12/01/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Good morning, welcome. 2014 is barely under way, and the

coalition is fighting over cuts. Nick Legg says Tory plans to balance

the books would hit the poorest hardest. He will not say what he

will cut. That is the top story. Chris Grayling called for a

completely new deal with Europe as he battles will rings from the

European Court of Human Rights. He joins me.

Labour promises to shift house-building up a gear, but how

will they house-building up a gear, but how

And coming up here: With the political fall-out

continuing after the Haass talks, we hear live from the five parties who

failed to reach a deal on flags, parades and the past. Join me in

half an hour. parades and the past. Join me in

be serious. Have cuts left to the service being overstretched?

With me for the duration, a top trio of political pundits, Helen Lewis,

Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They will be tweeting faster than France

or long scoots through Paris. Nick Clegg sticks to his New Year

resolution to sock it to the Tories, the is how he described Tory plans

for another 12 billion of cuts on welfare after the next election.

You cannot say, as the Conservatives are, that we are all in it together

and then say that the welfare will not make any additional

contributions from their taxes if there is a Conservative government

after 2015 in the ongoing effort to balance the books. We are not even

going to ask that very wealthy people who have retired who have

benefits, paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a

sacrifice. The Conservatives appear to be saying only the working age

pork will be asked to make additional sacrifices to fill the

remaining buckle in the public finances.

Nick Legg eating up on the Tories a, happens almost every day. I

understand it is called aggressive differentiation. Will it work for

them? It has not for the past two years. This began around the time of

the AV referendum campaign, that is what poisoned the relations between

the parties. They have been trying to differentiation since then, they

are still at barely 10% in the polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings

are horrendous, so I doubt they will do much before the next election. It

is interesting it has been combined with aggressive flirtation with Ed

Balls and the Labour Party. There was always going to be some sort of

rapprochement between them and the Labour Party, it is in the Labour

Party's interests, and it is intent macro's interests, not to be defined

as somebody who can only do deals with the centre-right. A colleague

of yours, Helen, told me there was more talk behind closed doors in the

Labour Party high command, they have to think about winning the election

in terms of being the largest party, but not necessarily an overall

majority. There is a feeling it was foolish before the last election not

to have any thought about what a coalition might be, but the language

has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I cannot deal with this man, but now,

I have to be prismatic, it is about principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick

Clegg had specifically said that Ed Balls was the man in politics that

he hated. He said that was just a joke. Of course, it is about

principles, not people! When Ed Balls said those nice things about

Nick Clegg, he said, I understood the need to get a credible deficit

reduction programme, although he said Nick Clegg went too far. The

thing about Nick Clegg, he feels liberated, he bears the wounds from

the early days of the coalition, and maybe those winds will haunt him all

the way to the general election. But he feels liberated, he says, we will

be the restraining influence on both the Conservatives, who cannot insure

that the recovery is fair, and the Labour Party, that do not have

economic red ability. He feels relaxed, and that is why he is

attacking the Tories and appearing pretty relaxed. He could also be

falling into a trap. The Tories think what they suggesting on

welfare cuts is possible. The more he attacks it, the more Tories will

say, if you gave us an overall majority, he is the one it. He keeps

taking these ostensibly on popular positions and it only makes sense

when you talk to them behind the scenes, they are going after a tiny

slice of the electorate, 20%, who are open to the idea of voting Lib

Dem, and their views are a bit more left liberal than the bulk of the

public. There is a perverse logic in them aggressively targeting that

section of voters. In the end, ten macro's problem, if you do not like

what this coalition has been doing, you will not vote for somebody who

was part of it, you will vote for the Labour Party. The Tories are too

nasty, Labour are to spendthrift, Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has

gone to Labour, and that is what could hand the largest party to

Labour. That small number of voters, soft Tory voters, the problem for

the Liberal Democrats is, if you fight, as they did, three general

elections to the left of the Labour Party, and at the end of the third,

you find yourself in Colour Vision with the Conservatives, you have a

problem. Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has

had to deal with aid riot at HM Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike

and unhappy probation officers taking industrial action.

Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers

and rapists. It makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice.

Traditional Tory policy on criminal justice and prisons has been tough

talking and tough dealing. Not only have they tended to think what they

are offering is right, but have had the feeling, you thinking what they

thinking. But nearly two decades after Michael Howard's message, his

party, in Colour Vision government, is finding prison has to work like

everything else within today's financial realities. The Justice

Secretary for two years after the election had previous in this field.

Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a change of direction. Just binding up

more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change

them is, in my opinion, what you would expect of Victorian England.

The key to keeping people out of prison now, it seems, is giving them

in a job, on release. Ironically, Ken Clarke was released from his job

15 months ago and replaced by Chris Grayling. But here, within HM Prison

Liverpool, Timpson has been working since 2009 with chosen offenders to

offer training and the chance of a job. Before you ask, they do not

teach them keep cutting in a category B prison. The Academy is

deliberately meant to look like a company store, not a prison. It

helps. You forget where you are at times, it feels weird, going back to

a wing at the end of the day. It is different. A different atmosphere.

