with Unionists. If there is a consensus
:41:12. > :41:16.to spend some time ironing out the issues, fine. You want to avoid
:41:17. > :41:19.where basic issues are opened up and renegotiation is an excuse not to go
:41:20. > :41:24.ahead and stop that will become apparent soon enough.
:41:25. > :41:31.Some expect that the DUP call for more talks is about buying more
:41:32. > :41:37.time. People are concerned about the electoral advantage, and the whole
:41:38. > :41:41.next year. They have their eye on that prize,
:41:42. > :41:45.and they would love to win East Belfast back. The problem for the
:41:46. > :41:53.DUP is the extent to which there are Dale tales wagging on that dog, and
:41:54. > :41:58.the concern about the feeling in the heartland areas and whether that
:41:59. > :42:04.will cause electoral damage. Even loyalists believe the Haass
:42:05. > :42:10.proposals for a much-needed examination of victims issues. All
:42:11. > :42:12.is not lost stop we try to get what we thought were reasonable
:42:13. > :42:18.suggestions. Someone listen to and not. But we do
:42:19. > :42:23.feel that there is an opportunity to move forward. Martin McGuinness is
:42:24. > :42:31.that there is a destructive elements who do not want to move on. That is
:42:32. > :42:35.a bit rich. If I'm not mistaken, Martin McGuinness is one of the
:42:36. > :42:40.people 's will for what happens in the past, one of the people
:42:41. > :42:47.responsible. Some warned about division, and street violence like
:42:48. > :42:50.this unless it on flags. I think there will be more
:42:51. > :42:57.negativity, more disillusionment and cynicism. Probably that will end up
:42:58. > :43:05.in Wall Street having more tensions involved. -- many street. I worried
:43:06. > :43:13.that the two Divinity School parts. And there are economic consequence
:43:14. > :43:20.is. -- the two communities grow apart stop some of the things are
:43:21. > :43:22.happening near our office is, so it is obvious that people are
:43:23. > :43:27.concerned. It is regrettable, to say the least
:43:28. > :43:30.stop church leaders have urged our politicians not to give up.
:43:31. > :43:39.As politicians are due to meet next week, one of the options is to
:43:40. > :43:43.implement Haass in stages. Well joining me now are Sinn Fein's
:43:44. > :43:45.Gerry Kelly, the SDLP's Alex Attwood, Jeffrey Donaldson from the
:43:46. > :43:48.DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mike Nesbitt and the
:43:49. > :43:53.Alliance Party's deputy leader, Naomi Long.
:43:54. > :44:00.Welcome to the programme. Naomi, can be clever one thing. Did your party
:44:01. > :44:08.endorse or reject this package? -- can we clear up.
:44:09. > :44:11.We reserved our chance to be highly critical of what was in the
:44:12. > :44:17.document, because people expect from our party that would we are very
:44:18. > :44:20.strong about our future, and honest about our assessment of the package
:44:21. > :44:25.and what it will deliver. We were very honest about that. It was clear
:44:26. > :44:31.listening to Doctor Haass that he interpreted that you rejected the
:44:32. > :44:35.package. That may have been his interpretation, but I was very clear
:44:36. > :44:41.in the room and that is not what we did. The package fell well short of
:44:42. > :44:47.what we had called for, which was an ambitious document that addressed
:44:48. > :44:52.all the issues. In the document, there was no agreement on a flags. I
:44:53. > :44:57.won not stand in the way of the commission and stop us from making
:44:58. > :45:02.progress. In the past, I have agreed with Richard Haass and we have a
:45:03. > :45:07.obligation to move it forward. On parades, I agree with his analysis,
:45:08. > :45:11.some improvements made and a way to go.
:45:12. > :45:15.Richard Haass was clear that the parties who did not sign up to the
:45:16. > :45:21.deal that the parties who did not sign up need to clarify why they did
:45:22. > :45:28.not do so full. Why did the DUP not sign up?
:45:29. > :45:33.We want the best. Where I do agree with Richard Haass is that it has to
:45:34. > :45:41.be good for victims and survivors. He says not signing up is not good.
:45:42. > :45:45.It's quite specific about that. Yes, but I want the best for them, and
:45:46. > :46:05.what is on the table at the moment is not stupid and a even a 90% of
:46:06. > :46:11.people in the right fact that government cannot acknowledge that,
:46:12. > :46:19.by that, in the case still have a ways to go to address what is have
:46:20. > :46:25.in mind of evil is clear in the document that there was something in
:46:26. > :46:34.the document for everyone including Unionists.
