:00:37. > :00:42.Boris Johnson hosts a summit of allies in London
:00:43. > :00:46.to discuss how to broker a peace settlement in Syria.
:00:47. > :00:50.But as war continues to rage, could "no-bomb zones" -
:00:51. > :00:52.thought to be backed by the Foreign Secretary -
:00:53. > :00:55.protect civilians, and how would they work?
:00:56. > :00:58.We were told by the Remain campaign that a vote to leave the EU would
:00:59. > :01:04.But with the economy growing and employment at record
:01:05. > :01:09.Can Theresa May make a decision on airport expansion
:01:10. > :01:12.without triggering a Conservative cabinet bust-up
:01:13. > :01:19.We look at what's at stake, as the PM prepares to choose
:01:20. > :01:22.And coming up here: A plan to deal with the legacy
:01:23. > :01:24.of the past is stuck in the starting blocks -
:01:25. > :01:27.We'll hear from the Victims Commissioner, Sinn Fein
:01:28. > :01:31.and the Ulster Unionists. on whether to expand Heathrow, is
:01:32. > :01:37.Brexit causing uncertainty in the aviation sector?
:01:38. > :01:40.All that to come before 12.15 - and the Scottish Secretary, David
:01:41. > :01:42.Mundell, on Nicola Sturgeon's plans for a second referendum
:01:43. > :01:47.And with me throughout - Tom Newtown Dunn,
:01:48. > :01:50.Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.
:01:51. > :01:52.They'll all be tweeting their thoughts and comments
:01:53. > :01:58.So, in just over an hour, the Foreign Secretary,
:01:59. > :02:01.Boris Johnson, will host a meeting of foreign allies in London,
:02:02. > :02:04.including US Secretary of State John Kerry,
:02:05. > :02:07.to discuss military options in Syria.
:02:08. > :02:10.Last week, Mr Johnson said the public mood had changed
:02:11. > :02:13.after relentless bomb attacks on Aleppo
:02:14. > :02:22.and that more "kinetic action" might be possible.
:02:23. > :02:29.Has the public mood changed on Syria? There is a desire to end the
:02:30. > :02:34.horror, but has the public mood really changed? Not really. When
:02:35. > :02:39.asked, the Public say that something must be done and we must stop the
:02:40. > :02:45.slaughter, but when also asked whether to put British troops there,
:02:46. > :02:49.they say, probably not. We have a new Foreign Secretary and British
:02:50. > :02:53.government, and we will have a new White House come January for sure.
:02:54. > :02:59.So there is a feeling that what has gone so far in terms of not
:03:00. > :03:04.intervening, not trying to oppose or block Putin from doing what he wants
:03:05. > :03:09.in Syria has failed, so time to try something else. There was talk of a
:03:10. > :03:16.no-fly zone. There's not so much talk about it now. Now there's
:03:17. > :03:20.suddenly a no-bomb zone. Are we clear what that would be? It is
:03:21. > :03:26.meaningless without a no-fly zone and no one is willing to enforce it.
:03:27. > :03:30.For me, the biggest issue is, what is the point of the United Nations?
:03:31. > :03:35.With Russia vetoing any possible peace plan, we are in a situation
:03:36. > :03:39.where we are basically handing over our moral authority in the world for
:03:40. > :03:44.dealing with humanitarian disasters and war crimes being committed by
:03:45. > :03:49.the side regime and Putin to an organisation which is controlled by
:03:50. > :04:01.Putin effectively because he has a veto on the Security Council. The
:04:02. > :04:04.situation is untenable. We cannot sit and pretend we don't want to be
:04:05. > :04:07.involved in this war. We are already at war, and we will be at war. We
:04:08. > :04:10.need to get to grips with it sooner or later. If we are willing to say
:04:11. > :04:14.that we don't care about Syrian children dying... But we are not
:04:15. > :04:20.willing to say that, so we need to do something about it. We could care
:04:21. > :04:26.deeply but admits there is not something we can do about it.
