14/01/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics -

your inside briefing on all the big

political stories happening

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up on today's show.

The decision to release serial sex

attacker John Worboys...

Does the Government now "look more

like the country it represents"?

After a tricky reshuffle, we speak

to one of the new faces sitting

around the Cabinet table -

the immigration minister

Caroline Nokes.

Does the Government have a clearer

idea about what our future

And here...

After a week of bitter exchanges

over Barry McElduff's Kingsmill

video, Sinn Fein and the DUP

softened the political tone.

But do the three smaller

parties think we're any

closer to a breakthrough?

All that coming up in the programme.

And sitting around our top

table today, I'm joined

by some familiar faces.

We tried a reshuffle

of our own but they simply refused

to budge: Tom Newton Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and Steve Richards.

Now, after a pretty bumpy 2017,

Theresa May actually went

in to the Christmas break

in relatively good political health.

So, what better way to kick off 2018

than by shaking up her top team

and reasserting her authority?

But as she found this week, things

don't always go according to plan.

If you're going to carry out major

surgery on your Government, you need

to be sure the prognosis is good.

It was a picture of health

to begin with, a fresh,

new team at Party HQ,

but before long, complications

arose.

Justine Greening, who's had a rocky

time at Education, decided

she'd had enough.

She quit the Government

rather than accept a

sideways move.

While Jeremy Hunt refused

to budge from his job at

Health.

He even left his meeting having

added social care to his job

title.

There was a fresher look among

the junior ministerial ranks.

But when the new Cabinet met

on Tuesday morning, it looked...

Well, very much like the old one.

Normally loyal Conservative grandee

Nicholas Soames asked, "Is that it?"

The state of the NHS

then caused more pain.

Dozens of senior doctors wrote to

the Prime Minister saying conditions

in some hospitals were

becoming intolerable.

Patients were dying prematurely.

We have now clearly reached

the point where the NHS

cannot meet the standards

of care that we would,

all of us in the NHS,

ministers included, want to provide.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

pressed on the bruise.

We know the Prime Minister

recognises there is a

crisis in our NHS,

because she wanted to sack

the Health Secretary last week

but was too weak to do it.

Mr Corbyn announced his own

reshuffle towards the end of the

week, with a surprising

return to the front

bench for Clive Lewis,

who

has been cleared of sexual

harassment claims.

While two other Labour

MPs, Kelvin Hopkins and

Ivan Lewis, have been referred

to an independent disciplinary

panel over allegations

of sexual misconduct.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump

raised the temperature, cancelling

his visit to the UK next month

to open the new American Embassy.

Calling the decision to relocate

the building to an off

location is a bad deal.

His friends on this side

of the pond suspected

there were other reasons

for his decision.

Just maybe, Sadiq Khan,

Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party

planning mass protests, maybe those

optics he didn't like the look of.

Nigel Farage also set

pulses racing with this:

I'm reaching the point

of

thinking that we should

have a second referendum because...

On what?

On EU membership.

The whole thing?!

Of course, of course.

The Conservatives

hope focusing on the

environment will bring

the party back to health.

The Prime Minister teamed up

with her new eco-warrior

Environment Secretary, Michael Gove,

to crack down on the use of

plastics.

We must reduce the demand

for plastic, reduce the number of

plastics in circulation

and improve our recycling rates.

It all seems strangely

reminiscent of someone who

once said, vote blue, go green.

In another tricky

week that's left the

PM looking a little

green around the gills.

Now, let's pick up on a story

which broke overnight: the new

Justice Secretary David Gauke

is considering a judicial review

of the decision to release

the serial sex attacker

John Worboys on parole.

Earlier this month the Parole Board

announced that he would be released

under strict licence conditions.

He was jailed in 2009 for a minimum

of eight years for drugging

and sexually assaulting 12 women.

However, it's thought he may have

carried out as many as 100 rapes

and sexual assaults on women

in London in the early 2000s.

I will take this to the panel first.

This is obviously a very emotive

case, and people get very worked up

about it, but the politics of the

Justice Secretary, Tom, asking for a

judicial review against the body

which is really under the

supervision of his own department,

this gets a little odd.

Justice

Secretary criticises Justice

Department shock. There is a whiff

of panic in the Government over this

now. I think David Gauke's decision

is emblematic of that. For whatever

reason, the Government have found

themselves on the wrong side of

public opinion on this. An appalling

mass serial rapist is about to be

let out of prison this week, having

served less than ten years for

crimes most of which he wasn't even

prosecuted for. They have seven or

eight days to do this judicial

review, and David Gauke has only

done it because he is under pressure

from other Cabinet ministers. The

entire Justice Department and

justice policy has really been

interested for up to seven years

because the Tory Government really

can't make up its mind between a

liberal justice establishment is

based on rehabilitation and less

time in prison and the more

traditional Tory authoritarian lock

them up and throw the key away

system, and the consequence is

today's decision. You have had five

Justice Secretary is, from the king

of soft justice himself, Ken

of soft justice himself, Ken Clarke,

and now David Gauke, so perhaps it's

no huge surprise that the system is

now in a bit of a mess.

If Tom is

right that the Government are

playing catch up on John Worboys

because of the huge public outcry,

is it nonetheless the right thing to

do?

It seems to me the parole board

breached their own rules. The

victims have a right to make

representations. We know that some

of the victims whose cases were

brought, and again, he is not

convicted as a serial rapist because

those cases one brought to court, a

decision made by Kia Starmer, then

the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The other fundamental issue is a lot

of what Tom was saying, that the

Tory Government is out of touch, as

I think all of the establishment and

party leaders are. Is this

ridiculous nonsense that someone is

released halfway through a sentence,

if you are sentenced to ten years or

whatever, you should be serving the

full sentence, and maybe six months

off for good behaviour, or better

still, more years on for bad

behaviour. I think the British

public think the justice system is

an absolute joke, and they think

that because it is.

You raise an

interesting point about what the

public care about versus what is

debated at Westminster. We spent an

enormous amount of last year talking

about Brexit, to the exclusion of

most other things. A few other

issues have raised their heads this

week, Steve. First and foremost, the

NHS has been causing more than a few

political problems for the

Government.