That is why people like it. Timpson have six academies in prisons,

training prisoners inside, and outside they offer jobs to

ex-offenders, who make up 8% of their staff. It has been hard work

persuading some governors that such cooperation can work. I have seen a

dramatic change positively, working with prisoners, particularly in the

last five years. They understand now what business's expectation is.

Timpson do not just employ offenders, but as one ex-prisoner

released in February and now managing his own store says, the

point is many others will not employ offenders at all. From what I have

experienced, on one hand, you have somebody with a criminal conviction,

on the other, somebody who does not have one, so it is a case of

favouring those who have a clean record. Anybody with a criminal

conviction is passed to one side and overlooked. That, amongst myriad

other changes to prison and how we deal with prisoners, is on the desk

of the man at the top. Ever since Chris Grayling became Secretary of

State for Justice, he has wanted to signal a change of direction of

policy, and he is in a hurry to make radical reforms across the board,

from size and types of prisons to probation services, reoffending

rates, legal aid services, and there has been opposition to that from

groups who do not agree with him. But what might actually shackle him

is none of that. It is the fact that he is in government with a party

that does not always agree with him, he has to abide by the rulings of

the European Court of Human Rights, and in those famous words, there is

no money left. We would like to go further and faster. I would like him

too, but we are where we are. If the Liberal Democrats want to be wiped

out at the next election based on what they believe, that is fair

enough. We accept there has to be savings, but there are areas where

we feel that there is ideological driven policy-making going on, and

privatising may not save any money at all, and so does not make any

sense. The question is, we'll all of that means some of Chris Grayling's

reforms need closer inspection? Chris Grayling joins me now.

Welcome. We have a lot to cover. If you get your way, your own personal

way, will be next Tory manifesto promise to withdraw from the

European Convention of human rights? It will contain a promise

for radical changes. We have to curtail the role of the European

court here, replace our human rights act from the late 1990s, make our

Supreme Court our Supreme Court, they can be no question of decisions

over riding it elsewhere, and we have to have a situation where our

laws contain a balance of rights and responsibilities. People talk about

knowing their rights, but they do not accept they have responsible it

is. This is what you said last September, I want to see our Supreme

Court being supreme again... That is clear, but let's be honest, the

Supreme Court cannot be supreme as long as its decisions can be

referred to the European Court in Strasbourg. There is clearly an

issue, that was raised recency -- recently. We have been working on a

detailed reform plan, we will publish that in the not too distant

future. What we will set out is a direction of travel for a new

Conservative government that will mean wholesale change in this area.

You already tried to reform the European Court, who had this

declaration in 2012, do you accept that the reform is off the table?

There is still a process of reform, but it is not going fast enough and

not delivering the kind of change we need. That is why we will bring

forward a package that for the different from that and will set a

different direction of travel. We are clear across the coalition, we

have a different view from our colleagues. You cannot be half

pregnant on this, either our decisions from our Supreme Court are

subject to the European Cup or not, in which case, we are not part of

the European court. I hope you will see from our proposals we have come

up with a sensible strategy that deals with this issue once and for

all. Can we be part of the Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme

Court be supreme? That is by point, we have to curtail the role of the

court in the UK. I am clear that is what we will seek to do. It is what

we will do for this country. But how? I am not going to announce the

package of policies today, but we will go into the next election with

a clear strategy that will curtail the role of the European Court of

Human Rights in the UK. The decisions have to be taken in

Parliament in this country. Are you sure that you have got your own side

on this? Look at what the Attorney General says.

I would be asking Strasberg a different question to that. If the

best in class, he is saying is enough is enough, actually somebody

in Strasberg should be asking if this has gone the way it should have

done. I would love to see wholesale reform in the court tomorrow, I'm

not sure it is going to happen which is why we are going to the election

with a clear plan for this country. Would you want that to be a red line

in any coalition agreement? My mission is to win the next election

with a majority. But you have to say where your red lines would be. We

have been very clear it is an area where we don't agree as parties, but

in my view the public in this country are overwhelmingly behind

the Conservative party. 95 Conservative MPs have written to the

Prime Minister, demanding he gives the House of Commons the authority

to veto any aspect of European Union law. Are you one of the people who

wanted to sign that letter but you couldn't because you are minister? I

haven't been asked to sign the letter. We need a red card system

for European law. I'm not convinced my colleagues... I don't think it is

realistic to have a situation where one parliament can veto laws across

the European Union. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but when

we set out to renegotiate our membership, we have got to deliver

renegotiation and deliver a system which is viable, and I'm not

convinced we can have a situation where one Parliament can prevent

laws across the whole European Union. So you wouldn't have signed

this letter? I'm not sure it is the right approach. I support the system

I just talked about. Iain Duncan Smith has suggested EU migrants

coming to work in this country should have to wait for two years

before they qualify for welfare benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think

