13/12/2015 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

After suggestions that David Cameron was diluting his EU negotiation

demands, Downing Street insists he's still pushing for curbs

But is there any evidence that the rest of Europe is listening?

Jeremy Corbyn says Stop The War is "one of the most important

democratic campaigns of modern times".

And why all the fuss that he went to its Christmas fund-raiser?

Yvette Cooper - one-time Labour leadership contender -

And coming up here... for refugees and migrants

As the political wrangling continues over legacy,

we'll hear the thoughts of the Victims' Commissioner.

And could Stormont be about to tax sugary drinks?

And with me for this final Sunday Politics of 2015,

Tom Newton Dunn of The Sun, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman

and Sam Coates of The Times - the Dasher, Dancer and Prancer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Downing Street insists that David Cameron will still push

for curbs on in-work benefits for EU migrants in the UK,

despite earlier briefings to the contrary.

The Prime Minister will head to a crucial summit later this week

to make his case for a reformed British relationship with the EU.

However, several newspapers, citing official guidance,

report that Mr Cameron has failed to convince other European leaders

and is already preparing a fallback to replace his original demand

for a four-year wait for in-work benefits.

The Sunday Times headline says "Prime Minister 'caves in'

The Sunday Telegraph describes it as "Cameron's climbdown

And the Independent on Sunday goes for the same metaphor,

describing it as "Cameron's big EU climbdown".

Let's speak now to Conservative MP Peter Lilley.

He was a Cabinet minister in the Conservative governments

of both Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister is thought by many of your

colleagues not to be asking for a lot, yet he might not even get what

he's asking for. Could he sell a watered-down deal to his party? It

is more a question of whether he can sell whatever comes out of it to the

country. There are lots of Labour MPs who want to see democratic

powers returned to this country from the European institutions. That's

the key issue as far as I'm concerned. He will clearly get some

things because a lot of this has been pre-negotiated, so he will get

something to say about removing the phrase ever closer union, something

to do with benefits, even if actually it is something we could do

anyway ourselves, like apply a four-year wait to British citizens

as well as foreigners. There will be something, the question is will it

be substantial? Will it include a return of powers to this country to

govern itself? What major powers is he asking to be repatriated?

Publicly, there doesn't seem to be anything on the list, unless some

change in relation to free movement of Labour is somewhere up his

sleeve. I do occasionally hear rumours that he will come back with

some genuine return of powers, and if he does I will be dancing on the

rooftops. We have no evidence that's even part of the negotiation. That

is certainly disappointing, it is rather a strange strategy not to ask

for the principal thing we want and yet still hope to get it. Because we

have, over a series of treaties which David Cameron and I voted

against, conceded a whole lot of powers to Europe beyond what is

necessary. The trading area requires some common lawmaking, but beyond

that we concede a lot of powers. We would like to start the process of

getting those powers back. If we cannot, we will be on a slippery

slope to creating a single state. The reason we are in the position we

are, having to renegotiate, is that the countries of the eurozone are on

the road to creating a single state. There's never been a currency

without a single state to run it. They are forced, because they have

created this currency, without a government to make it work. The

question is can we be outside that process, can removing the opposite

direction and get powers back, or will we be sucked on the slipstream?

If we cannot overcome the two doctrines of Europe that everybody

is heading in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, and

powers can only ever go to the central institutions and never come

back to the States, if we cannot break those two doctrines as far as

Britain is concerned, he will not really have achieved anything. I

understand all of that. A quick final question, if he comes back

with even less than he's asking for, would you vote to leave? If he

doesn't come back with some increase in power to ourselves, I feel for

the first time in my life I would be voting to leave. I voted to stay in

1975 but I would be voting to leave in those circumstances.

Tom, it is turning into a real mess for the Government, is it not? A

huge mess. There was an exposer yesterday, of the 11pm call every

night, coordinated with the Downing Street switchboard which the

ministers have got to tune into. I can only imagine the horror that

went on last night during the call, which still happens, over the

headlines this morning. I think what's happened here is the

four-year ban on migrants' benefit is dead. You think he's just not

going to get it? It died I would say at least a month ago in the Chatham

House speech. He said so in his speech saying, here is what I want,

but by the way I will also accept what you choose to offer me. The

papers reported the next day that it was dead in the water, so we are

talking about the choreographing, how it happens and whether the Prime

Minister himself withdraws it. Or somebody else might put something

else on the table, doing the PM a favour, to bail him out and say if

you don't want this how about that. Peter Lilley And, when I said can

you sell this to your backbenchers comic said it is a problem for the

other parties too but it is overwhelmingly a problem for the

Conservatives and if he cannot achieve what is being asked for, I

would suggest half the Parliamentary party in my not go with him on this.

It is not the climb-down I would query, but the "big". He needed one

totemic issue that looked like he was doing something about

immigration. He couldn't look at the free movement of people or any kind

of free movement cap. He couldn't tell nostrils any major power he is

asking to be repatriated. It will be hard to make it look like he has

come back with something so that people can say OK, that has changed

my mind. If he gets one in February, can he have the referendum in June?