:04:27. > :04:32.Indeed. When Julia says "Get involved", that does not translate
:04:33. > :04:37.to anything precise or specific. The problem is you go round in circles
:04:38. > :04:42.when it comes to reaction, because when people are then asked what the
:04:43. > :04:48.endgame is - and you do need to have a sense of the end and an aim, and
:04:49. > :04:53.one of the problems with Iraq was that there was not that - you can
:04:54. > :04:58.simply say, something needs to be done and we are involved and there
:04:59. > :05:02.should be military action, but that raises 10,000 other questions which
:05:03. > :05:05.no one is capable of answering. As I understand it, the no-bomb zone
:05:06. > :05:10.would be that we would designate areas where no bombing would be
:05:11. > :05:15.allowed. We wouldn't have planes to stop it happening, but if bombing
:05:16. > :05:20.did happen in those areas, we would use missiles to take out Syrian
:05:21. > :05:26.infrastructure. It seems complicated, and to not take into
:05:27. > :05:28.account what we would do if the Russians put anti-missile batteries
:05:29. > :05:35.around this Syrian infrastructure, as well they might. And you could go
:05:36. > :05:40.one step further. Your understanding is the same as mine. Doing something
:05:41. > :05:47.to prevent drops being -- ones being dropped in that area, but without
:05:48. > :05:54.engaging with Russia. You could fire cruise missiles into a runway, which
:05:55. > :05:58.we were warned could be done, but the problem is, you could have a
:05:59. > :06:04.Russian jet in the middle of that runway, or a bus of school kids. We
:06:05. > :06:09.know that they are capable of doing that. You are looking towards a
:06:10. > :06:12.confrontation with Russia, what ever you do. Boris Johnson would say this
:06:13. > :06:18.is the kind of HARDtalk we need to get the man to listen, because
:06:19. > :06:23.everything else has failed. Mr Kerry being there is significant, but at
:06:24. > :06:33.this stage in the election cycle, it's hard to sue what -- see what Mr
:06:34. > :06:38.Obama would do. We have no idea what to reason may's foreign policy is in
:06:39. > :06:45.terms of intervention. The last thing she would want to do is to get
:06:46. > :06:49.involved in a Middle Eastern war. But we are already involved. And the
:06:50. > :06:55.idea that our entire foreign policy should be based on not having a
:06:56. > :06:59.conflict in the Putin... The West as a whole is not wanting to have a
:07:00. > :07:06.conflict with him, and that is why he is acting how he is.
:07:07. > :07:08.Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has repeated her
:07:09. > :07:11.warning that, if the UK leaves the single market, she will push for
:07:12. > :07:15.Speaking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning, Ms Sturgeon said
:07:16. > :07:17.she would not hesitate to protect Scotland's economic interests.
:07:18. > :07:19.There's a principle here about, you know,
:07:20. > :07:22.Does what we think, and what we say, and how
:07:23. > :07:26.And that's what's going to be put to the test, I think,
:07:27. > :07:30.Theresa May, perfectly legitimately, says she values the UK,
:07:31. > :07:33.In the Independence Referendum, Scotland was told repeatedly
:07:34. > :07:39.My message to the Prime Minister is, it's now time to prove these
:07:40. > :07:41.things, and demonstrate to Scotland that our voice does count
:07:42. > :07:44.within the UK, and our interests can be protected.
:07:45. > :07:47.Because if that's not the case, then I think Scotland
:07:48. > :07:49.would have the right to decide whether it wanted to follow
:07:50. > :07:58.I've been joined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell.
:07:59. > :08:06.Welcome to the Sunday Politics. During the Scottish referendum
:08:07. > :08:09.campaign, two years ago, the ETA Together campaign claimed that the
:08:10. > :08:17.only guaranteed way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to stay in the
:08:18. > :08:22.UK. That turned out to be untrue. You owe the people of Scotland an
:08:23. > :08:27.apology. That isn't the full facts. It was made clear during the
:08:28. > :08:33.referendum in Scotland that there could be an EU referendum. Ruth
:08:34. > :08:36.Davidson, on many occasions, made it clear that people in Scotland would
:08:37. > :08:41.have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they remained in the
:08:42. > :08:46.EU. What was clear in that referendum, and you played a
:08:47. > :08:50.significant part in highlighting it, was that those who were advocating a
:08:51. > :08:56.yes vote could not set out a clear route for Scotland to get into the
:08:57. > :09:01.EU as an independent nation. They were told if they stayed in the UK,
:09:02. > :09:07.that was their best route to remaining in Europe. It turned out,
:09:08. > :09:11.it is obvious that that was untrue. It was a route that meant there was
:09:12. > :09:17.going to be an EU referendum. That was made very clear throughout that.