If Brexit wasn't

swamping everything, this would be

the overwhelming issue. Voters are

much more concerned about this than

anything else, with good cause. At

some point, there will have to be a

grown discussion about funding of

the NHS and how we pay for it.

Whether that will be possible in the

current climate I doubt. But I don't

think it's entirely impossible

because I think the crisis will

intensify. In a way, that has been

overlooked, that 2017 election

partly accepted miraculously in

British politics that to get

improvements in some services you

have to pay for it. So, maybe there

will be a grown-up debate, but don't

hold your breath. In the meantime,

it will be an issue that Theresa May

will have to keep at least one eye

on, as well as trying to negotiate

the impossible with Brexit.

At PMQs,

the Prime Minister said the NHS was

the best prepared it had ever been,

and doctors were saying that

patients were dying prematurely. In

the short-term, political damage

absolutely. The tanks are parked on

Labour territory there. The general

consensus in the country is not that

they trust the Tories on the NHS,

which is a big issue for them. A lot

of the problems are down to the fact

that we're getting older and living

longer, and there are amazing

treatments, operations and drugs

that can keep us alive. We see it as

a problem but it is a wonderful

miracle of modern science and

medicine and we should be grateful

for such problems.

The big news was

that we were going to get a

Government that looked more like the

rest of the country in the

reshuffle. It turned out not to be

quite as dramatic as some of us

expected. Was it a Government fail?

Depends how you define fail. It has

taken a few days for the penny to

drop, though I had my suspicions on

the night when some of the 20 15th

intake got no promotions at all. It

was a tell-tale sign. Was it a

success in that it stored to the top

of the buildings? Not really, she

just rearranged the deckchairs on

the Titanic. Caroline Noakes was

attending Cabinet rather than being

a full cabinet minister, but the

Theresa May managed to fend off the

vultures coming for her by

absolutely wilfully, it now appears,

failing to put key rivals into key

positions, people like Rory Stewart,

Dominic Raj, some of the 2015ers? It

was a public fail but digging in

privately.

Well, listening to all that is my

first guest, Caroline Nokes.

She was promoted to immigration

minister in the reshuffle this

week and, in that role,

now attends Cabinet.

Congratulations on the new job. You

are presumably part of the making

the Government look more like the

country. Did the Prime Minister

achieve that?

I think she did. Look

at the whip's offers, where there

are more women than ever before. I

remember coming in in 2010 and

looking at a wet's office that was

really mail.

Why can't we have 50-50

women in the Cabinet?

We are heading

in the right direction, there are

two more women in the Cabinet.

Even

the Scottish Government has a policy

of 50-50 in the Cabinet - surely

it's possible?

We started from a

very low base of women, even

elected. I think we're doing a

fantastic job of encouraging more

women to come forward, and from more

diverse backgrounds. It is a work in

progress but we are headed in the

right direction.

right direction. People like Kerry

bad not, who went to the same

university as I did, the University

of Sussex, hardly a breeding ground

for Tory politicians.

In the

Government, there are 3% non-white

people - not very representative?

We

have done a good job of attracting

more diverse people to come and

stand the rise in the Government.

Our messages, -- our message is,

we're working hard to make sure that

those bright, young women from

diverse backgrounds have a chance.

You know, it's a process, isn't it?

We are all climbing up the ladder. I

think the Cabinet looks better than

it did. I have always advocated more

women in Parliament, and the last

debate I did was about getting more

women to stand in politics, and that

really matters.

The big news this

morning is the idea that the Justice

Secretary may take a judicial review

against the release of John Worboys.

What is your view on that? Should do

just this minute himself be taking

judicial review is against this kind

of decision?

We will look at the

victims of Worboys and we want them

to get the support they need and to

see that justice is being done. It

is absolutely right that David Gauke

is looking at a judicial review.

None of us feel happy with the

parole board decision. This is a man

who served less than ten years, and

it's a horrific number of victims.

We can't see the parole board's

decision or the reasoning for it.

The Government could change that at

a stroke and allow them to publish

it. Should they?

The Justice

Secretary is reviewing the process,

which is important. We want people

to have confidence. Our justice

system is a very old and proud one.

Let's not undermine it. Let's make

sure we get the right decisions in

place.

Lets get onto your own brief,

your new brief on immigration. It

means you inherit the target of

reducing net migration to the tens

of thousands. The last five

ministers have failed, will you do

it?

The last five ministers have seen

the trajectory heading down, the

last figures we saw in the summer

show it dropped significantly.

It

dropped slightly, 14,000 lower than

when you came to power in 2010,

overall net migration at 240 4000.

We want to make sure this is a

brittle open for business, that the

brightest and best can come here to

work and study. We are listening to

the universities and to business via

the immigration advisory

committee...

So if we are open to

business and the brightest and best

come here why have this target of

reducing net migration to less than

100,000? Lots of Cabinet ministers

would like to get rid of it. You

could have lifted and the 2017

manifesto and got rid of quite a

headache.

We had a referendum in

2016 which sent a clear message that

people want that target to remain,

they want to see as reducing

immigration to sustainable levels

and we are doing just that. It is in

the manifesto so that is the

direction of travel.

Immigration

from outside the EU, you claimed

that once we leave everything will

change with freedom of movement, but

net migration from outside the EU

which you have complete control over

now, it's over 100,000 in and of

itself. Why hasn't that been tackled

in the seven years that this has now

been a target?

We are attacking it,

and we are doing this I have a

banking measures you have heard

about this week, working to make

sure that those with bank accounts

and are not here legally have those

Fresnel cursive necessary, that is

important, we have a raft of

measures but the current Home

Secretary and the previous one have

been clear on this, we will get

these numbers down and do it in a

manageable and sustained way.

It is

not what business one. The Tory

mayor Andy Street says the target

should be more like 150,000 so

businesses can attract people with

the skills they need and George

Osborne says this is economic and

made illiterate because we need

higher migration and that --

economically illiterate.

Which is

why we are listening to the

committee which will report in

September which will give a solid

expert economist's view on what

migration levels should be. But it

was in the manifesto, we are

determined to head in that direction

and bring immigration down to a

sustainable level.

If you're

immigration advisor comes to you and

says somebody like Andy Street is

right we need around 150,000 coming,

will you change it? Because this was

a manifesto promise to get it down

to under 110,000 a year, so what

will that looked like if you have

disabled we didn't get it right.