I understand the Electoral Commission doesn't like the idea of

a referendum that would overlap with the elections in May, and the risk

in September is that we will have another summer migrant crisis and

that would be a terrible atmosphere for those who want to stay in the

European Union. There are a lot of hurdles, first you have got to get a

deal in February that looks like a success. The reason they have done

what they've done overnight is because it has been dragged down

into a legal quagmire and David Cameron has got to have a

conversation with his counterparts to set that entire renegotiation

back on the right track. I know that some people in Brussels as saying he

cannot get a deal by February, we will never get a deal, and if it

slips into 2017 you won't get a deal then either. In June

there is this tiny window because -- where you could practically hold a

vote. But then as you say you've got the migrant crisis, which pops up

over the summer. I'm told that dealing with the flow of migration

from Turkey will make an enormous difference to the optics of how

Europe is seen to be able to deal with the migration crisis. Even

though that doesn't have a huge impact on UK migration from the rest

of Europe, David Cameron's renegotiation depends on something

truly out of his control. So you're telling me it depends on the Turks

now. On Friday night Jeremy Corbyn met up

with some old friends Nothing unusual in that,

you might think, but this was a fundraising do

for Stop The War Coalition, the anti-war protest group that

Mr Corbyn chaired until his election And, in case you hadn't noticed,

it caused a bit of a stir. It was the biggest mass

demonstration in British history. The group that organised it,

the Stop The War Coalition, had been founded a year or so before

following the 9/11 attacks and George Bush's declaration

of war on terror. Around a million people marched

as Tony Blair prepared to send Among the speakers,

a backbench Labour MP. Thousands more deaths in Iraq

will not make things right, it will set off a spiral

of conflict, of hate, One of the reasons for its success,

I've always thought, is that everyone was united

around one single issue. We never got bogged down

in our political analyses of what we thought about

Saddam Hussein or what we thought about this dictator or that,

or how we thought the political We weren't there to offer solutions

to other people's problems and tell them how we thought it should be,

we were there to stop our government taking what we considered to be

a very bad and negative step. But despite the broad support,

the inner leadership has largely Stop The War's founding member

and convener Lindsey German was a member of the Socialist

Workers Party for over 30 years, Her partner, John Rees,

who's also co-founder of Stop The War and was a leading

figure in the SWP, he also He sits on the editorial board

of Counterfire, a political organisation created

after that SWP split. He also helped start up The People's

Assembly Against Austerity, Which has been organising

protests since 2013. He's often sparked controversy,

reportedly writing in 2006, for example, that socialists should

unconditionally stand with the oppressed

against the oppressor, even if the people who run

the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute

minorities, like Saddam Hussein. Andrew Murray was the Stop The War

coalition chairman from He's a member of the Communist Party

and chief of staff of In 2014 he spoke at the launch event

of a campaign called Solidarity With The Antifascist

Resistance In Ukraine, which supports anti-government

rebels there. He took back the chairmanship again

in September this year, taking over from Jeremy Corbyn,

who'd held the post from 2011 As well as its elected officers,

Stop The War has patrons including Labour MP Diane Abbott,

George Galloway, the writer Tariq Ali, and Kamal Majid,

a founding member of the Stalin Society, formed in 1991

to defend Stalin and his work. The 2003 protest against the Iraq

war, which took place here in Hyde Park, was the high point

of Stop The War. The human rights activist

Peter Tatchell never played an official role at Stop The War,

though he has participated But this week he took a very public

step back and claimed the organisation has

lost its moral compass. The shortcomings in Stop The War

are driven by basically about half a dozen people at the top,

and those views increasingly are not shared by many of their long-time

grass-roots supporters like me People are turned off

by the sectarianism, by the selective opposition to war,

and by the failure to speak out against human rights abuses

by regimes that happen to be on the receiving end of US

and British military intervention. Critics like Tatchell have accused

Stop The War of trying to silence those whose views don't

fit their own. Nothing will be achieved by trying

to shout down speakers! This video shows a Stop The War

official clashing with a protester during a rally about western

policy in Iran in 2012, This meeting last month caused

controversy when Syrians in the audience said

they weren't allowed to speak. There is one reason there is no

Syrian from this room on the platform and that's

because they support intervention, and the meeting is

against intervention. APPLAUSE What's really disturbing

is the way in which Diane Abbott closed down the meeting rather

than allow Syrian Democratic left wing and civil society

activists to speak. It's given the impression

that she shares the questionable politics of Stop The War

on the issue of Syria. But Stop The War insists a Syrian

contributor did ask a question from the floor of that meeting

and have rubbished the suggestion they support those who Western

governments oppose. Obviously, you will have seen

in recent days Stop The War explaining that they were opposed

to Russian intervention in Syria as well as British intervention,

so they are evenhanded. The reason I think people may think

that is because we are a campaign based in Britain and our campaigning

is obviously overwhelmingly orientated towards changing our own

Government's policy. Welcome to Islington

in north London. In there is Jeremy Corbyn's

constituency office. This building is also home

to the Stop The War coalition, but it is the figurative proximity

rather than the literal one that I spoke to a number of Labour MPs

who voted against air One told me that he wasn't so much

worried about Stop The War and the influence it may have

on Jeremy Corbyn and policy, but more that Jeremy Corbyn

simply shares their views. There's dissent at

the grass roots too. Last week 500 party members,

including councillors, wrote to Mr Corbyn urging him

to take a step back. Stop The War is not

a Labour Party organisation. There are many people in it who have

opposed the Labour Party and probably continue

to oppose the Labour Party. I don't believe they hold

to the values of solidarity, We also spoke to a number of Labour

MPs who were relaxed about Jeremy Corbyn's connection

to Stop The War, an organisation he's never made any

secret of supporting. On Friday he went to the Christmas

do, and said slurs by critics against Stop The War were an attempt

to close down democratic He knows some of those critics

include his own MPs. We're joined now from Leeds

by the Labour MP, Richard Burgon. Morning, Andrew. The Communist Party

of Britain, which has prominent members in stop the war, says

attacks on stop the war are, quote, a systemic and vicious propaganda oi

offensive designed to obscure British imperialism's agenda in

conducting the bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree with that? Well,

first of all I think I'm in a good position to answer some of these

questions, pause I've only ever been a member of the Labour Party. I

joined when I was 15. What I really want to focus on is not the members

of small political parties who may be involved in Stop The War

Coalition, but the tens of thousands, in fact they've got an

e-mail list of 150,000 people, many of whom are not in any political

party, many of whom are in the Labour Party. The chairman who has

taken over from Mr Corbyn is a member of the Communist Party of

Britain, so what's the answer to my question? I think the attacks on

stop the war are proxy attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. We haven't had that