:09:18. > :09:22.People voted in Scotland decisively to remain part of the UK in full
:09:23. > :09:26.knowledge that there would be a referendum on whether the United
:09:27. > :09:30.Kingdom remained in the European Union. That is what the vote on the
:09:31. > :09:35.23rd of June in Scotland was about. It was about the UK remaining in the
:09:36. > :09:38.EU, not Scotland. The people of Scotland were told to vote for the
:09:39. > :09:48.union to be sure of staying in the UK. They also voted 62% to 38% to
:09:49. > :09:53.stay in the EU. Now they are being dragged out against their will.
:09:54. > :09:57.Surely that is grounds for a second Scottish referendum? I don't accept
:09:58. > :10:01.that. I've voted to stay in the EU, but I didn't do so on the basis that
:10:02. > :10:06.if I didn't get my own way that Scotland would be dragged out of the
:10:07. > :10:13.United Kingdom. We have had a once in a generation vote as to whether
:10:14. > :10:17.Scotland remained part of the UK. There was a decisive result in that.
:10:18. > :10:23.On the assumption that we would also remain part of the European Union,
:10:24. > :10:26.so a major change has taken place. I don't accept that analysis. People
:10:27. > :10:31.were told that there would be a vote on whether the UK remained in the
:10:32. > :10:35.EU. The reasons for Scotland remaining in the UK were
:10:36. > :10:40.overwhelmingly economic, and those issues remain today in relation to
:10:41. > :10:42.the UK single market. It is very odd that people who are concerned about
:10:43. > :11:00.the EU single market are quite willing to
:11:01. > :11:02.give up the UK single market, which is four times as valuable to
:11:03. > :11:04.Scotland, and responsible for a million jobs. If the Scottish
:11:05. > :11:06.Government demands another referendum, will the UK Government
:11:07. > :11:10.grant it? The UK Government will have two agreed to a referendum, but
:11:11. > :11:16.we want to argue that there shouldn't be another referendum. It
:11:17. > :11:20.is in Scotland's best interests at the two governments work together
:11:21. > :11:25.with 18 UK approach to get the best possible situation for Scotland...
:11:26. > :11:32.If the Scottish Parliament decides that we do want -- we do not like
:11:33. > :11:36.the terms of Brexit and we want another referendum, would you grant
:11:37. > :11:41.it? There would have to be an agreement between the two
:11:42. > :11:44.governments in the same form as the Edinburgh Agreement. The great shame
:11:45. > :11:49.of the Edinburgh Agreement, which the SNP used to quote repeatedly, is
:11:50. > :11:54.that they have not adhere to it, because a fundamental part of that
:11:55. > :11:58.would be that both sides would respect the result. Viewers will
:11:59. > :12:03.notice that you haven't really answered my question. Could Scotland
:12:04. > :12:07.remain inside the single market in Europe as part of the Brexit
:12:08. > :12:12.process? From the outset, I have said we would listen to any proposal
:12:13. > :12:17.that the Scottish Government brought forward in relation to Scotland's
:12:18. > :12:21.interests. We have had for months and no specific proposals have come
:12:22. > :12:26.forward. Nicola Sturgeon was talking about proposals this morning, but at
:12:27. > :12:33.this moment, I see it impossible that Scotland could remain within
:12:34. > :12:36.the EU whilst the rest of the UK leads. It would be difficult to see
:12:37. > :12:40.how that could be achieved. But we will listen to any proposals the
:12:41. > :12:45.Scottish Government bring forward in relation to achieving the best
:12:46. > :12:49.interests of Scotland. I am convinced that Scotland's best
:12:50. > :12:55.interests are being part of the UK. You praised Scotland's membership of
:12:56. > :12:59.the single market during the referendum. In March of this year
:13:00. > :13:04.you said it secured jobs, was vital to tourism and industry, inbound