Am

not going to prejudge.

I and asking

what you will do with their view

because you are stuck with this

promise of reducing immigration to

tens of thousands, there's not much

you can do if they oppose that.

You

are telling someone who has been in

the job less than a week that she

should make a decision on the hoof

in a TV studio! Not a chance. What I

need to do is listen to the experts

and come up with the direction of

travel that satisfies those who

voted Believe in the referendum,

that satisfies businesses, like the

brilliant Russell group University

and the one in Southampton on the

edge of my constituency can still

attract the best students. This is a

really difficult complicated area.

He mentioned the need to attract the

brightest students. While other

numbers of students coming to

Britain to study included in the net

migration figures? You could help

yourselves quickly by taking them

out of it. Just about every Cabinet

member wants them removed from

official figures, why are they

there?

The O M as determinate

students should be included because

they are here for more than 12

months. We must make sure we have

the public services that support

them. Many of them go home after

their study as they should but it is

important that we work with the

immigration advisory committee to

get the right answers.

You are happy

about students being included in the

migration figures?

And happy we've

got 24% more coming to our

universities than we had in 2010.

I'm happy that we are attracting a

great calibre of student here, I'm

equally happy that our former

feminists are cracked down on bogus

colleges and close them because we

want bright students to come here

and in the -- that our former Prime

Minister cracked down on bogus

colleges and closed them.

Button

back to the panel, Steve Camille

can't envy the new Immigration

Minister being tasked with reducing

immigration to a level that no other

Immigration Minister has been able

to achieve.

I don't envy you, I

don't know your Private view but I

do note that most Cabinet ministers

don't want student numbers to be

part of the total figure and Theresa

May alone is still pressing this.

I've just been doing a series about

a David Cameron. He made a series of

targets which were never met, as you

said in the interview. Good luck

with that. Lots of people I meet now

who were in favour of Brexit, like

farmers, pleading, as you will know,

for cheap Labour from Eastern Europe

to continue. They don't want to fill

in loads more forms to get them. So

there's a lot of talk

there's a lot of talk about Nimby

free movement and you have a tough

brief.

Julia, should net immigration

be reduced to tens of thousands, is

it important to the public?

I find

it bizarre they asked to a target

they've never done anything to

reach, certainly the immigration

levels that they were able to

control under the coalition and

David Cameron on his own, the

numbers can't be controlled

completely, they never even came

close, it was more than double,

about 250,000. I find this row about

students strange. If you live in the

country for three or four years you

need somewhere to live, you'll be

getting buses and trains, might need

to go to the hospital, is that the

idea that these people don't exist

because they are not here

permanently? And some of them do

stay. It's ridiculous. We need a

sensible debate. Brexit wasn't about

ending immigration. It was about us.

Like virtually every other country

in the world choosing who gets to

come here. If you are qualified and

have a skill we need we would love

to have you, come on in, the water

is lovely! But if we just want cheap

Labour subsidised by the taxpayer

with a housing benefit, to do jobs

not paid enough, then I don't think

we should. When it comes to farmers

we should pay more for...

Julia has

given quite a good explanation of

why the target was set up and should

probably stay because if there is no

target, then cheap Labour will

continue to flow in because it's the

easiest thing for business to do. If

you are limited in who you can bring

in new might turn to the indigenous

British population and start hiring

them to do decent jobs they are

perfectly capable of doing.

The

panel will be staying with us

throughout the programme. Thank you

to Caroline Nokes, the Immigration

Minister, for coming in.

Now with all the other stuff that's

been going on this week,

you might be concerned we'd

forgotten about the small

matter of Brexit.

But don't worry, it's

still very much on the agenda.

Having sealed a deal

on the divorce talks,

the focus is now shifting

to the future relationship.

The EU says we can only

have an 'off-the-shelf' model,

like the deals with Norway

or Canada; but the UK Government

says we can be far more ambitious,

as Elizabeth Glinka reports.

# Do you have the time #

To listen to me whine?#.

In her Florence speech,

Theresa May made it

clear that when it comes

to

trade negotiations with the EU,

the UK isn't looking for any

off-the-shelf kind of deal.

It wants something

special and bespoke.

I'm optimistic about

what we can achieve

by finding a creative solution

to a new economic relationship that

can support prosperity

for all our peoples.

Before Christmas, the senior

official in charge of Brexit

told the Cabinet that

when it comes to that

creative solution,

they

should start thinking in terms

of three baskets, what some people

are calling managed divergence.

The Institute for

Government has been

looking at what it means.

Three baskets corresponds

to the three areas

that Theresa May spoke

about in her Florence speech.

We have full alignment,

where we will continue to

meet the same outcomes

in the same way as we do now.

Regulatory equivalence

is where we will

continue to meet the same

outcomes as the EU

but might go about it

in a

slightly different way.

And then the final basket

around divergence,

where we will go about things

in a different way and may choose

to take completely different

outcomes at the

end of it.

OK, so if we were to look

at particular industries, say

something like aviation, maybe

workers' rights, we might put them

in this basket because we are saying

not much is going to change.

It would be very difficult to put

whole industries and whole sectors

in specific baskets.

If you take agriculture,

for example, state aid

and how much overall we can

subsidise our farmers may well sit

in full alignment, whereas issues

about agricultural and environmental

protection standards,

we could continue to

meet the same goals

but

by different means, and they can sit

in the middle basket.

Whereas, actually,

exactly what we subsidise

our farmers for could be completely

up to the UK and sit in the

divergent basket.

So it would be very difficult

to put single sectors

in single baskets.

If the UK is looking

for a high degree of access

to the single market,

then the EU will expect

lots of things ending up in the full

alignment basket,

whereas the UK will probably want

to try and pull as much as possible

into the regulatory

equivalence basket.

Of course, the point of all this

is is to remind the EU that

when it comes to these negotiations,

the UK is in a unique position

because currently we

are completely in sync.

It's in the interests of Britain

and the EU to get on

together.

People are thinking that it's

a binary thing, we are either

in the EU or we're out, that it's

night and day, but it isn't.

The point about

managed divergence is

that it does give us

much more flexibility.

We can decide for ourselves

which bits we want to keep

and which bits we want

to amend or get rid of.