:46:35. > :46:42.You failed to clear the bar. It does require compromise. How do
:46:43. > :46:47.you compromise on something as the fact that 90% of the deaths in
:46:48. > :46:54.Northern Ireland were caused by terrorism and Doctor word-mac cannot
:46:55. > :47:02.even -- Doctor Haass cannot even acknowledge that. If he went and
:47:03. > :47:07.talked to the victims of 911 and described the victims of that
:47:08. > :47:12.atrocity but did not include that it was an act of terrorism, he would be
:47:13. > :47:18.chased out of New York. But you are also turning your back
:47:19. > :47:23.on some things that Richard Haass say are good for unionism, that
:47:24. > :47:29.should be what you want. We are not turning our back on
:47:30. > :47:33.anything. We need dialogue to turn the gap. We have made progress in
:47:34. > :47:38.terms of how we would deal with the past. We have made progress on
:47:39. > :47:45.parades. And on flags, we didn't get agreement there. But the opportunity
:47:46. > :47:50.is to take forward a discussion that everyone can getting gauged in.
:47:51. > :47:59.There are positives there. -- can get in gauged in. The DUP is not
:48:00. > :48:06.walking away from the table. -- can become involved in.
:48:07. > :48:15.What is agreed, and what needs to be discussed? All the five parties of
:48:16. > :48:22.the executive wanted Richard Haass to do this. We wanted to be able to
:48:23. > :48:32.do this. He listened to everyone and brought us closely guarded from the
:48:33. > :48:37.outside. -- closely gathered. All the parties were involved. We
:48:38. > :48:42.brought him in. There was a statement from the four churches
:48:43. > :48:48.saying that we should agree to the implication and we have had
:48:49. > :48:56.something that we are glad to hear about. That night it was not clear,
:48:57. > :49:02.but it is very clear now. We have three parties here, we should
:49:03. > :49:09.implement the proposals. She still wants negotiation on other
:49:10. > :49:14.points. Let me be clear. I believe that what is in the document should
:49:15. > :49:19.be implemented, but I worry that when we go to implement on parades,
:49:20. > :49:27.there is no common understanding. We need to close the gap. What Richard
:49:28. > :49:35.Haass has given us is a prescription for more torque, but I do not think
:49:36. > :49:42.it is a good prescription. You are playing with words. Naomi
:49:43. > :49:49.did not say renegotiate. She said let's implement this. Are there
:49:50. > :49:58.difficulties? Yes, there are. He said that 80 or 90% happy with the
:49:59. > :50:01.programme. When you are talking about five parties, if we could all
:50:02. > :50:09.say that, we would be doing very well will stop that was during the
:50:10. > :50:14.process. So a revised position then. He has
:50:15. > :50:19.made that clear. We do have an agreement. Now, the British and
:50:20. > :50:27.Irish governments need to get involved and talk about it in terms
:50:28. > :50:34.of implementing it. They need to say whether they are for or against the
:50:35. > :50:37.agreement. The bottom line is that what you have to do surely is
:50:38. > :50:42.reaching agreement with the Unionists, not with Richard Haass.
:50:43. > :50:49.At the moment, you and Richard Haass are singing of the same song sheet,
:50:50. > :50:52.but the Unionists are not there. The Unionists have to explain why they
:50:53. > :50:57.are not there. I have difficulties with this as well. Even within the
:50:58. > :51:03.British system, within the system they defend, the Welsh language act
:51:04. > :51:06.is protected, the Scottish language act is protected and there seems to
:51:07. > :51:16.be this pathological hatred of Irish. In the hall, this is a
:51:17. > :51:22.document we can move on with. That is what three of the parties are
:51:23. > :51:26.seeing. This is a political agreement. Every single agreement we
:51:27. > :51:30.have had, the biggest difficulty was implementation. We are dealing with
:51:31. > :51:35.three issues which were already dealt with in the Good Friday
:51:36. > :51:44.agreement and the St Andrews Agreement. You said you thought you
:51:45. > :51:51.were 80 or 90% there. Then what changed? I said the ten or 20% not
:51:52. > :52:00.over the line represented serious issues for us. Gerry Kelly is
:52:01. > :52:03.misrepresenting my position. It was an initiative from the First
:52:04. > :52:15.Minister and Deputy First Minister. The other three parties bought into
:52:16. > :52:19.it. Who would not agree to enter into a process that would see better
:52:20. > :52:24.outcomes on these issues? The most important and significant