:13:05. > :13:09.visitors and the rest of it. So why would you not want to retain it for
:13:10. > :13:14.Scotland? I agree with the benefits Scotland has received from the
:13:15. > :13:19.single market, but we are in a different situation now. The UK is
:13:20. > :13:23.negotiating its exit from the EU. The Prime Minister has said it is
:13:24. > :13:28.not going to be on the basis of existing arrangements, it will be on
:13:29. > :13:33.the basis of a new arrangement, and as part of that, we will want to
:13:34. > :13:39.secure the best arrangement for Scottish businesses. Given the
:13:40. > :13:43.history we have gone through, do you want to guarantee a special post
:13:44. > :13:48.Brexit status for Scotland. We leave the EU, but Scotland will have a
:13:49. > :13:53.distinct status? I'm willing to look at any proposal brought forward that
:13:54. > :13:57.looks at Scotland's interests. We have had no specifics from the
:13:58. > :14:06.Scottish Government. They say now that they have them. It is a bit rum
:14:07. > :14:09.to attack the Scottish Government. The principle is, could Scotland
:14:10. > :14:16.have a special position, and would you help that or not? I am willing
:14:17. > :14:20.to listen to any proposal brought forward. Will fishing and farming go
:14:21. > :14:27.back to Edinburgh? The devolution settlement are going to be a
:14:28. > :14:33.change,... Will they go to Edinburgh or to London? We will have a
:14:34. > :14:40.decision at the end of that process. I want to make sure we have the best
:14:41. > :14:43.arrangement for Scotland. You can't answer the question? We want to
:14:44. > :14:49.listen to what fishermen and farmers say, and the people of Scotland. It
:14:50. > :14:54.will be a package of arrangements, clearly, that need to be taken
:14:55. > :14:58.forward as a result of leaving the EU. One final question. If the
:14:59. > :15:03.Scottish Nationalist MPs vote against grammar schools, which are
:15:04. > :15:05.purely for England, isn't that proof that your English votes for English
:15:06. > :15:15.laws isn't working? It demonstrates all MPs in the
:15:16. > :15:20.Parliament have the opportunity to vote on all issues. You wouldn't
:15:21. > :15:31.mind if they voted to stop Grammar schools? Of course I wouldn't --
:15:32. > :15:39.would mind... I think we have got the balance right in that
:15:40. > :15:42.legislation. It is meaningless if they can vote to stop grammar
:15:43. > :15:48.schools when it doesn't affect Scotland. They have to answer for
:15:49. > :15:52.that, based on an opportunistic approach and cause resentment in
:15:53. > :15:53.England. Thank you for being with us.
:15:54. > :15:55.During the EU Referendum campaign, leading Remain supporters repeatedly
:15:56. > :15:58.warned that a vote to leave the European Union would cause
:15:59. > :16:02.Three months on, were their forecasts accurate?
:16:03. > :16:07.Since the vote on June 23rd, the economic news
:16:08. > :16:10.The value of the pound has been in pretty steady depreciation
:16:11. > :16:12.since referendum day, falling to a 31-year
:16:13. > :16:21.It was as low as $1.18 but has still rebounded a bit.
:16:22. > :16:24.The weak pound left Tesco in a situation.
:16:25. > :16:27.They stopped selling Marmite and other products for a day online
:16:28. > :16:31.And a leaked Treasury report said that Government tax revenues
:16:32. > :16:34.could be down by 66 billion a year in a post-Brexit economy.
:16:35. > :16:42.Though the report emanated from Project Fear days.
:16:43. > :16:43.However, many of the short-term economic fundamentals
:16:44. > :16:51.The dominant service sector grew a healthy 0.4% in July.
:16:52. > :16:54.In the same month, the unemployment rate dipped to under 5%,
:16:55. > :17:00.House-buying has also been rising since the referendum,
:17:01. > :17:03.nearly 110,000 properties were purchased in August.
:17:04. > :17:10.Is the economy already suffering from the Brexit blues or not?