previously. When Charles Kennedy was speaking against the Iraq war, which

2 million people attended, Charles Kennedy wasn't attacked for that,

and rightly so. But he wasn't a member of Stop The War Coalition. He

spoke on the stop the war platform. But he wasn't a member? I'm not a

member, there's a really important point here, it is right that people

in democratic society express their views to MPs, march against things

they think are incorrect. I do think the line and the leadership of the

Stop The War Coalition hasn't changed in the 14 years since it was

founded. What has changed is that Jeremy Corbyn has become leader of

the Labour Party, so people in the media and elsewhere who wish to

attack Jeremy Corbyn are using stop the war to do so. Of course it is

not just the media, is it? It is not even the media. Labour MPses,

Tristram Hunt, Stella Creasy, many more, they've attacked Stop the War

Coalition and Jeremy Corbyn's support for it. I think the majority

of Labour members agreed with Jeremy Corbyn on his analysis on whether or

not we should agree to David Cameron's proposal to bomb Syria.

But what do you say to their criticism of Mr Corbyn's continued

association with Stop the War Coalition? I think they are

mistaken. I think that stop the war, we've got to look at how stop the

war has involved people from right across the political spectrum. When

I was on that historical march in 2003, there wasn't just the Lib Dem

leader speaking but other people I spoke to, Conservative voters, so it

is not just 57 varieties of Trotskyite groups that are involved.

If it were the case it were merelily people on the ultraleft you wouldn't

have 150,000 people involved or on the e-mail list. Who is not either a

cop thirst, a Trotskyite or a Stalinist? Well, there are plenty of

trade unions involved in the lip... Among the leadership, the people who

lead this, whose names are associated with it, who doesn't Paul

into that small hard left category? Well, it is a coalition, and that's

the point of it. So give me another name that doesn't fall into that.

Well, I wouldn't even know the full list of people on the board of stop

the war, but what I do know is that there are people from trade unions

supporting it, trade unions supporting it, probably in terms of

the membership of Stop the War Coalition, the biggest composite of

that are Labour Party members. But I do think this is a distraction of

the democratic issue. We can't say that in this country being a member

of a Stop the War Coalition campaign, campaigning against

military interventions that were proven to be disastrous in Iraq and

Libya is wrong. It is part of an open democratic process. People

shouldn't be demonised for being part of it, or Jeremy Corbyn. I'm

not doing that, what I'm trying to do is find out what stop the war

really stands for and whether it is right to Jeremy Corbyn and other

Labour people should be associated with it. They are had an article

titled, Sociopaths United. The United States, Britain and their

allies are no less sociopathic than the enemies they propose to hunt

down. So British security forces are on a par with the beheaders, do you

agree with that? I certainly don't agree with that. I think there've

been things published on blogs on the stop the war website which are

essential wrong, which I wouldn't agree with and the vast majority of

people who are members of the Stop the War Coalition wouldn't agree

with. I was reading in the paper this morning that the management of

the website of the stop the war has changed. If that shows that they are

going to be more careful to ensure that the content of the website on

every occasion mirrorst or reflects, sorry, the view of the leadership of

the Stop the War Coalition, then that's a welcome move. Well, it is

certainly, if it is such a splendid organisation, it has to delete lots

of articles it has published. It blamed the Paris attacks on French

policy, claimed that the threat to the Yazidis was largely mythical, in

fact force. And published a poem that quotes a well known anti-Semite

and Holocaust denier. All of that it has had to take down. Does that

sound like a respectable organisation that the Labour Party

should be associated with? Well, the views that you've uncovered aren't

views that I or members of the Stop the War Coalition would agree with.

But the big picture is this. In a coalition there are always sorts of

small numbers of individuals who come out with unacceptable views.

But the fact is I'm interested in the democratic point, in the 2

million people that marched on 15th February 2003, in the thousands that

protested against the intervention in Libya and intense the

intervention in Syria. I'm not a pacifist but I think that the truth

is that the Stop the War Coalition and the ordinary people from vicars

to pensioners who marched against the war in Iraq, who marched against

the intervention in Libya and have demonstrated against the

intervention in Syria, they've got it right. Many of the people

attacking Jeremy Corbyn and many of the people attacking the Stop the

War Coalition have got it completely wrong. It is a topsy-turvy world we

are in when attending Stop the War Coalition events is controversial.

We are still pretending that Tony Blair and others got it right in

Iraq. We haven't got much time Mr Burgon. Mr Corbyn stuck to his guns

and went to the fundraiser. His spin doctor says the Labour Party is now

slowly co hearing round Mr Corbyn's views, across a range of issues. Do

you agree with that? I do. As I minced earlier, Jeremy Corbyn didn't

instruct or order Labour MPs to vote against David Cameron's plan to bomb

Syria. He gave them a free vote, and that that was the right thing to do.

By a ratio of 2 to 1 Labour MPs agreed with Jeremy Corbyn's

analysis, and by 2 to 1 members of the Shadow Cabinet agreed with Mr

Corbyn. But on working tax credits, police cuts, issues such as ech

attacking George Osborne's failed cuts and privatisationings the vast,

of Labour MPs and members, and a lot of the public agree with him.

Richard Burgon thank you for joining us and for persevering with the

earpiece. I'm glad you stalk with it. Thank you. Take care. Bye.

Yvette Cooper came third in the contest to become

Her campaign only really came to life back in early September,

when she became the first front rank UK politician to call for Britain

to take in 10,000 refugees from the Syrian war.

Now, in her new role as Chair of Labour's Refugees Taskforce,

she's been on a fact-finding visit to the Jungle refugee

6,000 people are currently living in what, in most generous terms,

Yvette Cooper, a former Shadow Home Secretary,

a Labour leadership contender, argued over the summer Britain

should take more Syrian asylum seekers than

Now a backbencher, she is returned as a guest of citizens UK not

to argue we should fling open the doors but that the jungle

was a problem nobody has tried to find a solution to.