:52:25. > :52:28.intervention since Richard Haass went home came on Friday when the
:52:29. > :52:35.Irish foreign affairs minister, in response to the -- to the debate on
:52:36. > :52:42.who was responsible for the car bombs, said it was an act of
:52:43. > :52:47.terrorism against innocent victims. If it is good enough for Dublin, why
:52:48. > :53:00.isn't it good enough for bloody Friday in Belfast? The British were
:53:01. > :53:09.involved in that. Was it terrorism? I am not talking about who was
:53:10. > :53:17.responsible. You asked me a question. Terrorism can come from
:53:18. > :53:20.governments as well. Let's move on. Is it worth sinking the entire
:53:21. > :53:25.process which Richard Haass says would be good for everyone in
:53:26. > :53:28.Northern Ireland on the basis of trying to get Jerry Kelly to sign up
:53:29. > :53:38.to your narrative and use of language? It is not my narrative. It
:53:39. > :53:44.is the rule of law. The 2000 Terrorism Act gives a definition of
:53:45. > :53:51.terrorism. I uphold the rule of law. Richard Haass says this would be
:53:52. > :53:55.good for victims and survivors. Many victims and survivors have
:53:56. > :54:05.encouraged me not to go near these proposals. They didn't want it. You
:54:06. > :54:09.are the leader of a political party which represents an awful what of
:54:10. > :54:13.people. Some of them are victims. Are you not have a mandate to take
:54:14. > :54:18.difficult decisions and then explain them to people who support you and
:54:19. > :54:22.don't support you based on the decisions you have taken? That is
:54:23. > :54:26.political leadership. I have agreed with the victims I have spoken to
:54:27. > :54:31.that it was not a good deal because it was airbrushing terrorism out of
:54:32. > :54:35.history. My leadership was to say I would not allow that to happen. You
:54:36. > :54:42.are not undermined by your party Executive? You didn't find the rug
:54:43. > :54:47.pulled from under your feet? A lot of people think that happen. The
:54:48. > :54:51.words of the motion are the words that I wrote. We have some optimism
:54:52. > :54:55.because we have a meeting on Tuesday of the five parties. I think that
:54:56. > :55:00.should happen and it should be a quiet conversation. The big story
:55:01. > :55:04.this week is not the fallout from Haass, it is the fallout from
:55:05. > :55:15.closure of accident and emergency units. You can't pretend that Haass
:55:16. > :55:21.isn't also a huge issue. Let's do it quietly and get on with it the way
:55:22. > :55:27.we are supposed to do, at Stormont. Dealing with the issue of language,
:55:28. > :55:32.Gerry Adams has recently described some IRA activities as murder. I
:55:33. > :55:39.don't have any issue with saying that there was terror imposed on
:55:40. > :55:52.this island by paramilitary organisations. Did this document
:55:53. > :56:03.deliver a possibility for both sides to agree on those issues? Everybody
:56:04. > :56:11.agrees the position of greatest strength in Haass is the proposals
:56:12. > :56:16.that dealt with the past. Mike mentioned the comments made by the
:56:17. > :56:21.minister in Dublin. He also said that his understanding of Haass was
:56:22. > :56:27.the Irish state, if there was a truth and recovery process, would
:56:28. > :56:31.have to give all the information. That demonstrated the Irish
:56:32. > :56:35.government is now thinking about the implementation of Haass. That is
:56:36. > :56:40.something the British government should now think about. Are they
:56:41. > :56:44.prepared to say that when it comes to Haass and its implementation, all
:56:45. > :56:49.British records will be made available. Those are the questions
:56:50. > :56:55.we should be concentrating on, in order that we don't let down the
:56:56. > :56:59.victims and survivors again. They have suffered the most and they
:57:00. > :57:06.deserve the most. What compromises did the SDLP make? Unionists said
:57:07. > :57:09.they were not prepared to make the compromises which were being
:57:10. > :57:16.demanded of them. What did you give up on that was geared to you? We
:57:17. > :57:22.have been loyal defenders of the parades commission. Another is
:57:23. > :57:31.described the parades commission as cheerleaders for sectarianism, the
:57:32. > :57:37.SDLP access it as the rule of law the parades commission. We had
:57:38. > :57:43.conversations with Jeffrey Donaldson that we were prepared to look again
:57:44. > :57:48.at the architecture around parading. But the other parties could not
:57:49. > :57:53.compromise on that important access between rights, responsibility and
:57:54. > :57:59.relationships which was at the core of resolving the dispute on parades.