there should be an assumption that before you can move from one country

to another, before you can start to take back from that country's social

welfare system, you should have made a contribution to it. I spent two

and a half years working in Brussels trying to get the European

Commission to accept the need for change. There is a groundswell of

opinion out there which is behind Iain Duncan Smith in what he is

saying. I think we should push for a clear system that says people should

be able to move from one country to get a job, but to move to another

country to live off the state is not acceptable. You are planning a new

2000 capacity mega prison and other smaller presence which will be run

by private firms. After what has happened with G4S, why would you do

that? No decision has been made about whether it will be public or

private. What do you think it will be? I'm not sure yet. There is no

clear correlation over public and private prisons and whether there

are problems or otherwise. Oakwood is in its early stages, it has had

teething problems at the start, but the rate of disturbance there is

only typical for an average prison of its category. If you take an

example of Parc prison in Wales, a big private run prison, run by G4S,

when it was first launched under the last government it had teething

problems of the same kind as Oakwood and is now regarded as one of the

best performing prisons. Why would you give it to a private company

then? We have only just got planning permission for the so we will not be

thinking about this for another few years. Some of the companies who run

prisons are under investigation with dreadful track records. In the case

of G4S, what we have experienced is acceptable and they have not been

able to go ahead with a number of contracts they might have otherwise

got. They are having to prove to the Government they are fit to win

contracts from the Government again. They are having to pay compensation

to the Government and the taxpayer. What has happened is unacceptable.

So why would you give them a 2000 capacity mega prison? Or anyone like

them? It cannot be said that every private company is bad. In addition

to problems at Oakwood, you are quite unique now in your position

that you have managed to get the barristers out on strike the first

time since history began. What happens if the bar refuses to do

work at your new rates of legal aid and the courts grind to a halt? I

don't believe that will happen. When the barristers came out on strike,

three quarters of Crown Courts were operating normally, 95% of

magistrates courts were operating normally. We are having to take

difficult decisions across government, I have no desire to cut

back lately but we are spending over ?2 billion on legal aid at the

moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued

misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of

them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including

VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their

own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing

this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats

in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,

where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried

hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the

income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100,000?

I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like

travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for

travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of

figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross

figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even

a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need

well-financed legal aid? There is no chance that as a result

well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court

unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,

if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no

question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge,

where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so

many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the

figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty, not

jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures

predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail

has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,

you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where

everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will

often decided to his more appropriate to give a community

sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people

going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail

if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal

avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his

name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That

is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn

we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As

of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the

same offence twice within a two-year period you will go to court. You

still might end up not going to jail. More and more people are going

to jail. I cannot just magic another 34,000 prison places. You haven't

got room to put bad people in jail? The courts will take the decisions,

and it is for them to take the decisions and not me, that two men

in a bar fight do not merit a jail sentence. These figures contain a

huge amount of offences from the most minor of offences to the most

despicable. Something is wrong if you can commit 300 offences and

still not end up in jail. That's right, and we are taking steps so

this cannot happen any more. Nick Clegg said this morning you are

going to make 12 billion of welfare cuts on the back of this, he is

right, isn't he? People on the lowest incomes are often not paying

tax at all, the rich... But these cuts will fall disproportionately on

average earners, correct? Let's look at the proposal to limit housing

benefit for under 25s. Until today, after people have left school or

college, the live for a time with their parents. For some, that is not

possible and we will have to take that into account, but we have said

there is a strong case for saying you will not get housing benefit

until you are some years down the road and have properly established

yourselves in work. And by definition these people are on lower

than average salaries. Give me a case in which those on the higher

tax band will contribute to the cuts. We have already put in place

tax changes so that the highest tax rate is already higher than it was

in every year of the last government. The amount of tax...

There is no more expected of the rich. We will clearly look at future

policy and work out how best to distribute the tax burden in this

country and it is not for me to second-guess George Osborne's future

plans, but we need to look at for example housing benefit for the

under 25s. Is it right for those who are not working for the state to

provide accommodation for them? Thank you for being with us.

All three major parties at Westminster agree there's an urgent

need to build more homes for Britain's growing population. But

how they get built, and where, looks set to become a major battle ground

in the run-up to the next general election.