And I think...

I think that's a huge opportunity.

Philip Hammond and

David Davies have been

on a charm offensive

in Germany this week,

so just how are those very British

baskets going down in

Brussels?

There is a concern that the UK

will take a shopping basket,

pick off the elements of the major

trade agreements the EU has secured

with third countries,

take all those together.

It gets the UK very close to full

membership of the single

market without any of

the obligations, so I think

they view managed divergence

as another way in

which the UK either hopes to cherry

pick or have its cake and eat it.

All member states will

agree that they can't

set a precedent with

the

UK that then sets internal

challenges for themselves over the

medium to longer term.

Now, what goes into

these baskets remains a

bit of a mystery, but of course,

there are deadlines because the next

round of talks is due to get under

way

this spring.

And you

can find more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Welcome to the programme, thank you

for coming back. We were learning

about the different baskets, full

alignment, regulatory alignment.

Labour say you want to give all the

benefits and the single market so

presumably want to stay as much in

alignment as we do already?

What

we've said is that the government

have said we could have all the

benefits and we will hold them to

that.

To do that, we must keep most

of what we can in the full alignment

basket?

We want to make sure we get

as much of the benefits as we

currently have once we have left the

EU.

You can't do that and diverged.

Absolutely. That's the point.

Diverges from that, whether through

a trade deal with another country or

whether it is simply because we want

to deregulate our standards in the

UK is going to cause a problem with

maintaining the sort of trade we

have with Europe. It's going to

cause that economic bond. But we

want to make sure we have a Brexit

that is for jobs, for the economy

and that's why we see the benefits

of the single market, the benefits

of the customs union, and swipe we

said we wouldn't rule is off the

table. Whereas the government

precisely said it would. And that is

the red lines that Theresa May put

in place that are now causing her

all these other problems.

They've

caused a few problems in policy for

Labour as well because the closer

you want to stay to single market

rules, if we've loved the single

market because that is government

policy, more alignment would have --

if we've left. That is us accepting

rules we had no say in making, a

state you have described as being a

vassal state.

These other uses we

really have to resolve. Because you

are right, once we leave the EU that

means we are not a member of the

single market. It doesn't mean we

can't trade into the single market,

of course we can. We can do that in

the same way that Norway does. But

our economy is very different from

that of Norway. And what we need to

be sure about is when we are making

our rules in this country we are

doing it as close as possible to

maintain the trade and the economic

benefits we get in the European

Union.

There have been reports this

week that Labour is working on a

policy that would involve staying in

the customs union. The Robert Peston

programme on ITV...

That could not

be the case. I'm sorry to correct

you on a technicality. But once you

leave the EU you leave the treaties

and it is the treaties that create

the customs union. So we could not

be a member of the customs union.

You could be remember of a customs

union, which is what Jeremy Corbyn

was talking about on TV this

morning.

He was talking about the

transition period immediately after

leaving the EU. That has been our

position for many months. We were

the ones that said, in that

transitional period, we want the

status quo. We want to maintain

things that are... We want to

maintain a customs union and single

market during that transition.

Let's

talk about the future after the

transition period. Let's look at

what you said you thought were the

consequences.

consequences. Do you still agree

with that?

I was specifically

referring to, and if you go back on

that quote a little bit, you will

find we were talking about the

turkey situation, which was a

customs union agreement with the EU.

That would be a very bad end point

for us, because it would mean that

the European Union ended up doing

all the negotiations for trade for

the UK. We would have to open our

markets to any other company in --

any other country they made an

agreement with. But that country

would not have to liberalise its

markets and open itself up to our

goods and services.

The common

commercial policy is what governs

all of this and binds us in with

these trade treaties. The UK

Government say they want to leave

that. Is that the Labour position?

We will be...

Would you like to join

something similar once we are no

longer members of the EU?

I already

said, we believe that the benefits

of what we currently have should be

maintained as much as possible, and

that means that whilst we cannot

stay in the customs union, we should

not have a turkey style customs

union agreement, because that would

be an asymmetrical relationship with

any trading partner. What we do see

as a possibility, and it is what we

have not ruled out, which is to have

a new customs union with the

European Union, and that is

something very interesting wave

which in paragraph 31 of the

cross-border trade taxation bill

which came in on Monday from the

Government, and which we debated

them, they have actually put

provision for that, a new customs

union, where we would be an equal

member.

But you cannot possibly

believe that you can have the

benefits of being in a reformed

customs union relationship with the

EU and still have total freedom to

make new trade deals. You have said

you don't want anything which

precludes us from making independent

trade agreements with some of our

bigger partners.

Let's be clear

about the nexus of problems we are

trying to solve the run work our way

through. You have, within the

referendum, a clarity that people

were voting for certain political

issues, whether that was in terms of

immigration, regaining sovereignty,

or simply not paying money into

Europe. All of these were things

people thought they were voting for.

If you were to be in a relationship

in which some of those continued to

be the case, where we were rule

takers and not rule setters, as

Norway is at the moment, and they

are told they have no right to

decide what the rules are going to

be, that is a political problem

which many people in this country

would feel, what was the referendum

all about if we don't achieve that?

Let's...

Just let me... I don't

think it's clear, the problems we

are trying to solve. We want to

maintain a maximum economic benefit,

to get the economic benefit of the

jobs that we currently get from the

trading relationship we have in a

customs union and in a single market

with the European Union. But to do

that respecting the referendum will

of the people for those political

objectives.

We understand that

point.

Labour has to bring back the

42 purse -- the 52% under 48%.

We

understand need to move you on to

something else. We have heard the

new Tory chairman Brandon Lewis say

today that if any... He wants new

Tory candidates to sign up to a

respect pledge that they will

conduct themselves on Twitter and in

what they say in a respectful way,

otherwise they will be removed as

candidates.

Of course, that's right.

Jeremy Corbyn said that Labour

should do it too. It raises

questions about some Labour MPs.

Jarrod O'Mara, for example, who has

had the whip suspended.

An

investigation is being conducted, as

is appropriate, within all the

procedures of our party. Absolutely

right, suspended.