:58:00. > :58:02.So we did compromise. There are issues in this document were rethink
:58:03. > :58:09.through implementation we can get even better. But do not know put in
:58:10. > :58:12.jeopardy the best chance since 1998 to deal with some of the biggest
:58:13. > :58:18.issues we have never faced up to the four. There has been a lot of
:58:19. > :58:21.discussion over the last ten days about what went wrong and what
:58:22. > :58:28.people couldn't agree on. Let's focus on where we go from here.
:58:29. > :58:33.Naomi Long, is this now down to the two governments? Do we need to see
:58:34. > :58:44.David Cameron and Enda Kenny step in to be more proactive? My reservation
:58:45. > :58:48.about the proposals on flags are that if we couldn't even discuss
:58:49. > :58:53.those issues when they were on the table, how do you take that
:58:54. > :58:57.forward? The governments need to be involved. They are not by
:58:58. > :59:01.standards. They are protagonists in the troubles and the need to be
:59:02. > :59:07.involved. I think we are starting to see some evidence of that happening.
:59:08. > :59:11.I am sceptical about how hands only want to be. Important thing Richard
:59:12. > :59:16.Haass said was that more time will not solve this, it is more of
:59:17. > :59:19.leadership that is required. I don't want the parties to be involved in
:59:20. > :59:24.another process which will be rehashed the last six months. I
:59:25. > :59:33.think the public are tired of our arguments. They want to see
:59:34. > :59:43.delivery. The real progress will be who can deliver these agreements. We
:59:44. > :59:48.cannot resolve this unless we can get some issues off the table. Some
:59:49. > :59:53.parties want to implement what is there and you want to renegotiate
:59:54. > :00:00.what is there. How do court that circle? There isn't agreement. You
:00:01. > :00:12.can't implement something that is not agreed. There needs to be
:00:13. > :00:14.agreement between the five parties. Don't yet have an agreement. For
:00:15. > :00:21.people to talk about implementation when we don't have an agreement is
:00:22. > :00:24.an very best premature. We need to close the gap on whether our areas
:00:25. > :00:30.where there is not agreement. I believe that can be done. Based on
:00:31. > :00:37.the discussions we had during those talks... Jerry Kelly has said he
:00:38. > :00:41.does not except your narrative. I have said there are a series of
:00:42. > :00:47.narratives. One of the things which came out of the Haass talks is an
:00:48. > :00:52.acceptance by all that there is not a single narrative. Unfortunately
:00:53. > :00:59.Mike continually wants to say there is a single narrative. If it is good
:01:00. > :01:06.enough for Aidan Gilmour and Irish government and for Gerry Adams to
:01:07. > :01:11.use the term murder in relation to some of the activities of the IRA,
:01:12. > :01:19.why isn't it good enough for you? I didn't say it wasn't good enough for
:01:20. > :01:25.me. Mike has reduced this down. Terrorism is mentioned in the
:01:26. > :01:29.document. One of the issues is language. We are prepared in all of
:01:30. > :01:34.this to deal with the issue of language. I repeat this again and
:01:35. > :01:45.again. There are a series of narratives. He is confusing
:01:46. > :01:52.narrative and facts. Those car bombs were acts of terrorism. Let's end on
:01:53. > :01:56.looking to the future rather than the past. Give us a timescale for
:01:57. > :02:03.sorting this out. Tuesday will tell a tale. Peter Robinson once a
:02:04. > :02:08.working group to resolve differences. Martin McGuinness once
:02:09. > :02:14.a working group to implement Haass. They have to work jointly and it is
:02:15. > :02:27.up to them to implement this. Will the British government confirm that
:02:28. > :02:34.whatever they are prepared to fund and show leadership, I think that
:02:35. > :02:38.will be a position of strength. Irish government have already shown
:02:39. > :02:43.leadership. We need to leave there. No doubt we will need to return to
:02:44. > :02:48.these important issues in the future.