Why do we not have UNHCR here doing proper assessments of everybody?

And therefore actually they need to go back through

You've got to have a proper process to assess people's refugee status

and at the moment that's not happening.

That's the real big tragedy of here, the people have got stuck

here in these awful conditions and there's no

Some would call it hell, that's a little hyperbolic,

It's really purgatory, since there's a real sense nobody

is going anywhere, unless to climb on board a lorry and illegally

And a camp unsuited to summer is preparing for a winter it's

There's an argument which says, if you help refugees,

then somehow that will create a crisis.

No, the crisis is here and now, the crisis is happening.

The question is what we do to stop the crisis getting worse and worse,

so you can't have people stuck living among the rubbish

and the pools of water and the mud while they're applying for asylum.

You've got to have a basic humanitarian aid in place.

At the Medecins Sans Frontieres clinic on-site, the issue

of the conditions and winter is a problem itself.

The problem when we see the camp, it's very cold, the hygiene

And what happens, the condition...the simple

flu passes sometimes in the bronchal...and that's it.

There are many women and children - yes, they are outnumbered -

but they're housed in two sections of the camp we're not allowed

to film in, though clearly some choose to live in other parts

of the camp and walk the roads around.

And it's the issue of unaccompanied minors with family already legally

in the UK that is worrying some of the volunteers.

So, there's a ten-year-old boy separated from his family and just

There are eight-year-olds, nine-year-olds, ten-year-olds

with family in the UK desperate to look after them,

and come here to visit them and bring them things

Do you suspect that people back home will see this and their natural

humanity will say, "this is awful, that looks really dreadful,

we still don't want lots of them to come"?

The problem is you look around this and you think,

how is this northern Europe, how can this be just a few miles

How can this be what is happening in France?

Yvette Cooper would be much happier if those minors were taken

in with their families, and seems to be singing from a song

sheet that says whether we take more refugees, fewer or none,

it may well be a pressing question, but that the jungle in Calais

Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. Should adults from this can be

allowed into Britain? It depends on their circumstances. Most of them

should be playing in France for asylum and that I think is what you

would expect to happen. Some of them may not be refugees, some of them

may have safe homes to go to and should do so. Clearly there's a lot

of people there who have fled Syria, Afghanistan, who we know are fleeing

conflict and persecution. There's a question about the children. We saw

unaccompanied children. There are people traffickers, some cases where

aid workers said they had families in Britain we were trying to reach.

For example I spoke to a 15-year-old whose brother, his nearest relative

is in Britain and he wants to join him. That's why he is in Calais.

Should we let them in? We should have a process for him to be able to

apply. We should be providing that sanctuary. I understand the children

issue but I'm still not quite clear what your attitude is towards the

adults there. Although a lot of people in this camp may have started

as refugees, they are now in France. They are not in immediate danger of

their lives so they now want to come to the UK because they think

economic prospects are better here than in France. That makes their

role economic migrants now. That's not the reality. They have no safe

home at the moment, and I agree they should be playing right now and they

should be assessed where they are. The French authorities should be

doing a full assessment. So why are they not in there? Good question.

Why are we leaving people in such awful conditions? If the French

authorities cannot, we should get the UNHCR to come in and do a full

assessment. There will also be people, I spoke for example to a

single mother with two small children who had left Syria when her

husband was killed in an Assad jail. She was trying to reach her father

and brother, also in Britain. There should be a process for her to apply

for sanctuary in Britain. If you had a fair system to apply, you might

prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Should we set up an

asylum seeking vetting operation in Calais ourselves? We have a system

the Government set up under pressure to take refugees from the camps in

Syria. I'm talking about the camps in Calais. I agree but I'm saying we

should prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Once

people have got to Calais, I think there is a case particularly for

those children... We understand the children but I'm asking about adults

because it is hard to know what your policy is on this. Should we start

to say some of them are asylum seekers, the French are not doing

their jobs properly, we will take them in once they go through the

proper procedures - yes or no? Those who have formally in Britain should

be able to apply for sanctuary in Britain but you need a system. You

need to be able to do security checks and refugee checks. At the

moment Britain is only taking 4000 refugees per year. I think we could

do more of that, and if we did that and worked with other countries we

should be clearing the problems at Calais and preventing people coming

to Europe on most dangerous boats in the first place. I know that people

think we cannot solve this, it is too hard, but if we don't it will

get worse. Some people may argue that the more you take in and give

proper status to, you will encourage all the more to come into Europe.

People are coming whatever happens. We are told there is another 5

million waiting to come. At one point the Government was arguing we

shouldn't have search and rescue in the Mediterranean because that would

encourage more people to come, I think that is immoral. People have

come, they are travelling across Europe. Let me try to pin you down

on that. It is still not clear what you want to do. Let's take the

migrants who have made it into the EU this year. Although the German

government took most itself, it tried to spread the burden through

quotas of member states. Should we volunteer a quota? Yes, I think we

should take 10,000 people. Only ten? The Germans are taking a lot more.

The reason I said that figure is because that meant you would be

talking about ten families for every city or County across the country

and I also think the best way to do with this is to work with faith

groups across the country and say how many refugees do you think you

could support in each area. Germany's Labour market is in a

different situation and they have a different demographic. So 10,000 out

of Vermilion, that would be British response? That would be a good thing

to do, but the truth is all countries will have to work together

on this and there isn't a simple answer. It's not just about what you

do in terms of the number of refugees you give sanctuary to, it's

also how you prevent people travelling. We should reunite

families and we have got to do something about humanitarian relief.