Because of remarks

he made about women and homophobic

comments. Then you look at the

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell,

against whom no action has been

taken, and he has said a number of

things, but one of them which has

been heavily criticised is that he

wanted... Well, he agreed with

people who wanted to see Esther

McVeigh lynched. We have the audio

of this. Let's listen and then we

will ask you about it.

I was up in

Liverpool a fortnight ago...

And obviously, he used a word that

we won't be saying on TV, but is

that respectful language?

It is not

language I would have used. Earlier

today, you have been quoting remarks

that were made by the President of

the United States which were deeply

offensive and unacceptable.

Yes.

Hang on.

But this is about the

Labour Party...

And you quoted. The

point I am making is that he was

quoting what someone else was

saying, and I would not have chosen

to do that.

He was clearly quoting

with approval, not reporting it.

The

underlying issue which the

Conservatives have been trying to

cover up through all the smear on

John McDonnell, Esther McVeigh, who

was a Department for Work and

Pensions minister, and at a time

when she was in charge of work and

pensions as a minister, her company

had been reported for breach of

health and safety guidelines. She is

one of the ministers, and for that

reason...

Jeremy Corbyn said we

should stick to policies and use

respectful language. That wasn't

respect.

That's what I'm doing now,

and I'm trying to make the

underlying political point about

what's going on here. She was in

charge of a department in which she

was responsible for health and

safety when her own company which

she was a director of, a

construction company, they had been

suspended, their work had had to be

suspended twice within three months

for breach of those health and

safety guidelines, putting workers

at risk in her own company. She is

also somebody...

We will have to

leave it

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland.

After a week of bitter exchanges

over Barry McElduff's Kingsmill

video, Sinn Fein and the DUP have

softened the political tone -

but does that leave us any closer

to a breakthrough at Stormont?

We'll hear from the Ulster

Unionists, the SDLP and Alliance.

Arlene Foster tells a conference

in Killarney that Brexit doesn't

mean "pulling up the drawbridge".

And with their thoughts

on it all, my guests -

Felicity Huston and Chris Donnelly.

A change of tone between the DUP

and Sinn Fein on The View

on Thursday night following

a toxic week in politics -

but will it translate into any kind

of meaningful move

towards the restoration

of devolved government here?

I'm joined by the Ulster Unionist

leader, Robin Swann,

the SDLP's Nichola Mallon

and Stephen Farry from

the Alliance Party.

Welcome to you all.

Barry McElduff sparked

the controversy which raged

throughout the week.

The controversial cartoon

and reaction to it prolonged

the rancour, but have Sinn Fein

and the DUP now calmed the waters

in what they said on Thursday night?

Barry McElduff's actions cause huge

hurt and pain and offence to victors

-- victims of Kingsmills and there

was not a tough enough reaction. But

now, we have had one civilised

exchange. That comes on the heels of

12 months of hard, bitter polarising

language which, one swallow does not

a summer make. It is indicative of

the fact that throughout the past

year we have heard provoke Alli

positive words but none of it has

been backed up with action. We

welcome the civilised exchange but

we want to see that carry forward

and demonstrated by both factions of

the DUP and Sinn Fein.

Nobody would

want to overplay the significance.

It was two politicians maintain

their differences on a number of key

points. But does it hint at

something going on behind the

scenes?

I suppose the question is

whether this is reflective of the

entire party and the leadership. Or

was it an exchange between John and

Edward on a personal basis? They

have served together. Does this play

out in the rest of the media stances

between the two parties? We need

notification if there is going to be

more talks. Are they genuine about

that exchange?

You don't think for a

minute that John O'Dowd went on a

solo run on as comments on the

Kingsmills massacre?

No.

That must

be discussed within Sinn Fein

circles.

The reaction to Edwin, I

don't know if they knew, there was

speculation that it was

choreographed between the parties. I

am not sure if Edwin was aware just

how far John would actually go

because he did demonstrate quite a

sea change from where Sinn Fein have

been in the past. That is great, but

I want to see its reflected on a

wider and deeper scale.

They did not

suggest to me in anyway that they

were to do what they did live on the

programme. I got no sense of that

before the programme started. How

significant you think that tonal

change might be?

The rhetoric was in

danger of getting out of control.

Deliberately?

Deliberately. We have

seen some provocative actions over

the last few days and months. I hope

they realise that cannot continue.

In itself, that does not indicate a

change of direction. The gaps on the

issues holding back row Gres are

narrow but there are massive gaps in

terms of trust and respect between

particularly those two main parties.

And also, Northern Ireland has been

pulled apart because of the

polarisation and the effects of

Brexit. I am not clear that either

party has a clear sense of purpose

around and independent Northern

Ireland. Both parties seem to be

playing it both ways. The DUP

particularly. They are talking about

the onset of direct rule, which will

be a disaster for more than Ireland.

And Sinn Fein are looking to

potential opportunities in. Both

parties need to send a signal that

they are serious about it working.

Does it also bring low just -- bring

home just how low our politics have

fallen that one civilised exchange

of knowledge in heart that was

caused me is headline news? That was

the big message from me on Thursday

night.

A lot of people have made

that point, why is that such a big

deal? But that is the politics of

Northern Ireland.

That is my point,

let's see if it is replicated on

Monday and let's see the difference

reflected by the DUP MPs. Even with

what Arlene Foster was saying in

Killarney about Brexit, because

there are different messages coming

from that party. Sinn Fein in

reaction in Northern Ireland and the

reaction in the Republic of Ireland,

there was a difference. There is a

differentiation in both parties.

Many people believe that the

differences between the two main

parties are not as great as some

people imagine them to be but on

Thursday night, John O'Dowd said

that our equality agenda remains

immovable. That is not something we

are prepared to compromise on. And

Edwin Poots said at the end of the

interview, if there is going to be

some kind of deal, it will involve

pain on all sides and we have Mason

-- and we may have some difficulty

in selling this. What does that say

about their preparedness to make a

compromise which will be inevitable

if a delisting the done?

We heard

John O'Dowd say we will compromise

on a compromise. But we heard the

leader of Sinn Fein saying that we

have stretched ourselves for the

common good. We have seen the last

year Sinn Fein deriding the SDLP. We

know that whatever happens, because

of a divided society, that

accommodation of differences in

compromise will have to be the

answer. You have to come back to

that reality. We are getting

contradictory messages from both

Sinn Fein and the DUP. That was just

one example. And the difficulty is

that there has been a lack of

openness around the detailed

positions. Around the Bill of

Rights, I only hear slogans and

sound bites. I want to hear what is

in the proposed bill of Rights. Does

it cover economic and social rights?