:02:49. > :02:51.Thank you all very much. I'm joined from London by the Secretary of
:02:52. > :02:59.State, Theresa Villiers. Thank you for joining us and we appreciate
:03:00. > :03:05.your time. The detailed point that was recently made we will come back
:03:06. > :03:09.to in a moment. Has the time now come for the two governments to step
:03:10. > :03:14.up to the plate and take ownership of this issue? Both governments have
:03:15. > :03:19.been supportive and involved from the outset. Before this process was
:03:20. > :03:25.set up, myself, my predecessor and the Prime Minister continually
:03:26. > :03:30.pressed and encouraged the Executive to move forward on a range of issues
:03:31. > :03:34.to help heal sectarian issues. We were delighted when these proposals
:03:35. > :03:39.were published. I thought it was a good idea to have this further
:03:40. > :03:46.process on three of these enormously difficult issues. Throughout, I have
:03:47. > :03:50.worked with the parties in Northern Ireland to support that process and
:03:51. > :03:56.encourage everyone to find a way to move forward on these difficult
:03:57. > :04:00.issues. You deliberately adopted an arms length approach during
:04:01. > :04:06.negotiations. They have failed. If you want to avoid political drift,
:04:07. > :04:12.you need to re-engage ready quickly. I am engaged and will continue to
:04:13. > :04:16.being gauged. I think it is wrong to say that it has failed. Even with
:04:17. > :04:24.the robust discussion you have just had. A lot of the parties are seeing
:04:25. > :04:26.the parties are saying there is a willingness to continue the
:04:27. > :04:30.conversation. What came out from the discussion you have had is that the
:04:31. > :04:35.meeting between party leaders on Tuesday will be very important. That
:04:36. > :04:39.is an opportunity for them to keep this process alive and keep working.
:04:40. > :04:43.I think there is a lot to be said for trying to narrow down the issues
:04:44. > :04:50.of difference between the parties to try to focus on a further discussion
:04:51. > :04:55.to see if we can get this agreement across the line. I suppose my
:04:56. > :05:01.question is, if that something you expect the parties to do on their
:05:02. > :05:04.own in a room around a table? Or are you an Irish government going to
:05:05. > :05:09.help facilitate that discussion? They didn't manage to sort those
:05:10. > :05:14.issues with Richard Haass Meghan O'Sullivan, clearly relations are
:05:15. > :05:22.not good on some issues. A realistic expectation could be that they do
:05:23. > :05:26.that on their own? We are prepared to facilitate, but
:05:27. > :05:32.we will only get a solution if there is a cross-party agreement within
:05:33. > :05:36.Northern Ireland. In many senses, that was the whole point of
:05:37. > :05:41.devolution, so that decisions on crucial issues like this could be
:05:42. > :05:46.made by the people elected by the people of Northern Ireland. Explain
:05:47. > :05:51.what you mean when you say that you want to encourage and facilitate
:05:52. > :05:55.agreement and discussion. What does that mean? Does that mean that you
:05:56. > :05:58.will chat discussions of that is necessary, that she will call them
:05:59. > :06:01.together, or you will sit on the sidelines and let them get on with
:06:02. > :06:11.it on their own? If I was asked to comment cherry
:06:12. > :06:16.process, I would. -- to chair a process. I hope that they will
:06:17. > :06:22.respond to the many comments in Parliament this week when MPs from
:06:23. > :06:27.across the house and size to how important it was to seize this
:06:28. > :06:32.opportunity. I think considerable common ground was built up between
:06:33. > :06:38.the parties, even the parties who cannot accept proposals yet seem
:06:39. > :06:41.willing to continue to have a conversation to try and resolve
:06:42. > :06:46.those outstanding issues. That is the important thing for the party
:06:47. > :06:51.leaders to bear in mind. If those issues were easy to resolve, they
:06:52. > :06:57.would have been fixed years ago. What about Alex Attwood's specific
:06:58. > :07:04.point, are the British Government prepared to fund and implement the
:07:05. > :07:09.Haass proposals? The British Government says that the proposals
:07:10. > :07:12.should largely be funded by the block grant, which we already
:07:13. > :07:19.provide to Northern Ireland. We already provide other funds to the
:07:20. > :07:24.Irish government. If they want to come to the British Government, and
:07:25. > :07:28.ask for more funding, we will consider that seriously, but the
:07:29. > :07:31.deficit that we inherited from the Labour government means that the
:07:32. > :07:39.budget is constrained. I cannot give Alex act would -- Alex Attwood be
:07:40. > :07:43.promised that he asked for, because we think that the funding should
:07:44. > :07:50.already come from the ground that they already get from the executive.