There are people living in terrible conditions, with France and Britain

being two of the most powerful countries in the world you would

have thought it is not beyond the wit of these countries to make sure

there is proper humanitarian relief, sanitation, and heating for people

who will suffer not just from scabies but terrible conditions in

those camps as the winter draws in. Indeed we shall see what horrors the

winter brings because we have not gone through that yet in this

migrant crisis. You heard a colleague of yours saying he thought

the Labour Party was now moving strongly in Mr Corbyn's direction in

policy matters, do you agree? There's been a lot of policies I

disagree with, we have that debate over the summer. The challenge at

the moment is that the Labour Party has an internal focus, looking

inwards at ourselves. We have got to look outwards. You are not answering

my question. Let me try one more time. Is your party moving broadly

in Mr Corbyn's direction? I'm not sure quite what that means because

we are having a debate in the party at the moment about what the

policies should be in the future. The trouble is we cannot just make

that debate look inwards when the Tories are being let off the hook on

tax credits, Europe and a series of things. I will try to make the

question more clear next time. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

Dealing with the past remains the issue that the parties can't

Do we need another deadline to push the process forward?

We'll hear the thoughts of the the Victims' Commissioner,

And David Cameron said no to a sugar tax -

but could the Assembly be the first devolved institution to go it alone

And with their thoughts on all of that and more -

my guests of the day are Paul McFadden and Dawn Purvis...

It was left out of the Fresh Start deal - and now the Secretary

of State says she shares the frustration of some victims'

groups, angry at the lack of progress on legacy issues.

Theresa Villiers is to meet victims this week amid an ongoing row over

the government's position on dealing with the past.

She's been accused of failing to deliver on a commitment made

in the Stormont House Agreement, by insisting upon a veto on material

We'll hear from the Victims' Commissioner' Judith Thompson'

in just a moment - but first, here's what the Secretary of State

told me on The View on Thursday night...

Gay and I Cheryl Cole of getting these new body set up and frankly

that requires compromise all round. We have put on the table and appeal

mechanism, we stretched ourselves, because who want to do everything we

can to get these bodies set up. We want this process of determining

what material can be redacted on the grounds of national security, we

wanted to be transparent and the way we propose to do that is by having a

direct appeal to the High Court so that families can be confident that

the deed power never be misused and it is absolutely still clear that

the High Court is entirely independent of government and of any

Secretary of State were seeking as you have alleged to try and cover up

the truth then that would be overturned by the High Court. I am

surprised really that you maintain the line you are optimistic, you

said at the start that you optimistic this can be dealt with

but you say you expect to get a tough time meeting victims group and

you know that Sinn Fein is unhappy so where is the optimism. I think

generally during the talks are a lot of issues were resolved, yes we did

not resolve the question around national security. That is the big

issue. We discussed constructive proposals, Sinn Fein put proposals

on the table, we did not think we could make them work and we put our

own proposals on the table, but we are not 1 million miles away from

one another. Theresa Villiers speaking

on Thursday night. The Secretary of State says she's

optimistic outstanding issues Do you share her optimism?

She says the right to veto The reason why I believe that is

that I have spoken since those talks finished to the first and Deputy

First Minister, to the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister and the Secretary

of State and all of them independently are giving details on

specific progress that have not for being made in relation to the

different elements of the agreement and I think this is important, I

have met with a number of victims groups who would have had quite

disparate concerns going into the but the reality of achieving nothing

on the table has been a real shock to everyone and there is a level of

energy and common purpose there which I think was not there before.

The Secretary of State was clear that in her view, the right to veto

will never be misused by the British Government and she was keen to make

that point, but some of her critics, some of them representing victims

groups do not accept that, are you persuaded by what the Secretary of

State had to say? The key issue is that there are real concerns about

national security. On the one hand there are people who understandably

are concerned that the information that they need will be redacted from

reports and key issues swept under the carpet and that is not a useful

process. I think that is a genuine concern but on the other hand you

have others who whilst they understand the need for national

security are equally saying this needs to be proportionate and

realistic. I believe that at the end of the day what was being developed

at the very close of those talks was a move towards some sort of judicial

model where the director of that new HIU if they felt that national

security was being used as the measure to cover up things that were

uncomfortable, rather than security sensitive than they could go to a

judicial process. That process, the nature of that was not fully agreed

but there are ways of doing creative thinking around that. Are you saying

that you believe common ground could be found to allow the British

Government, the Secretary of State to sign up to a judicial process for

disclosure that would also meet the demands of victims groups? Sinn Fein

have been very vocal on this issue. I do believe that this possible.

Because it is hard to see how it is possible, it looks like such an

enormous sticking points. It was an enormous sticking point going into

the talks when we had draft legislation with two levels of

security information going into that process marked not to be disclose

further and then there was a further potential block during the end of

the investigation. That was where the stock started and that was in

the draft legislation. Where it got too at the end was a different place

and had there been longer to look at ways around that process should look

like, I believe there might have been more confidence. So you are

assuring our viewers that this is more than simple wishful thinking on

the parts of the Victims' Commissioner? You would want that to

be the case, are you saying that you have good reason to believe that can

be the case? Yes, I look at where we are now, what is not acceptable is

where we are now. We have 500,000 people affected by the Troubles

living in Northern Ireland and outside. We have 40,000 people

injured and the pension for the seriously injured is on hold. We

have 200,000 people with mental health problems. Funding for a

trauma service is on hold. We have ?60 million a year being spent on

our justice system in pursuit of processes that everyone agrees are

not working. Were we are now, this is not going to go away, it has to

be dealt with. We are approaching a New Year and there are Assembly

elections next year, you know that positions on the political front

tend to harden in the run-up to an election, who is going to take the

lead as far as this process of compromise and finding common ground

is concerned, will that be you? As commissioner, I am in the privileged

position of talking to everyone and there are many people who have been

working at this for a long time and have great knowledge and

understanding, so what I think has to happen is I am meeting with the

victims Forum and the Secretary of State tomorrow and we have further

meetings scheduled with parties this week. I think there needs to be

better information out there, of where these talks got to and what

the options are being considered, there has to be a structured

dialogue that victims can lead and as a commissioner I will help that.