We don't know. We have heard that

they have both compromise, but let

the public see who have stretched

themselves. Let the public see who

has been intransigent. For some

reason, both parties continue to

refuse that. You have to ask why. We

have come to the point when

rhetoric, we have heard it and we

won't know what you have been doing

in past year.

The representatives of

those two parties won what -- would

not want you all the members of the

public to see those details if there

is a possibility of further final

compromises needing to be made. You

wouldn't want to be giving away your

almost final hand.

But we don't have

time. We have tried this 2-party

browsers in the last few months.

But

the major difficulty is between the

F -- the DUP and Sinn Fein.

An

independent mediator would provide a

different set of eyes and a

different dynamic to that process.

And they could push and pull both

parties towards that kind of

compromise that they are incapable

of by themselves. And a party -- a

multiparty format would help. We

would bring a different set of eyes

to the table that would enable us to

find those compromises that those

parties by themselves cannot.

You've spoken to the

Sexretary of State.

What did she say?

Is there any hint when. ?

We met

when she was 36 hours into the job.

-- secretary of state. She's picking

up a process for the past year. We

are unaware of how much the NISO are

aware of what has happened between

the DUP and Sinn Fein. It is a big

job of work. She doesn't have a long

time to do it because the

credibility of politics and

politicians in Northern Ireland is

at an all-time low and we need a

process that starts to build some

sort of re-engagement on the ground

between politicians and the public.

We need to deliver on the key

issues. Our health services

collapsing and as politicians, we

need to be on the coal face and

tackle solutions.

That is not unique

to Northern Ireland, there are

similar problems across the water in

GB and also in the Republic.

And we

needed ministers who can rearrange

budgets and moved goalposts and

deliver. At this moment, we have

nothing.

Do you think that Karen

Bradley Komla is a different style

from James Brokenshire, will bring

fresh impetus to the process? Do you

think she might break the logjam?

It's difficult to know at this

stage. When we met with her, we were

clear that you need to have

inclusive talks, independents in

terms of the chair and let's see

what progress is made so that we can

all try to build on that.

De

Giovanni you as a person?

She was

very much in listening mode in the

short meeting and she came across

very personable. But our messages

were consistent and ferment

immensely this comes down to the

parties of Northern Ireland working

with the two governments. We're

going to act and put a local gun in

place? That is the challenge for all

of us.

Owen Smith, the Shadow Secretary

of State, said the anniversary

of the Good Friday Agreement

in April should be the deadline.

For this process. Does this make

sense?

Identity we can afford to

wait that long. Obviously it is the

20th anniversary this year and some

people are writing it off. But we

have to accept that we have seen

spectacular progress over the last

20 years and we have to bank all of

that in terms of the change of

relationships across these islands.

We have to reform these this

agreement -- the agreement and we

can't stand still. But from the

point of finance, January, early

February is the effective deadline

in terms of having a budget in

place. We need a shareable resources

efficiently in Northern Ireland and

if not, we will be squandering

money. We cannot afford to do that.

So many things require reform and

our economy is stagnating.

Thank you all.

Let's hear what my guests

of the day make of that.

I'm joined by Chris Donnelly

and Felicity Huston.

Felicity, are you more positive now

than you might have been early

evening on Thursday?

I agree with

Nichola Mallon, one swallow does not

a summer make. When Martin

McGuinness mated comments about

traitors to island killing PSNI

officers, when Arlene went to Martin

McGuinness's funeral and shook

hands, all this is great, things

might be starting to change. But

I've seem to many of these moments

all over the years. The other thing

is, with the McElduff debacle, if

you scrape back the layers in

Northern Ireland, you don't have to

go deep to find out how bitter and

nasty and divided we still are.

Chris, a bad week last week,

everybody agreed, but was it a bit

of redemption towards the end?

I

think so, and it became quite

positive. The significance of last

week, for the first time in over a

year, Sinn Fein were under pressure

and on the defensive. That was the

first time under Michelle O'Neill

that that has happened. Alan

McBride, the victim campaigner who

lost his wife, he said it was either

beyond wicked or just stupid. And

the response Sinn Fein initially was

very forthright and people believed

on the back of that that Barry

McElduff would be expelled. Then we

had Michelle O'Neill speaking later

on and announcing that he would be

suspended for a period of months.

That was more consistent with the

position that Sinn Fein had taken,

that it was more of a coincidence

rather than an insult. Then the

revelation came out that he was

still be allowed to use the party

offices. It put out a mixed message

that was heaping pressure on the

party. It took John O'Dowd's

intervention, which I were describe

as decisive, to draw a line under

the incident. The significance of

this is that it took John O'Dowd and

Michelle O'Neill remains untested as

leader. This will be something that

she will take out of this, that

there will have to be more decisive

and effectively to ship from her

going forward.

Do you think that

Barry McElduff should have had a

tougher punishment imposed by the

Sinn Fein leadership?

Yes, I do. I

don't know what he thought he was

act. When I saw it, I thought it was

bizarre and tactless.

Do you think

beyond wicked or just you would?

I

would say wicked. Because it does

not seem to be the only incident

about victims of Kingsmills massacre

being tortured with bread and toast.

I think you should have been sacked

from the party. That is easy for me

to say. Sinn Fein is a disciplined

party, heavily regulated. But if

they had at least put him out for

six months and taken his salary off

him, people might have thought there

was some sort of genuine recognition

of what he had done, whether full or

navel. But three months on full

pay,?

Thanks both.

Meantime, the DUP leader,

Arlene Foster, told a conference

in Killarney this weekend that

Brexit isn't about "pulling up

the drawbridge", as she put it.

In her speech, she likened

Northern Ireland and the Republic

to a pair of semi-detached houses,

similar on the outside

but with different interiors.

As Shane Harrison now reports

from Kerry, the DUP leader's

presence comes after a period

of strained relations.