Although 16% more house-builds were started in 2012/13 than the previous

year, the number actually completed fell by 8% - the lowest level in

peacetime since 1920. The Office for National Statistics estimates that

between now and 2021 we should expect 220,000 new households to be

created every year. At his party's conference last autumn, Ed Miliband

promised a Labour government would massively increase house-building. I

will have a clear aim but by the end of the parliament, Britain will be

building 200,000 homes per year, more than at any time for a

generation. That is how we make Britain better than this. The Labour

leader also says he'd give urban councils a "right to grow" so rural

neighbours can't block expansion and force developers with unused land to

use it or lose it. The Government has been pursuing its own ideas,

including loan guarantees for developers and a new homes bonus to

boost new house-building. But David Cameron could have trouble keeping

his supporters on side - this week the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi

criticised planning reforms for causing "physical harm" to the

countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile prefers a radical solution - brand

new garden cities in the south east of England. In a speech tomorrow,

Labour's shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will give more details

of how Labour would boost house-building, and she joins me

now. It is not the politicians to blame, it is the lack of

house-builders? We want a vibrant building industry, and at the moment

that industry is dominated by big house-builders. I want to see a more

diverse and competitive industry, where self build plays a greater

role. In France over 60% of new homes are built by self builders,

but small builders build more homes as well. 25 years ago they were

building two thirds of new homes, now they are not building even a

third of new homes. That's because land policies have been so

restrictive that it is only the big companies who can afford to buy the

land, so little land is being released for house building. I

agree, there are some fundamental structural problems with the land

market and that is why we have said there doesn't just need to be

tinkering around the edges, there needs to be real reforms to make

sure that small builders and self build and custom-built have access

to land. They are saying they have problems with access to land and

finance. At the end of the day it will not be self, small builders who

reach your target, it will be big builders. I think it is pretty

shameful that in Western Europe the new houses built in the UK are

smaller than our neighbours. But isn't not the land problem? France

is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and we are and that is not a problem for

them. There is a perception we are going to build on the countryside,

but not even 10% is on the countryside. There is enough for us

to have our golf courses. There is enough other land for us to build on

that is not golf courses. The planning minister has said he wants

to build our National Parks, I am not suggesting that. The single

biggest land border is the public sector. It is not. There are great

opportunities for releasing public land, that is why I have been asking

the government, they say they are going to release and of public land

for tens of thousands of new homes to be built, but they say they are

not monitoring how many houses are being built on the site. When your

leader says to landowners, housing development owners, either use the

land or lose it, in what way will they lose it? Will you confiscated?

This is about strengthening the hand of local authorities, and they say

to us that in some cases, house-builders are sitting on land.

In those cases, we would give the power to local authorities to

escalate fees. This would be the compulsory purchase orders, a matter

of last resort, and you would hope that by strengthening the hand of

local authorities, you could get the house-builders to start building the

homes that people want. Would you compulsory purchase it? We would

give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,

the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase

orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build

houses that we need. Can you name one report that has come back in

recent years that shows that hoarding of land by house-builders

is a major problem? The IMF, the Conservative mayor of London and the

Local Government Association are telling us that there is a problem

with land hoarding. Therefore, we have said, where there is land with

planning permission, and if plots are being sat on... Boris Johnson

says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make

says there are 180,000 plots in London being sat on. We need to make

sure the house-builders are building the homes that young families need.

They get planning permission and sell it on to the developer. There

is a whole degree of complicity, but there is another problem before

that. That is around transparency about land options. There is

agricultural land that house-builders have land options on,

and we do not know where that is. Where there is a need for housing,

and the biggest demand is in the south-east of England, that is where

many local authorities are most reluctant to do it, will you in

central government take powers to force these authorities to give it?

We have talked about the right to grow, we were in Stevenage

recently. What we have said is we want to strengthen the hand of local

authorities like Stevenage so they are not blocked every step of the

way. They need 16,000 new homes, but they do not have the land supply.

What about the authorities that do not want to do it? They should be

forced to sit down and agree with the neighbouring authority. In

Stevenage, it is estimated at ?500,000 has been spent on legal

fees because North Hertfordshire is blocking Stevenage every step of the

way. Michael Lyons says the national interest will have to take President

over local interest. Voice cannot mean a veto. The local community in

Stevenage is crying out for new homes. Do you agree? There has to be

land available for new homes to be built, and in areas like Oxford,

Luton and Stevenage... Do you agree with Michael Lyons? The national

interest does have to be served, with Michael Lyons? The national

will put the five new towns? We have asked him to look at how we can

incentivise local authorities to come forward with sites for new

towns. You cannot tell us where they are going to be? I cannot. We will

have to wait for him. When you look at the historic figures overall, not

at the moment, Private Housing building is only just beginning to

recover, but it has been pretty steady for a while. The big

difference between house-building now and in the past, since Mrs

Thatcher came to power a and including the Tony Blair government,

we did not build council houses. Almost none. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We inherited housing

stock back in 1997... This is important. Will the next Labour

government embark on a major council has programme? We have called on

this government to bring forward investment in social housing. We

want to see an investment programme in social housing, I cannot give you

the figures now. We are 18 months away from the election. Will the

next Labour government embark on a major council house Northern

programme? I want to see a council house building programme, because

there is a big shortage of council homes. That is a guess? Yes. We got

there in the end. -- that is a yes? We will be talking to Patrick homes

in the West Midlands Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. It was a good deal, says Richard

Haass, so why could our politicians not reach an agreement at the end of

their marathon talks process? We've got the five parties gathered

together to find out what stopped them getting a deal across the

finish line. And we talk to the Secretary of

State to find out if she can do anything at this stage to secure

consensus on the key points. And despite the gloom, what brought

about this reaction from Richard Haass?