:17:11. > :17:13.Joining me now is the former shadow Europe Minister,
:17:14. > :17:15.the Labour MP Pat McFadden, who was a Business Minister
:17:16. > :17:29.Do you know concede that nearly all the short-term economic forecasts
:17:30. > :17:34.made by the Remain campaign have turned out to be untrue at best,
:17:35. > :17:39.scaremongering at worst? No, I think this week was the week that the
:17:40. > :17:45.beginnings of the economic effects of Brexit began to take hold, most
:17:46. > :17:48.obviously on the currency fall. You talk about short-term, this began on
:17:49. > :17:54.the night of the referendum itself and was given booster rockets by the
:17:55. > :17:58.signals sent out by the Conservative Party conference. In terms of the
:17:59. > :18:02.warnings next to reality, the warnings about the fall of the
:18:03. > :18:08.currency speculated that it might fall in value by about 12%, the
:18:09. > :18:17.reality is closer to 20%. Let's look at some of the warnings. We will
:18:18. > :18:19.come back to the currency, but let's look at this. The Treasury report on
:18:20. > :18:33.maybe 23rd said the following: That turned out to be untrue, didn't
:18:34. > :18:38.it? What has happened here, which isn't in line with those warnings,
:18:39. > :18:42.is consumer confidence has remained high. The actions of the Bank of
:18:43. > :18:45.England in cutting interest have been important, so the short-term
:18:46. > :18:54.effect in terms of consumer confidence... So it is wrong? Hasn't
:18:55. > :18:57.turned out in line with that, but it would be complacent in the extreme
:18:58. > :19:02.to conclude that with the effects of the currency which we know also from
:19:03. > :19:07.the Bank of England's comments the other dates will feed into higher
:19:08. > :19:15.prices, which will hit lower income consumers hardest. But we don't know
:19:16. > :19:19.yet, I will come onto that but in the short term, I will show you
:19:20. > :19:21.another one. A month before the referendum, the Chancellor George
:19:22. > :19:34.Osborne said this: That turned out to be wronged too,
:19:35. > :19:38.didn't it? We are not in recession but if you look at the forecasts of
:19:39. > :19:43.growth over the next few years, the Bank of England have forecast growth
:19:44. > :19:52.next year to not be the 2.3% it thought before the referendum but to
:19:53. > :19:57.be 0.8%. Is it forecasting a recession? No, but it is forecasting
:19:58. > :20:02.a slowdown which would mean GDP after two years would be for the ?5
:20:03. > :20:06.billion less than the estimates before the referendum took place.
:20:07. > :20:13.And it might be wrong, because look, it was wrong about the recession. Is
:20:14. > :20:18.anybody now forecasting a recession? I don't know if anybody is
:20:19. > :20:21.forecasting a recession. The IMF are certainly forecasting a slowdown in
:20:22. > :20:28.a similar way to the Bank of England. George Osborne also said
:20:29. > :20:36.house prices will plummet by 18%. Any sign of that? House prices are
:20:37. > :20:40.not plummeting by 18%. Your side that you represent made much of the
:20:41. > :20:45.IMF's claim that provoked Leave would mean an immediate slide into
:20:46. > :20:52.recession, a collapse in house prices, and a crash in stock markets
:20:53. > :21:00.which of course are currently at record levels. Even the IMF admits
:21:01. > :21:05.there is none of that. There maybe longer term dangers but in the
:21:06. > :21:09.short-term it happen. In the short-term it didn't happen. In the
:21:10. > :21:14.short term what has happened here, as I said a moment ago, is consumer
:21:15. > :21:18.confidence has remained high, the Bank of England cut interest rates
:21:19. > :21:23.which put more money into people's pockets and I think the action they
:21:24. > :21:27.took was important, but I think it would be wrong to say imply that
:21:28. > :21:32.because these things haven't happened in the first few months
:21:33. > :21:36.that we are somehow out of the woods on the economy. I understand that,
:21:37. > :21:41.that's the last thing I would say, but here's the question - most of
:21:42. > :21:45.these forecasters are still pretty gloomy about the long-term but if
:21:46. > :21:50.they couldn't get the last few months right, why would you trust
:21:51. > :21:56.them for 2025 when they couldn't say what will happen in September? Why
:21:57. > :22:02.would you trust them to say what happens five years from now? People
:22:03. > :22:08.will ask the question but the big tangible we have is in the decline
:22:09. > :22:13.of the currency and that is a real and now effect. We can talk about
:22:14. > :22:17.whether it is lost or minus, but the Government said the other day this
:22:18. > :22:21.would bring inflation back, to use his words it is going to get
:22:22. > :22:26.difficult, particularly for people on lower incomes and that will feed
:22:27. > :22:30.into people's purchasing power. The international markets partaking of
:22:31. > :22:36.you have our future prospects and at the moment it is not a vote of
:22:37. > :22:40.confidence. Do you agree with the latest Remain mantra that people
:22:41. > :22:46.might have voted to leave the EU but didn't necessarily vote to leave the
:22:47. > :22:50.single market? I do agree with that. A lot of people have said people who
:22:51. > :22:54.voted to leave didn't know that's what they were voting for, so let me
:22:55. > :22:59.show you a clip of David Cameron at the height of the referendum
:23:00. > :23:04.campaign. The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the
:23:05. > :23:09.EU and the single market, we then have to negotiate a trade deal from
:23:10. > :23:14.outside with the European Union. There you have it loud and clear on
:23:15. > :23:19.BBC television, voting Leave means leaving the single market, not
:23:20. > :23:23.losing access to it but leaving the membership of it. We have George
:23:24. > :23:28.Osborne on tape saying the same thing, so why do you make out Leave
:23:29. > :23:33.voters didn't know what they were voting for? I think people voted
:23:34. > :23:38.Leave for a number of different reasons. For some it might have been
:23:39. > :23:43.immigration, for some it might have been the promise of more money for
:23:44. > :23:46.the NHS, but there are number of countries outside the EU which can
:23:47. > :23:51.have full access to the single market, we know about Norway and on.