Killarney on a wet weekend. Where

better to ponder the choppy waters

of Brexit and contemplate what,

beyond the mist of uncertainty,

maybe the future relationships on

the island and between the UK and be

you. Arlene Foster came to this

hotel in a conciliatory mood after

last month's frostiness over the UK

and EU divorce talks that eventually

resulted in a kind of deal on

continuing regulatory alignment

between North and South and no

border at the Irish Sea. Not a time

for pulling up the Irish drawbridge,

she told the Brexit conference.

I

know we are rivals in some respects,

but in so many ways, successful one

of us is successful the other. And

as we chart a new future, it is not

in our interest to see the Republic

of Ireland do anything other than

prosper.

At the conference, the

leader of Fianna Fail, the

Republic's main opposition party,

called for the restoration of the

Northern Ireland political

institutions.

The dangers of Brexit

and the challenges make it

inexcusable that we do not have an

Executive in Northern Ireland. They

should make a commitment to the

restoration of the Executive.

Because of Brexit, Fianna Fail

believes that Northern Ireland

should be designated a special

economic zone. The DUP isn't

automatically rule it out.

I don't

think it's right to take anything

out of touch until one has seen the

details and I will have a look at

them because it would be wrong, as

happened sometimes in Northern

Ireland, that you just getting knee

jerk reaction.

In her rush to return

north, Arlene Foster did not get a

chance to enjoy a ride on this

famous carriage. But she was paid a

kind of compliment.

I think Arlene

showed political courage in making

it clear that she needed the

relationships. But I disagree with

her analysis of Brexit and so do the

people of Northern Ireland, because

they wanted to stay. That is not --

her views on those of the majority

of people in Northern Ireland.

So

what direction will Brexit take? The

regular three alignment and piracy

agreement were part of the scenario,

if there is no ultimate Brexit deal.

A former senior press officer at

Downing Street says, all is still to

play for.

The language around

regulatory alignment and batted the

backstop option, has to be defined

in legal terms specifically. So the

next few months will be fascinating

and difficult.

This week's

conference on the shores of the lake

heard that agreement is possible but

unlikely. It should become clearer

in the possible months.

Shane Harrison reporting.

We'll have a final thought

from my studio guests in a moment,

but first, let's take a look back

at the political week in 60 seconds

- with Gareth Gordon.

One image set the tone for the week.

It's not just a matter of Barry

McElduff's apology, it's a matter of

the leadership.

Barry McElduff

apologise for his actions.

A

political cartoon kept the story in

the headlines. But as the week moved

on, a more considered view tone

moved on.

It is shameful what

happened on the roadside and as a

Republican, I'm shamed by it.

I

welcome what was said and I would

say that what happened to John's

family was wrong as well.

The

Secretary of State resigned because

of illness.

I need time and space to

focus on surgery and recovery.

And

an unclear time ahead.

I know there

are challenges but I'm determined we

will find a way through those

challenges. We need to deliver

devolved government.

Gareth Gordon - and let's speak

to Felicity and Chris again.

Arlene Foster's comments

in Killarney - not ruling out NI

being designated a Special Economic

Zone.

Many people saying it was a

generally constructive contribution

after a period of strained

relations.

The sentiment was not

necessarily new but the tone was.

2017 was a polarising year not just

locally but between the British and

I is governments with the first

round of Brexit negotiations. There

is recognition on all sides that if

we are going to get demolition up

and running, some of the poison

needs to be drawn out of our system

and there was a recognition also by

both Arlene Foster and Michelle

O'Neill that the choreography has to

be right. Applicants may reference

to that. The grassroots need to be

heard. -- Edwin boots made

reference.

Let's pick up on that

point. Do you think the new

Secretary of State, Karen Bradley,

can get traction and get the process

back on track if that is what is

wanted?

I'm not optimistic and I

didn't see much dynamism when she

was Secretary of State for culture

media and the arts, and she kept

pushing the Murdoch problem into

touch and leaving it to somebody

else. We want to ask whether there

are any new ideas in the NIO. It

will come from them. They have the

same special adviser that they have

had since Peter Brooks's day. We

need new people from that side, as

well.

Chris?

One of the criticisms

of James Brokenshire was that he

could never get a credible

negotiation process going. Karen

Bradley needs to learn from that.

But the structures at the top of the

party need to know what they are

going into so that the pieces are

addressed. That is more portable

that doesn't mean we shouldn't

return to it.

addressed. That is more portable

return to it.

I have to stop

return to it.

I have to stop you

all.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Rupa to Bob

and to Luke and with that,

it's back to Sarah.

Earlier we were talking about

comments made by John McDonnell

about Esther McVeigh. The Labour

Party had been in touch to say that

Mr McDonnell did not quote with

approval, and that comments made in

Parliament confirm that. We have

been contacted also by the office of

Kier Starmer, previously the

Director of Public Prosecutions,

saying he had nothing to do with the

decision about John Worboys, and we

are also happy to make that crystal

clear. On to other news...

Ukip has suspended the girlfriend

of the party leader, Henry Bolton,

after reports that she made racist

remarks about Prince Harry's

fiancee Meghan Markle.

In text messages to a friend,

Jo Marney described black people

as "ugly" and said "her seed"

would "taint our royal family".

Ms Marney has apologised,

and said that comments had been

taken out of context.

Paul Oakden, Ukip's party chairman,

joins us from Birmingham.

Can Henry Bolton carry on as leader

after this?

I think it is very clear

that Henry is increasingly in a

position where he has some difficult

decisions to make. He knows that. He

and I have spoken regularly over the

weekend, as recently as this

morning. I know he is focused on

those decisions today. He intends on

making those decisions today, and

I'm sure that whatever he does will

be in the best interests of the

party.

It sounds like you expect him

to resign by the end of the day.

Not

at all. He is in a situation that he

would rather not be in, which he

acknowledges, but I believe he has

the party's best interests at heart

and that is what he will focus on.

Would the party's best interests be

served by him standing down as

leader?

It would be best served by

the membership having the

opportunity to have their say. Henry

acknowledges there has been an error

in judgment, and it is now for the

party membership and ruling body to

make a determination on whether they

feel Henry is the best person to

lead them into what will be an

incredibly crucial 12 months for

Brexit. The thing that matters

beyond Ukip and everything else.

If

he doesn't decide by the end of the

day that he will stand down, when

will the NEC meet?