Find out later in our week in 60 Seconds.

A lost opportunity or a firm foundation to build on? What are we

to make of the Haass proposals now that he's gone home, amid

disagreement and retribution? Sinn Fein and the SDLP have backed the

package, the two unionist parties haven't, while Alliance is

supportive of some proposals but very unhappy with others. In a

moment, I'll be talking to representatives of the five main

parties, but first our correspondent, Martina Purdy,

examines the political drama over the latest proposals to tackle

flags, parades and the past. Richard Haass, you are very welcome.

This is a very serious attempt to find a solution. I would not be here

unless that. I believe that the process is on life support.

Some commentators have displayed -- declared the Haass process dead, and

are already on the postmortem. We have a process that runs for many

years, and are too many issues needing to be solved. Even one of

those issues being resolved would have been a miracle, but expecting

three of the issues to be done in that time frame was a nonsense right

the start. Others have a more optimistic prognosis. I think there

is still life there. The emphasis is on the local parties to find a

remedy to the problems in the process. That requires all of them

to buy in. Whether that means that there will be discussions or

full-scale negotiations, we are yet to see.

In the meantime, the drama can be excruciating. Some parties seem to

be re-trench in now. It sends a bad example out internationally. It is

embarrassing to explain this to my colleagues. On the back of the

conference that we did a few months ago, will we are now having to say

that we cannot get our act together, and that sends a bad message. Since

the talks have ended, Unionists have complained about the process. There

is a code of conduct, and they say that the balance is against the

state forces and do not like the fact that the word terrorist is not

in the tech will stop Richard Haass is saying that it is unrealistic to

expect everything that you want in negotiations.

I do not understand why anyone would ink that is not moving ahead would

be preferable. I think it is unfair to the victims and survivors who

deserve better full is. I think it is very bad for Northern Ireland.

Republicans want Haass indicated, not more negotiations, but are being

urged to return to the table with Unionists. If there is a consensus

to spend some time ironing out the issues, fine. You want to avoid

where basic issues are opened up and renegotiation is an excuse not to go

ahead and stop that will become apparent soon enough.

Some expect that the DUP call for more talks is about buying more

time. People are concerned about the electoral advantage, and the whole

next year. They have their eye on that prize,

and they would love to win East Belfast back. The problem for the

DUP is the extent to which there are Dale tales wagging on that dog, and

the concern about the feeling in the heartland areas and whether that

will cause electoral damage. Even loyalists believe the Haass

proposals for a much-needed examination of victims issues. All

is not lost stop we try to get what we thought were reasonable

suggestions. Someone listen to and not. But we do

feel that there is an opportunity to move forward. Martin McGuinness is

that there is a destructive elements who do not want to move on. That is

a bit rich. If I'm not mistaken, Martin McGuinness is one of the

people 's will for what happens in the past, one of the people

responsible. Some warned about division, and street violence like

this unless it on flags. I think there will be more

negativity, more disillusionment and cynicism. Probably that will end up

in Wall Street having more tensions involved. -- many street. I worried

that the two Divinity School parts. And there are economic consequence

is. -- the two communities grow apart stop some of the things are

happening near our office is, so it is obvious that people are

concerned. It is regrettable, to say the least

stop church leaders have urged our politicians not to give up.

As politicians are due to meet next week, one of the options is to

implement Haass in stages. Well joining me now are Sinn Fein's

Gerry Kelly, the SDLP's Alex Attwood, Jeffrey Donaldson from the

DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mike Nesbitt and the

Alliance Party's deputy leader, Naomi Long.

Welcome to the programme. Naomi, can be clever one thing. Did your party

endorse or reject this package? -- can we clear up.

We reserved our chance to be highly critical of what was in the

document, because people expect from our party that would we are very

strong about our future, and honest about our assessment of the package

and what it will deliver. We were very honest about that. It was clear

listening to Doctor Haass that he interpreted that you rejected the

package. That may have been his interpretation, but I was very clear

in the room and that is not what we did. The package fell well short of

what we had called for, which was an ambitious document that addressed

all the issues. In the document, there was no agreement on a flags. I

won not stand in the way of the commission and stop us from making

progress. In the past, I have agreed with Richard Haass and we have a

obligation to move it forward. On parades, I agree with his analysis,

some improvements made and a way to go.

Richard Haass was clear that the parties who did not sign up to the

deal that the parties who did not sign up need to clarify why they did

not do so full. Why did the DUP not sign up?

We want the best. Where I do agree with Richard Haass is that it has to

be good for victims and survivors. He says not signing up is not good.