:23:52. > :23:58.But they all have to pay in and have free movement. We can come onto that
:23:59. > :24:01.but what I'm saying is it's not the case that when you are outside the
:24:02. > :24:05.EU you necessarily have to be outside the single market and the
:24:06. > :24:09.reason this is important is because this has been a cornerstone of
:24:10. > :24:16.British economic policy for many years, particularly in terms of our
:24:17. > :24:19.inward investment, and the reasons why both manufacturing industry and
:24:20. > :24:25.financial services has invested and created employment in the UK, and I
:24:26. > :24:30.think it would be cavalier to begin this negotiation by closing the door
:24:31. > :24:34.on that. Is it Labour's policy, I know you don't speak for Labour
:24:35. > :24:39.leadership, but is it their policy to remain in the single market? You
:24:40. > :24:44.are right, I'm a backbencher, but it is the policy to have as full access
:24:45. > :24:51.as possible to the single market. At least what we have now in terms of
:24:52. > :24:54.goods and services. You can call it membership or not but that is what
:24:55. > :25:02.Keir Starmer and the Labour Party wants. The old party home affairs
:25:03. > :25:05.select committee is blaming Jeremy Corbyn's lack of leadership for
:25:06. > :25:12.creating a safe space for what they call vile anti-Semitism. Do you
:25:13. > :25:16.agree with that? I think this report should be taken seriously. The
:25:17. > :25:21.atmosphere in the Labour Party, there has been a lot of nasty things
:25:22. > :25:26.said on social media over the past year in particular. I hope we don't
:25:27. > :25:30.make the mistake of shooting the messenger, I hope we take the report
:25:31. > :25:34.seriously and I hope we don't fall into the trap that sometimes I see
:25:35. > :25:40.when these accusations are wielded, that we point to antiracism records
:25:41. > :25:45.and say look at our virtue in our record here, that must mean we
:25:46. > :25:49.cannot be anti-Semitic. Let me be clear about this, pointing to your
:25:50. > :25:53.own sense of righteousness is no excuse for nastiness or cruelty to
:25:54. > :25:58.someone else so we should take this very seriously indeed. Pat McFadden,
:25:59. > :26:04.thank you for being with us this morning.
:26:05. > :26:06.A third runway at Heathrow was first given the green
:26:07. > :26:08.light by Gordon Brown's government in 2009.
:26:09. > :26:10.Almost eight years on, could Theresa May be about finally
:26:11. > :26:12.to allow Heathrow expansion to go ahead?
:26:13. > :26:16.Or could she surprise everyone and back Gatwick instead?
:26:17. > :26:19.Maybe she will come out in favour of both of them!
:26:20. > :26:21.A decision is expected imminently, but it's not straightforward
:26:22. > :26:25.Several members of her cabinet are opposed to any plan to expand
:26:26. > :26:28.Heathrow, and reports suggest as many as 60 of her backbenchers
:26:29. > :26:31.Our reporter, Mark Lobel, has been looking at
:26:32. > :26:40.A growing number of people want to take more flights and some
:26:41. > :26:42.accuse the Government of dragging their feet over
:26:43. > :26:53.All the while, our airports are operating flat-out.
:26:54. > :26:59.So this is fully autonomous, you just have to press the start
:27:00. > :27:05.Matthew Hill is from a business-backed group campaigning
:27:06. > :27:09.We haven't had a full-length runway in London and the south-east
:27:10. > :27:14.Gatwick was built in the 1930s, Heathrow in the 1940s,
:27:15. > :27:20.Heathrow is full, Gatwick will be full in the next few years.