I believe that there needs to be a timetable, further political talks

and for legislation to implement things. The problem and I do not

need to tell you this because you know this there is no one victim 's

voice in all of this. What is really interesting here is that in the

run-up to the talks were we had something on the table, yes those

anxieties and diverse views were there, but when you actually get to

a level of should there be some level of truth and acknowledgement

and justice and should there be services and help for people who

have suffered, nobody disagrees. When you say what about a victim

centred approach, should victims be considered and how we deal with

these matters, should they be consulted, should we have processes

to deal with the issues, victims groups agree, so there is an energy

and a common purpose there, even though obviously these people

represent a society which is still quite divided. At a higher level,

there is a journeyman will to get something done. Do you believe that

the Secretary of State is potentially coming under pressure

from her own backbenchers, from veterans organisations, not to

disclose information that could be embarrassing for people involved in

the conflict from a government point of view in the past? She was pretty

clear that that was not the case, she said she had not come under

pressure but there are people who think she must be under huge

pressure not to disclose embarrassing information. We all saw

the Spotlight programme and interviews with veterans, obviously,

the Secretary of State operates in an arena where these are real

issues. In Northern Ireland, are parties and people understand these

issues differently and there are people who are ex-members of the

security forces themselves saying to me, look there is a truth here that

we need to have acknowledgement. There are quite a few commentators,

we had three of them on Thursday night who were of the view that

victims are expectations and hopes have been unrealistically raised and

they will never get the satisfaction that they are ultimately looking

for, do you share that glass half empty view or do you think that

victims from what ever background and however they find themselves to

be victims can be satisfied at the end of this process? Firstly I do

agree that people's hopes were raised and then disappointed and

that was incredibly difficult for victims and survivors, secondly, yes

I do think that something which will satisfy the majority of

people is be achieved, do I think everyone will be pleased with any

option? It is not going to be possible to satisfy everyone's wants

and needs all of the time. You have to respect and listen and go for the

best you can achieve. Can you achieve that before the next

Assembly election do you believe? I believe that we need to have

alternative talks before the election and I believe that

legislation would not be possible until then. The outstanding issues

theoretically could be resolved before the election? I think this

dialogue needs to start now while it is fresh and what has been achieved

is still in front of us, I do not think this is something that can be

parked until the next election. Let's bring in my guests -

Dawn Purvis and Paul McFadden... Does that state of the nation view

from the commission gave you cause for optimism that these seemingly

intractable issues can be resolved? As chair of an organisation that has

been looking at legacy issues and how we deal with the past in

Northern Ireland for the last 13 years, we know that this is possible

when you bring people together from very diverse backgrounds, from those

who have been most affected and those involved in the conflict. We

know it is possible, and the difficulties that we face are that

political parties are starting from the position that they do not want

to deal with this. So, if you look at whether political parties have

come from, from not wanting to deal with this to find a way of dealing

with this, they have come a hell of a long way. Once you get and I agree

with Judith, there is a high level of agreement and amongst the

principles that set out dealing with the past, it is when we start to

drill down to the details of those mechanisms that the party 's retreat

to their own constituencies and that is the difficulty. Ayew any more

optimistic having heard the commissioner 's thoughts on how

things might unfold in the months ahead and perhaps you were before

today? Know I am not and with respect to Judith, and Judith will

be privy to discussions that I am not aware of, but for me, the fresh

start document was a false start so far as victims are concerned. The

fact that nothing was achieved in terms of addressing the whole

legacy, it has concentrated minds and it is dreadfully embarrassing

that there was an agreement on so many other issues with nothing done

to address the concerns of victims. That was quite dispiriting. I hope

that Judith is right and that the parties are closer together than the

way they seem at the minute, but to me the past is a rock that so many

people do not want to look under, the British Government doesn't, the

paramilitary organisations either. We will watch this situation unfolds

after Christmas and perhaps in the run-up to the election.

The Health Minister beat the chair of the Health Committee to it this

week when he announced he's proposing legislation to ban smoking

Maeve McLauglin, who had also planned to propose the move,

welcomed the development, but not to be out-done

announced her plans to get the Assembly to back a sugar

And Maeve McLaughlin joins me now from our Foyle studio...

Is this a bit of policy ping pong between yourself and the Minister -

he serves up the smoking ban and you return with the sugar tax?

No, both amendments were tabled at the same time and I think what it is

is a response to an increasing robust evidence -based that the

level of sugar consumption in society is directly correlated with

health problems. We see that when we look at areas such as the increase

in diabetes, obesity and indeed cardiovascular disease, not to

mention dental decay particularly amongst our children and young

people. There is increasingly a body of evidence that relates the level

of sugar that we take through sugary drinks and our health problems. It

isn't that simple, Downing Street decided against it, it is a complex

issue, not just about the consumption of sugar, it is about

the lack of exercise. Yes indeed and I think we will all be naive to

suggest that this is a panacea for all our health problems, it is not

but in my view I think it is a progressive initiative that should

at least be explored. I think it is important to say that a number of

countries have taken the initiative, like the Welsh Assembly which backed

proposals to explore the sugar levy, what I am calling for it is an

exploration, a fool public consultation, because it would be

wrong in my view to ignore at the 24% of our children and young people

who are be said for the 33% to -- diabetes increase, it would be

foolish of us to not respond to that accordingly. Yes it is complex, yes

it is not an initiative that will solve all of our problems on their

own, but it is certainly one that we would be foolhardy to ignore. It

might prove electoral lorry very unpopular. I do not think there will

be consensus on this and that is what we are calling for, we are

calling within this legislation for the Health Minister and the

Department to conduct a full public consultation and that needs to

include the full economic assessment impact in relation to the limitation

of this proposed levy. As I said, we have increased public health issues,

huge gap in terms of our health inequalities between those who have

and have not, so we need to explore radical solutions and it has been

backed up with scientific evidence elsewhere, particularly in Public

Health England which has looked at the evidence and says it works.