It's quite specific about that. Yes, but I want the best for them, and

what is on the table at the moment is not stupid and a even a 90% of

people in the right fact that government cannot acknowledge that,

by that, in the case still have a ways to go to address what is have

in mind of evil is clear in the document that there was something in

the document for everyone including Unionists.

You failed to clear the bar. It does require compromise. How do

you compromise on something as the fact that 90% of the deaths in

Northern Ireland were caused by terrorism and Doctor word-mac cannot

even -- Doctor Haass cannot even acknowledge that. If he went and

talked to the victims of 911 and described the victims of that

atrocity but did not include that it was an act of terrorism, he would be

chased out of New York. But you are also turning your back

on some things that Richard Haass say are good for unionism, that

should be what you want. We are not turning our back on

anything. We need dialogue to turn the gap. We have made progress in

terms of how we would deal with the past. We have made progress on

parades. And on flags, we didn't get agreement there. But the opportunity

is to take forward a discussion that everyone can getting gauged in.

There are positives there. -- can get in gauged in. The DUP is not

walking away from the table. -- can become involved in.

What is agreed, and what needs to be discussed? All the five parties of

the executive wanted Richard Haass to do this. We wanted to be able to

do this. He listened to everyone and brought us closely guarded from the

outside. -- closely gathered. All the parties were involved. We

brought him in. There was a statement from the four churches

saying that we should agree to the implication and we have had

something that we are glad to hear about. That night it was not clear,

but it is very clear now. We have three parties here, we should

implement the proposals. She still wants negotiation on other

points. Let me be clear. I believe that what is in the document should

be implemented, but I worry that when we go to implement on parades,

there is no common understanding. We need to close the gap. What Richard

Haass has given us is a prescription for more torque, but I do not think

it is a good prescription. You are playing with words. Naomi

did not say renegotiate. She said let's implement this. Are there

difficulties? Yes, there are. He said that 80 or 90% happy with the

programme. When you are talking about five parties, if we could all

say that, we would be doing very well will stop that was during the

process. So a revised position then. He has

made that clear. We do have an agreement. Now, the British and

Irish governments need to get involved and talk about it in terms

of implementing it. They need to say whether they are for or against the

agreement. The bottom line is that what you have to do surely is

reaching agreement with the Unionists, not with Richard Haass.