:27:21. > :27:23.Matthew's group claims the lack of a new runway is costing us
:27:24. > :27:30.I think there are huge economic benefits from the construction
:27:31. > :27:34.At the moment, because we don't have that new runway, we don't
:27:35. > :27:36.have that new capacity, the new flights to new markets,
:27:37. > :27:40.we are missing out on ?9.5 billion a year in lost trade.
:27:41. > :27:43.Until we get that decision and we get that runway
:27:44. > :27:46.built, we will continue to lose out on that trade.
:27:47. > :27:49.One airport that's eager to expand is Heathrow,
:27:50. > :27:52.either by expanding this northern runway, the one closest to us here,
:27:53. > :27:55.or, the Airports Commission's favourite proposal, building
:27:56. > :27:59.a new runway parallel to here, about a kilometre that way in place
:28:00. > :28:07.It's said that would offer 40 new destinations from the airport,
:28:08. > :28:09.carry lots more air freight, provide 70,000 new jobs
:28:10. > :28:15.and an overall boost to economic activity in the country,
:28:16. > :28:17.with a promise of no night flights, new environmental and community
:28:18. > :28:27.Heathrow's hub status also services many of the UK's other airports,
:28:28. > :28:33.On average, every year a quarter of a million passengers travel
:28:34. > :28:36.to and from this key exporting region via Heathrow,
:28:37. > :28:41.While we've been very strong supporters of a third runway
:28:42. > :28:43.at Heathrow, we think it's in the best interests
:28:44. > :28:46.of the north-east, we also think it's in the best
:28:47. > :28:55.Our services connect to many, many destinations across the world,
:28:56. > :29:02.and allow businesses to trade right the way across the globe.
:29:03. > :29:08.Gatwick Airport also wants to expand with another runway here.
:29:09. > :29:11.By doubling Gatwick's capacity, the plan would create 22,000
:29:12. > :29:14.new jobs, a vastly expanded short-haul network, and more
:29:15. > :29:20.I think the expansion of Gatwick will bring firstly
:29:21. > :29:23.the certainty of delivery, we can have spades in the ground
:29:24. > :29:29.in this Parliament and we can be operational in the next,
:29:30. > :29:32.so that's within ten years we can have a new runway,
:29:33. > :29:34.and Gatwick can provide the increased capacity at a price
:29:35. > :29:42.Now, before anyone gets carried away, there are of course some
:29:43. > :29:48.people who would far prefer no extra planes in the sky.
:29:49. > :29:50.We already fly more than everybody else,
:29:51. > :29:52.most of these are leisure flights, well who's taking
:29:53. > :29:58.Actually 70% of all of our flights are taken by 15% of the population.
:29:59. > :30:02.It's a wealthy frequent-flying elite.
:30:03. > :30:08.But with approval of a third runway looking likely,
:30:09. > :30:17.could more protests be on the horizon?
:30:18. > :30:20.I can tell you now, they are dusting off the handcuffs, you know,
:30:21. > :30:23.And you have to remember, Heathrow, if they choose to expand
:30:24. > :30:25.Heathrow, you are talking about hundreds of homes
:30:26. > :30:28.being bulldozed, whole communities being eradicated, wiped off the map.
:30:29. > :30:31.Over the last few years, since the last big protest around
:30:32. > :30:33.Heathrow, the relationship between local people around
:30:34. > :30:36.the airport and grass roots climate change activists
:30:37. > :30:41.Those guys are going to get together and just cause merry hell for people
:30:42. > :30:50.The Prime Minister, Theresa May, who once called for a better not
:30:51. > :30:53.bigger Heathrow whilst in opposition, will chair a select
:30:54. > :30:56.group of colleagues expected to decide imminently
:30:57. > :30:59.on whether to build a new runway and where.
:31:00. > :31:02.It will then take months for a national policy statement
:31:03. > :31:07.outlining the new works to get drawn up before MPs get to vote on it,
:31:08. > :31:11.leaving plenty of time for any further opposition to airport
:31:12. > :31:19.I've been joined by two Conservative MPs.