Simon Hamilton did not seem terribly enamoured with the idea when he

responded to the suggestion, he did say he will consider it but we

should not rush to pass something as significant as this without a proper

debate. I suppose that is what you are saying, but he did not seem to

be banging the drum for it as the outcome you're looking for. What I

am calling for is the public consultation, I am calling for him

to commit within one year of this legislation coming into place that

he will conduct that consultation and let us explore the options and

look at the evidence, look at the health inequalities, the

relationship between sugar consumption and diabetes and let us

look at what the economic impact of that would be. Can I ask you about

another issue, Simon Hamilton's statement on gay men donating blood,

do you welcome the change in approach to his two immediate

predecessors? Clearly this is a significant shift from the DUP, both

of the former health ministers, of which society in my view, very

clearly took the position backed up by a court, that their view and

position in terms of the ban on gay men donating blood was a rational

and was laced with prejudice. If this is a significant shift from the

current Health Minister then it is of course to be welcomed to stop I

will call on him now to join with the rest of society and remove the

ban. It is not appropriate that his party's own personal prejudice if

you like have impacted in relation to policy issues on this issue.

Thank you. Maeve McLaughlin in our

Foyle studio, thank you. Let's see what Dawn

and Paul make of that... Just a quick word on that issue, do

you welcome mat? I do. I feel in a position, I have never been in a

situation where I have needed blood but I have been in the situation

worse someone very close to me was gravely ill and did need it and I

can tell you at that point in time, the problems of the blood did not

matter, it was the fact that they got the blood. It is interesting in

terms of the wider DUP politics. The DUP seem to be moving towards the

centre ground and I think there are interesting things happening in

Unionist politics at the moment and I see it as block belonging in

there. A quick word on that. Ministers should take professional

advice in making these decisions rather than using personal beliefs.

As in the abortion guidelines issue, what we have seen is Simon Hamilton

move ahead of his Number 8 previous predecessors and I think that is to

be welcomed. A quick word on the sugar levy, you persuaded by Maeve

MacLachlan? It is a no-brainer. If we introduce a carrier bike tax, why

are we not introducing a sugar tax to save our children's dental health

and to improve general health in terms of diabetes. Do you agree? She

is looking to have the issue explored and it is well worth doing

that and having a public consultation and seeing what the

evidence suggests. All right - let's just pause,

briefly, to take a look back at the week in 60 seconds -

with Gareth Gordon... The DUP's would be next leader says

no. Arlene is clearly the person who should take the party forward. And

Arlene Foster says she can work with Sinn Fein. Well of course I have

worked with Martin since I was a minister back in 2007 right up until

the present day, we have a working relationship and it will continue.

The Health Minister stomps it out. Anyone whose Mark -- who smokes in a

confined space like a car with children in the car is an idiot. The

Secretary of State says she can deliver of deal for victims. I

presided over talks that have delivered two landmark agreements

for Northern Ireland. And the chuckle Brothers return or should

that be... I will acknowledge... Just time for a final chat

with Paul and Dawn... I suppose it is the end of an era

with the departure of Peter Robinson and the coronation of Arlene Foster

on Thursday. And a dramatic Sammy Wilson getting done in by a dummy

run. It has been quite a week in politics. We'll Arlene's Coronation

B a short reign given the election coming up? I think she has set

herself out to be a bit of a target within the DUP. I wish her well in

the post, but I think there are other more Machiavellian forces in

the party at work. We regret to ask you both for your political story of

the year and Paul, the elevation and rise of Arlene Foster is what you

wanted to talk about. To me it is a major development. I think that

Peter Robinson is an amazing strategist. I think that elections

are won on the middle ground and the DUP are moving on to the middle

ground. Listening to Mark Devenport talk to Peter Robinson on Friday

night, and Peter Robinson is now portraying the DUP as a party where

it ages not an issue, gender is not an issue, the fact that you belong

to the UUP is not an issue and it is possibly a party that Catholics

could support, I do not think we are at that point, but the DUP is it an

interesting place. Mike Nesbitt should be worried. I think more

inclined to see Arlene Foster move to the right in order to consolidate

the party and keep them in the three line whip. That is interesting. What

is your story? I had to. I think the first one was the referendum on

equal marriage south of the border. For a country that is perceived as

being very Conservative and very Catholic, the people as usual were

way ahead of the politicians when it came to this issue, just as they

work on the issue of abortion and polls north and south of the border

as we have seen from the joint BBC and RTE poll show people are at the

same level. Will David Cameron

get his way in Europe? Are Labour MPs coming to terms

with the idea that Jeremy Corbyn All questions for The Week Ahead

and the Year Ahead. And joining us to gaze

into our crystal ball for 2016 is the Conservative

MP, James Cleverly. Welcome to the programme. If the

Prime Minister cannot even get his minimum demands in the renegotiation

with Europe, would you vote to leave? I've always felt his best

chance of getting a good result from Europe is if there is a credible

leave campaign, with people like me saying that if we don't get a good

deal for Britain we would campaign to leave. That might feel like a

stone in his shoe at the moment but unless people genuinely believe that

he won't get the best deal for Britain.

He says he rules nothing out. No one really believes the Prime Minister

wants to leave the European Union or would lead a campaign to do so. But

if the country as a whole is making those kind of noises, the people the

Prime Minister is negotiating with, our partners in Europe, may think it

is in their best interests to give him the deal he's looking for.

Should he be asking for more? The Prime Minister is always at his best

when his bold, I think you should be cheeky with the things he asks for,

but recognise we are not going to get everything. Could we get more

than he is asking for? The particular vehicle that he uses to

get results shouldn't be quite so important as the results themselves.