At the moment, you and Richard Haass are singing of the same song sheet,

but the Unionists are not there. The Unionists have to explain why they

are not there. I have difficulties with this as well. Even within the

British system, within the system they defend, the Welsh language act

is protected, the Scottish language act is protected and there seems to

be this pathological hatred of Irish. In the hall, this is a

document we can move on with. That is what three of the parties are

seeing. This is a political agreement. Every single agreement we

have had, the biggest difficulty was implementation. We are dealing with

three issues which were already dealt with in the Good Friday

agreement and the St Andrews Agreement. You said you thought you

were 80 or 90% there. Then what changed? I said the ten or 20% not

over the line represented serious issues for us. Gerry Kelly is

misrepresenting my position. It was an initiative from the First

Minister and Deputy First Minister. The other three parties bought into

it. Who would not agree to enter into a process that would see better

outcomes on these issues? The most important and significant

intervention since Richard Haass went home came on Friday when the

Irish foreign affairs minister, in response to the -- to the debate on

who was responsible for the car bombs, said it was an act of

terrorism against innocent victims. If it is good enough for Dublin, why

isn't it good enough for bloody Friday in Belfast? The British were

involved in that. Was it terrorism? I am not talking about who was

responsible. You asked me a question. Terrorism can come from

governments as well. Let's move on. Is it worth sinking the entire

process which Richard Haass says would be good for everyone in

Northern Ireland on the basis of trying to get Jerry Kelly to sign up

to your narrative and use of language? It is not my narrative. It

is the rule of law. The 2000 Terrorism Act gives a definition of

terrorism. I uphold the rule of law. Richard Haass says this would be

good for victims and survivors. Many victims and survivors have

encouraged me not to go near these proposals. They didn't want it. You

are the leader of a political party which represents an awful what of

people. Some of them are victims. Are you not have a mandate to take

difficult decisions and then explain them to people who support you and

don't support you based on the decisions you have taken? That is

political leadership. I have agreed with the victims I have spoken to

that it was not a good deal because it was airbrushing terrorism out of

history. My leadership was to say I would not allow that to happen. You

are not undermined by your party Executive? You didn't find the rug

pulled from under your feet? A lot of people think that happen. The

words of the motion are the words that I wrote. We have some optimism

because we have a meeting on Tuesday of the five parties. I think that

should happen and it should be a quiet conversation. The big story

this week is not the fallout from Haass, it is the fallout from

closure of accident and emergency units. You can't pretend that Haass

isn't also a huge issue. Let's do it quietly and get on with it the way

we are supposed to do, at Stormont. Dealing with the issue of language,

Gerry Adams has recently described some IRA activities as murder. I

don't have any issue with saying that there was terror imposed on

this island by paramilitary organisations. Did this document

deliver a possibility for both sides to agree on those issues? Everybody

agrees the position of greatest strength in Haass is the proposals

that dealt with the past. Mike mentioned the comments made by the

minister in Dublin. He also said that his understanding of Haass was

the Irish state, if there was a truth and recovery process, would

have to give all the information. That demonstrated the Irish

government is now thinking about the implementation of Haass. That is

something the British government should now think about. Are they

prepared to say that when it comes to Haass and its implementation, all

British records will be made available. Those are the questions

we should be concentrating on, in order that we don't let down the

victims and survivors again. They have suffered the most and they

deserve the most. What compromises did the SDLP make? Unionists said

they were not prepared to make the compromises which were being

demanded of them. What did you give up on that was geared to you? We

have been loyal defenders of the parades commission. Another is

described the parades commission as cheerleaders for sectarianism, the

SDLP access it as the rule of law the parades commission. We had

conversations with Jeffrey Donaldson that we were prepared to look again

at the architecture around parading. But the other parties could not

compromise on that important access between rights, responsibility and

relationships which was at the core of resolving the dispute on parades.

So we did compromise. There are issues in this document were rethink

through implementation we can get even better. But do not know put in

jeopardy the best chance since 1998 to deal with some of the biggest

issues we have never faced up to the four. There has been a lot of

discussion over the last ten days about what went wrong and what

people couldn't agree on. Let's focus on where we go from here.

Naomi Long, is this now down to the two governments? Do we need to see

David Cameron and Enda Kenny step in to be more proactive? My reservation

about the proposals on flags are that if we couldn't even discuss

those issues when they were on the table, how do you take that

forward? The governments need to be involved. They are not by

standards. They are protagonists in the troubles and the need to be

involved. I think we are starting to see some evidence of that happening.

I am sceptical about how hands only want to be. Important thing Richard

Haass said was that more time will not solve this, it is more of

leadership that is required. I don't want the parties to be involved in

another process which will be rehashed the last six months. I

think the public are tired of our arguments. They want to see

delivery. The real progress will be who can deliver these agreements. We

cannot resolve this unless we can get some issues off the table. Some

parties want to implement what is there and you want to renegotiate

what is there. How do court that circle? There isn't agreement. You

can't implement something that is not agreed. There needs to be

agreement between the five parties. Don't yet have an agreement. For

people to talk about implementation when we don't have an agreement is

an very best premature. We need to close the gap on whether our areas

where there is not agreement. I believe that can be done. Based on

the discussions we had during those talks... Jerry Kelly has said he

does not except your narrative. I have said there are a series of

narratives. One of the things which came out of the Haass talks is an

acceptance by all that there is not a single narrative. Unfortunately

Mike continually wants to say there is a single narrative. If it is good

enough for Aidan Gilmour and Irish government and for Gerry Adams to

use the term murder in relation to some of the activities of the IRA,

why isn't it good enough for you? I didn't say it wasn't good enough for

me. Mike has reduced this down. Terrorism is mentioned in the

document. One of the issues is language. We are prepared in all of

this to deal with the issue of language. I repeat this again and

again. There are a series of narratives. He is confusing

narrative and facts. Those car bombs were acts of terrorism. Let's end on

looking to the future rather than the past. Give us a timescale for

sorting this out. Tuesday will tell a tale. Peter Robinson once a

working group to resolve differences. Martin McGuinness once

a working group to implement Haass. They have to work jointly and it is

up to them to implement this. Will the British government confirm that

whatever they are prepared to fund and show leadership, I think that

will be a position of strength. Irish government have already shown

leadership. We need to leave there. No doubt we will need to return to

these important issues in the future.

Thank you all very much. I'm joined from London by the Secretary of

State, Theresa Villiers. Thank you for joining us and we appreciate

your time. The detailed point that was recently made we will come back

to in a moment. Has the time now come for the two governments to step

up to the plate and take ownership of this issue? Both governments have

been supportive and involved from the outset. Before this process was

set up, myself, my predecessor and the Prime Minister continually

pressed and encouraged the Executive to move forward on a range of issues

to help heal sectarian issues. We were delighted when these proposals

were published. I thought it was a good idea to have this further

process on three of these enormously difficult issues. Throughout, I have

worked with the parties in Northern Ireland to support that process and

encourage everyone to find a way to move forward on these difficult

issues. You deliberately adopted an arms length approach during

negotiations. They have failed. If you want to avoid political drift,

you need to re-engage ready quickly. I am engaged and will continue to

being gauged. I think it is wrong to say that it has failed. Even with

the robust discussion you have just had. A lot of the parties are seeing

the parties are saying there is a willingness to continue the

conversation. What came out from the discussion you have had is that the

meeting between party leaders on Tuesday will be very important. That

is an opportunity for them to keep this process alive and keep working.