:07:51. > :07:56.I am joined by Alison Morris from the Irish News and Neill clerk from
:07:57. > :08:02.the Belfast Telegraph. That was a very clear answer from Alex
:08:03. > :08:07.Attwood's question. No additional funds at this stage. These
:08:08. > :08:12.potentially expensive bodies would have to be paid from by the block
:08:13. > :08:18.grant. She's did not say no, she said at
:08:19. > :08:21.this stage. There is some room, but it was one thing that was not
:08:22. > :08:28.counted for when they did the Haass negotiations. It was not considered
:08:29. > :08:34.how much it would cost to implement. It was all right not counting the
:08:35. > :08:36.cost during the Good Friday negotiations because Tony Blair was
:08:37. > :08:43.there to foot the bill with the booming economy. Stopping violence
:08:44. > :08:47.is something that the economy should focus on, and it is a bit disturbing
:08:48. > :08:52.that it is not being focused on at the moment, they are focusing on
:08:53. > :08:57.whether or not words like terrorism are included.
:08:58. > :09:01.Is it surprising that it is the language that is dividing people at
:09:02. > :09:07.the moment? You do not get the sense from the
:09:08. > :09:11.two Unionist representatives, they are painting themselves into a
:09:12. > :09:18.corner. It is unlikely that you could get Sinn Fein to agree to the
:09:19. > :09:23.word terrorism. It was said that the people who were acting illegally had
:09:24. > :09:28.to bear the greatest responsibility for the Troubles.
:09:29. > :09:31.We have parties who want to implement and others who want to
:09:32. > :09:35.negotiate. Where did we go from here? It will be very interesting to
:09:36. > :09:42.see the outcome of the leaders meeting. We did find out there was
:09:43. > :09:47.an issue involving the use of language and the word terrorism.
:09:48. > :09:52.When you look at what Haass could have implemented which would have
:09:53. > :09:56.brought relief to the survivors and victims, I think many of them will
:09:57. > :10:00.be disappointed that the issue of language is halting what could give
:10:01. > :10:07.them a recovery process. It is a good example of politics in
:10:08. > :10:10.Northern Ireland, that if it is good for one side the other side you not
:10:11. > :10:15.think it is good for them. Is it that simple? I think that once Sinn
:10:16. > :10:21.Fein agree to it, it is difficult for the DUP to give it to their
:10:22. > :10:26.electorate. People wanted to bring it into the commission and give them
:10:27. > :10:28.an opportunity to get rid of it before the next elections. What they
:10:29. > :10:35.have done is halt that process. We will hear more from you soon. We
:10:36. > :10:46.will look at the political week gone past in 60 seconds.
:10:47. > :10:50.Heavy rain and strong winds brought fears of flooding and there were
:10:51. > :10:56.stormy seas to navigate. The idea that this agreement can keep on
:10:57. > :11:00.being negotiated and sometimes positions will change dramatically
:11:01. > :11:05.and the parties will change dramatically is not realistic.
:11:06. > :11:12.Tributes were paid to Paul Goggins who died on Wednesday. I first met
:11:13. > :11:20.him when he was Northern Ireland Minister, and he was outstanding.
:11:21. > :11:26.There was a major incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital due to a
:11:27. > :11:37.backlog of patients in a Haass. We -- in A Mac. We have had an
:11:38. > :11:41.unreasonable amount of patience. And might we see Richard Haass again?
:11:42. > :11:52.Would you come back if it sorted it out once and for all?
:11:53. > :12:01.The few final thoughts from Alison Morris and Liam Clarke. That laugh
:12:02. > :12:04.was very telling. He is not up for another six months, and I don't know
:12:05. > :12:12.if he would come back. I do get the impression that Richard Haass would
:12:13. > :12:19.intervene again, but not on that long-term basis. Was he ruling
:12:20. > :12:24.himself out about being axed back -- asked back? I do not think there is
:12:25. > :12:30.a point in him coming back. The parties need to agree with each
:12:31. > :12:36.other, not with Doctor Haass. They need to get the Unionist parties on
:12:37. > :12:40.board and the few concerns that the Alliance Party have.
:12:41. > :12:45.Will we ever going to see agreement? They agreed the
:12:46. > :12:50.devolution of policing and justice before an election. It is possible
:12:51. > :12:58.that if the politicians want to do it that it would, but the mood is
:12:59. > :13:02.not very good at the moment, and we have Monday and Tuesday's meeting.
:13:03. > :13:10.What would you be hoping for in that meeting? Any sort of group that is
:13:11. > :13:15.setup is currently seen as a delaying tactic. The concerns have
:13:16. > :13:20.to be met before the election. That way, they can say that they are
:13:21. > :13:24.working on the issues, without committing themselves to anything.
:13:25. > :13:30.And he for joining us on the programme. That is it for today. I
:13:31. > :13:38.will be back tonight. Mont Today. Thank you for joining us. Goodbye.
:13:39. > :13:59.-- for storm want today.