What you are not saying, but it is clear what you think, he should be

tougher with Europe. I don't think it is possible to be tough enough

with Europe. We've got to keep pushing and if we get something,

push for more. Ultimately the deal he comes back with will be judged by

the British people. I understand that. Tory politicians say that

simply because they don't want to answer the questions I am asking

because that is flannel. Most Conservative backbenchers I speak to

think what he's asking for is not nearly enough. If he cannot even

bring that back, I would suggest to you he will not carry a majority of

his MPs in Parliament. The deal on the table... We have seen this from

the Paris climate summit, the deals are done in the 11th hour so we will

know what deal is on the table only at the 11th hour, then we will judge

that deal when we see it. When you negotiate, you don't come out with

demands and then as the negotiation goes on make these demands even

greater! Yes, you do. I've never seen a negotiation like that, but

good luck to you. What demand should he ask for that he's not asking for

now? I will not try to second-guess because you have got to trade

things, give a little bit there... I'm asking you to tell me what you

think he should be asking of Europe that he's not asking at the moment.

Most people would agree we want to have better control around who gets

benefits. No, he's asking for that. Let me try one more time - what

should he ask for that he's not asking for at the moment? As I said,

I'm not going to second-guess that. I give up! Let me come on to Mr

Corbyn. I would suggest to you, Tom Newton Dunn, that Jeremy Corbyn is

ending this year in a much more secure position than it looked when

he first got elected or at the Labour Party conference. I

completely agree with you. When this crystallised was during the Syria

vote, the week before last, when we thought the majority of Conservative

MPs would abstain -- Labour MPs. Perhaps the Prime Minister's case

wasn't that strong but they felt scared. The Corbyn machine, the

unions put a lot of pressure on them and that was the turning point. He

played his part in getting the Chancellor to withdraw on the tax

credit front, he has carried the bulk of his Parliamentary party on

Syria and most of his cabinet as well, and I would suggest, Helen,

that the anti-Jeremy Corbyn forces are now bereft of a strategy. Yes,

they have a huge problem that the members who voted for Jeremy Corbyn

think he is doing really well. The PLP needs to get behind him. The

problem is I think sometimes we get the narrative on Corbyn wrong. A lot

of his deeply held principles, think about giving that free vote on

Syria, he has been a member of the Stop The War coalition since it

started, and yet he didn't say Acme or you will go. But he will now,

given that he is ending the year in a pretty strong decision, he will, I

suggest, in the New Year, start to remould the Labour Party much more

in his image of what he stands for. Absolutely. I don't think there's

much chance of being a successful challenge to Jeremy Corbyn in 2016

and that's because the members are broadly behind him. The reason

that's a disaster for the Labour Party is because of what will happen

in September, the annual Labour Party conference by the seaside

somewhere. They will use that moment to push through rule changes to make

it harder for the Parliamentary Labour Party and mainstream forces

to fight against what he wants, and to embed what they think in terms of

official Labour Party positions and what Helen said he should do. When

Mr Corbyn won the Labour leadership, the Conservatives thought Christmas

had come early. He is actually proving to be a tougher leader than

you thought. Only lazy observers would assume his leadership would

make life easy for us. He galvanised a huge number of people in the

country. I think he is so wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief

but lots of other people seem to think he is right. We need to find

ways of countering his political agenda because it is wrong and

dangerous, but we need to do so at the same time as understanding why

he managed to have such a grass-roots appeal. Although you all

seem to be agreed he is ending the year on a strong note, the Labour

Party Christmas party was not a lot of laughs, was it? What happened? It

sounded like a slightly awkward occasion. This is the moment when

all of the Labour Party staff get together, a free fake, one of the

Shadow Cabinet plays Santa. You've got to picture the scene, about ten

tables of staff who all pretty much come from the mainstream, and one

and a half tables of allies of Jeremy Corbyn huddled in one part,

and the two clans didn't really mix. There was only one real moment of

dissent it felt like when somebody at around 1115 PM Port Things Can

Only Get Better on, and that is about as open as Labour Party

revolts get. I want to show you a Christmas party from the Daily

Politics archive. Who is our secret Santa? Here he comes. It is a bit

difficult to see. The first clue is that he is a Labour MP, he's been a

member of Parliament since 1983 for the smallest constituency in

Britain. Next clue, he is one of just 12 Labour MPs to back Plaid

Cymru and the SNP's call for an inquiry into the war. Finally, he

chairs the Parliamentary wing of CND, and you should know this, Meg?

Jeremy Corbyn? I thought it was the real Santa! Yes please, thank you

very much. Jeremy Corbyn, having more fun at the Daily Politics

Christmas party than he did the Labour Party one.

Will there be an EU referendum next year? No. Yes. Yes. No. By this time

next year will Jeremy Corbyn still be a Labour leader? ALL: Yes.

If David Cameron loses the referendum, will he be able to

survive as Prime Minister? Yes. You have got to say that!

Will Philip Hammond remained Foreign Secretary next year? On what? Will

he remain Foreign Secretary? No. They might have to be a reshuffle.

Hilary Benn, will he remain as Shadow Foreign Secretary? No. Will

the Government finally approved a third runway at Heathrow? No,

definitely not. Yes. No. Will we ever get to see the Chilcot inquiry

in 2016? Yes. No. I don't know. Will Donald Trump win the Republican

nomination next year? No. No. Who is going to be the new Mayor of London?

Sadiq Khan. Probably Sadiq Khan, it is a Labour city. Zac Goldsmith, and

it is not a Labour city, trust me. He would be much better at soaking

up the second preference votes. That's a bit technical for us!

That's all for today and, in fact, all from

the Sunday Politics this year. I'll be back here on 10th January.

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

Unless, of course, it's the festive season.