I think there is a lot to be said for trying to narrow down the issues

of difference between the parties to try to focus on a further discussion

to see if we can get this agreement across the line. I suppose my

question is, if that something you expect the parties to do on their

own in a room around a table? Or are you an Irish government going to

help facilitate that discussion? They didn't manage to sort those

issues with Richard Haass Meghan O'Sullivan, clearly relations are

not good on some issues. A realistic expectation could be that they do

that on their own? We are prepared to facilitate, but

we will only get a solution if there is a cross-party agreement within

Northern Ireland. In many senses, that was the whole point of

devolution, so that decisions on crucial issues like this could be

made by the people elected by the people of Northern Ireland. Explain

what you mean when you say that you want to encourage and facilitate

agreement and discussion. What does that mean? Does that mean that you

will chat discussions of that is necessary, that she will call them

together, or you will sit on the sidelines and let them get on with

it on their own? If I was asked to comment cherry

process, I would. -- to chair a process. I hope that they will

respond to the many comments in Parliament this week when MPs from

across the house and size to how important it was to seize this

opportunity. I think considerable common ground was built up between

the parties, even the parties who cannot accept proposals yet seem

willing to continue to have a conversation to try and resolve

those outstanding issues. That is the important thing for the party

leaders to bear in mind. If those issues were easy to resolve, they

would have been fixed years ago. What about Alex Attwood's specific

point, are the British Government prepared to fund and implement the

Haass proposals? The British Government says that the proposals

should largely be funded by the block grant, which we already

provide to Northern Ireland. We already provide other funds to the

Irish government. If they want to come to the British Government, and

ask for more funding, we will consider that seriously, but the

deficit that we inherited from the Labour government means that the

budget is constrained. I cannot give Alex act would -- Alex Attwood be

promised that he asked for, because we think that the funding should

already come from the ground that they already get from the executive.

I am joined by Alison Morris from the Irish News and Neill clerk from

the Belfast Telegraph. That was a very clear answer from Alex

Attwood's question. No additional funds at this stage. These

potentially expensive bodies would have to be paid from by the block

grant. She's did not say no, she said at

this stage. There is some room, but it was one thing that was not

counted for when they did the Haass negotiations. It was not considered

how much it would cost to implement. It was all right not counting the

cost during the Good Friday negotiations because Tony Blair was

there to foot the bill with the booming economy. Stopping violence

is something that the economy should focus on, and it is a bit disturbing

that it is not being focused on at the moment, they are focusing on

whether or not words like terrorism are included.

Is it surprising that it is the language that is dividing people at

the moment? You do not get the sense from the

two Unionist representatives, they are painting themselves into a

corner. It is unlikely that you could get Sinn Fein to agree to the

word terrorism. It was said that the people who were acting illegally had

to bear the greatest responsibility for the Troubles.

We have parties who want to implement and others who want to

negotiate. Where did we go from here? It will be very interesting to

see the outcome of the leaders meeting. We did find out there was

an issue involving the use of language and the word terrorism.

When you look at what Haass could have implemented which would have

brought relief to the survivors and victims, I think many of them will

be disappointed that the issue of language is halting what could give

them a recovery process. It is a good example of politics in

Northern Ireland, that if it is good for one side the other side you not

think it is good for them. Is it that simple? I think that once Sinn

Fein agree to it, it is difficult for the DUP to give it to their

electorate. People wanted to bring it into the commission and give them

an opportunity to get rid of it before the next elections. What they

have done is halt that process. We will hear more from you soon. We

will look at the political week gone past in 60 seconds.

Heavy rain and strong winds brought fears of flooding and there were

stormy seas to navigate. The idea that this agreement can keep on

being negotiated and sometimes positions will change dramatically

and the parties will change dramatically is not realistic.

Tributes were paid to Paul Goggins who died on Wednesday. I first met

him when he was Northern Ireland Minister, and he was outstanding.

There was a major incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital due to a

backlog of patients in a Haass. We -- in A Mac. We have had an

unreasonable amount of patience. And might we see Richard Haass again?

Would you come back if it sorted it out once and for all?

The few final thoughts from Alison Morris and Liam Clarke. That laugh

was very telling. He is not up for another six months, and I don't know

if he would come back. I do get the impression that Richard Haass would

intervene again, but not on that long-term basis. Was he ruling

himself out about being axed back -- asked back? I do not think there is

a point in him coming back. The parties need to agree with each

other, not with Doctor Haass. They need to get the Unionist parties on

board and the few concerns that the Alliance Party have.

Will we ever going to see agreement? They agreed the

devolution of policing and justice before an election. It is possible

that if the politicians want to do it that it would, but the mood is

not very good at the moment, and we have Monday and Tuesday's meeting.

What would you be hoping for in that meeting? Any sort of group that is

setup is currently seen as a delaying tactic. The concerns have

to be met before the election. That way, they can say that they are

working on the issues, without committing themselves to anything.

And he for joining us on the programme. That is it for today. I

will be back tonight. Mont Today. Thank you for joining us. Goodbye.

-- for storm want today.