A week today. I

want to be clear - Henry is not

deciding whether he will or won't

resign today. He's deciding what he

can do to help remedy this

situation. As leader, he will play

the leading role in making this

better, clearly needs made better,

and a lot of people take their lead

from him. The party is represented

by its governing body, which will

meet a week today. If he is still

the leader Robbie today, they will

meet at that point and collectively

make a decision about what to do

going forward.

It doesn't sound like

he has your support.

Far from it. My

job is to make sure that our

thousands of members, who joined not

because of the leader's Private life

but because of Brexit, and we will

not deliver Brexit on our own. Now

that Tony Blair is running around

with Lord Adonis and Nick Clegg

trying to ride roughshod over

democracy, we need a grand coalition

of all those groups that fought on

the League side to come together to

see the journey home. That is the

priority.

It is a huge distraction

if you're leader is having to fend

off the stories about his private

life.

It is true that we need to be

behind our leader 100% in taking

that battle forward. That is

absolutely key. Whether or not the

party decides it is willing to give

that support to Henry is for the

party decide. My role as German as

to make sure they have the ability

to voice their opinion. I have every

confidence that our national

executive committee will do what is

in the interests of the party, and I

have every confidence that that is

what our leader will seek to do.

Whatever the situation, I am

confident that a week tomorrow, the

party will be in fine form to take

that to the Remain establishment.

Thanks for joining us.

Let's pick up on that with the

panel. What do you think the

prospects are for the Ukip leader?

Based on that, it has Monty Python

moment. He will do what is best for

the party, but that best... This is

symptomatic of a wider crisis for

Ukip. I've lost count of the number

of leaders they've had.

Five in 18

months.

Three of them were Nigel

Farage!

He will probably be back

again. They were a powerful vessel

for delivering that referendum, but

it is a lesson for people wanting to

start political parties - it was a

fragile vessel. The fragility is are

now being exposed in this impossible

nightmare they have. They can't even

find a credible leader. They have

not resigned over principles, they

have resigned in bizarre

circumstances, time and again.

One

of them only lasted days.

And that

is not bad going on the basis of

what could happen in the future. It

shows that it is difficult to set up

a credible, serious political party.

And they have become incredible.

On

a more serious note, Paul Oakton was

saying that it is more important

than ever to have people are giving

the Ukip case as we go through the

process of Brexit. As a party, can

they do that? Or do people think

that

that with the referendum done and

dusted, Ukip are finished?

We have

seen that in their election results

since. He was a credible leader, a

background in the police, working in

the EU, the Armed Forces. I don't

want to live in Soviet Russia or

modern-day North Korea where people

have guilt by association. He hasn't

made these racist remarks.

She has

been suspended from the partly, --

the party, she is his partner.

They

are not taken out of context, they

are outrageous, no question at all,

racist, disgusting remarks, and no

question that she should be out of

the party membership. I would say

that his misjudgement in being a

middle-aged man running off with a

glamour model half his age is the

embarrassment for him. If he wants

to be in a relationship with someone

with those vile views, it is a

question of his judgment. But let's

not confuse the person who committed

the offence. The key thing is, Ukip

had a role, and Nigel Farage in my

view is one of the most influential

politicians of the 21st century in

terms of how he has changed

politics. Part of that effectively

meant that Ukip had no role. They

believe they have an important role,

because they don't believe Theresa

May is delivering the Brexit that

many people like me actually voted

for. I would like to keep them on

the back burner as a credible party

if and when they are needed to like

the touch paper beneath the stories.

To hold Theresa May's fee to the

fire. Nigel Farage sprang back into

the news today, possibly because he

was looking for increased relevance

to get himself back in the

headlines, saying that he now agrees

with Nick Clegg and Tony Blair that

there might have to be a second

referendum. Explain that, Tom.

He

said it on Friday morning, sorry,

Thursday morning, and now he has

said it again. He has recanted a

bit, saying that it is not that he

wants one, but it is back on the

front page of the Observer,

repeating the message. I think there

are now will be one. Do you think he

could possibly be sniffing out a job

vacancy coming up any time soon? My

reading of your incisive interview

with Paul Oakton was that we

should -- was that he will be handed

a revolver, possibly this afternoon.

If Nigel Farage came back, it could

be his third or fourth term?

He

could easily come back. He goes on

TV programmes and gives interviews,

and you can see our role for him.

The vacancy is about to come up. It

rather begins to feel like a fait

accompli.

The EU withdrawal bill is

back in the Commons this week -

trouble for the Government over what

will happen this week?

At certain

moments, there will be, as there was

in December, moments of potential

drama, inevitably, because they

haven't always got a guaranteed

majority. I suspect that defeats

like we saw with the Dominic grieve

amendment won't happen very often,

but there will be, as with the rest

of this Brexit sequence, moments of

heightened drama where it is not at

all clear what is going to happen

and whether she can get what she

wants through, Theresa May. I think

the referendum thing is interesting.

There's no reason why the 2016 one

should be seen as a theological

thing that cannot be touched,

because the 2016 one showed that you

can have second referendums. It was

a second one.

Let's have another one

in 40- odd years.

Very briefly,

Julia, are you disappointed that

Donald Trump is not coming to London

to open the embassy?

I hold no torch

for Donald Trump. He wants us to be

lining the roots and way being --

waving our little flags. He wants to

meet the corgis. I think we should

be friendly with the leaders of

major global powers who are our

allies in trade and militarily. It

would be foolish to upset that

because we don't like the current

incumbent. What might we might be

looking for a trade deal with them

as well. Theresa May might be

relieved. Oh God, yes!

Someone

senior in the Government said to me

on Friday, using similar words to

Donald Trump, it would be an capital

at show if he came, and the same if

he didn't. -- it would be an S show.

No one made remarks about President

Macron or Angela Merkel. If we

accept the Chinese president, a

totalitarian who has his political

opponents murdered, I think we can

cope with Donald Trump, as hideous

and horrible and racist and

misogynistic as he is.

Strange that

he has

he has in -- that he hasn't come

given the respect shall

relationship.

For our defence and

security relationships, we need

this.

We have to leave it there.

That's all for today.

Join me again next Sunday at 11

here on BBC One XXXXX.

Until then, bye bye.

-- join me again next Sunday at 11

here on BBC One.