:31:20. > :31:21.Adam Afriyie is opposed to Heathrow expansion,
:31:22. > :31:42.Adam, the independent Daviess report into runway expansion said the case
:31:43. > :31:48.for Heathrow was clear and unanimous in the Commission. 180,000 more
:31:49. > :31:53.jobs, more than ?200 billion in economic benefits. So why are you
:31:54. > :31:57.putting the interests of your constituency before the national
:31:58. > :31:59.interest? I will fight tooth and nail for the interests of my
:32:00. > :32:03.constituents, but the wonderful thing about the binary choice
:32:04. > :32:08.between Heathrow and Gatwick is that it is not in the regional or
:32:09. > :32:16.consumers' interests to expand Heathrow. The Daviess report has
:32:17. > :32:22.already been largely undermined. There are 17 reasons why it doesn't
:32:23. > :32:29.work and is wrong. Number one, they said Gatwick would not have 42
:32:30. > :32:33.million passengers until 2024. This year, they already have 42 million
:32:34. > :32:38.passengers. Gatwick have increased their destinations to 20 now, which
:32:39. > :32:43.they didn't expect either. The Davies review was good in its day,
:32:44. > :32:50.but is it had a limited remit. They were talking about Heathrow as a
:32:51. > :32:55.hub, but the airline industry has changed. We have to pay to this for
:32:56. > :33:04.more than 15 years. The government White Paper in 2003 suggested we
:33:05. > :33:09.should expand Heathrow. ?20 million and 12 years later, the Davis Report
:33:10. > :33:13.came to the same conclusion. We are never going to get any form of
:33:14. > :33:18.progress on this is competing MPs are allowed to frustrate the
:33:19. > :33:23.process. You could have had about three people who are Gatwick MPs
:33:24. > :33:29.arguing very passionately against Adam's desire to expand Gatwick. The
:33:30. > :33:34.point is, we are in a paralysis. We are having a theological debate that
:33:35. > :33:40.will last decades, and Heathrow is... Why Heathrow? Why not expand
:33:41. > :33:44.Gatwick and increase the capacity of our regional airports? I thought the
:33:45. > :33:48.government's strategy was to rebalance the economy in favour of
:33:49. > :33:53.the North and the Midlands. If you listen to northern MPs, or people
:33:54. > :33:59.representing Northern or Scottish interests, they all say they want to
:34:00. > :34:03.increase Heathrow. The SNP said last week they wanted Heathrow to be
:34:04. > :34:07.expanded. If you want to help the economy is in those areas, listen to
:34:08. > :34:15.what they are saying. They are saying expand Heathrow. 32 regional
:34:16. > :34:19.airports support the expansion of Heathrow to maintain its position as
:34:20. > :34:24.one of the global hubs. Even the Scottish Government agrees with
:34:25. > :34:30.expanding Heathrow. They all say, we want to be a serious player in
:34:31. > :34:33.aviation. We need a global hub, and that is Heathrow. The interesting
:34:34. > :34:38.thing is that there is no argument that Heathrow is the UK hub, and no
:34:39. > :34:43.one is trying to get rid of that. But if you are adding a single new
:34:44. > :34:59.runway, is it better to add it at Heathrow or Gatwick, and for me it
:35:00. > :35:03.is overwhelmingly clear. Heathrow is the most expensive airport in the
:35:04. > :35:05.world. If you add another runway at taxpayer expense, you make it even
:35:06. > :35:07.more expensive. So flight prices go up. Whether or not Heathrow could
:35:08. > :35:11.ever be delivered is another question. My own Borough Council as
:35:12. > :35:17.part of the legal action... So even if the decision is made, we may not
:35:18. > :35:24.see the capacity. At Gatwick is dirt cheap. It can be delivered within
:35:25. > :35:28.ten years. But it is not a global hub airport. But the hub that we
:35:29. > :35:34.have at Heathrow is perfectly adequate for the next ten or 15
:35:35. > :35:42.years. It is running at 99% capacity. Every airline, the new
:35:43. > :35:46.planes being ordered... The airline have decided that the hub capacity
:35:47. > :35:53.is sufficient and they are moving to a different model. Let me ask you
:35:54. > :35:59.this. We haven't built a major new runway in London and the south-east
:36:00. > :36:06.for 60 years. Since 1946, so 70 years. Why not expand Heathrow and
:36:07. > :36:11.Gatwick? Personally, I would do both. If we are serious about having
:36:12. > :36:17.international trade and Golding links to the outside world,
:36:18. > :36:21.especially after Brexit, we have to get serious about aviation and
:36:22. > :36:25.accept that we need more capacity. I think it's scandalous we haven't
:36:26. > :36:29.managed to expand capacity for 70 years, when we think of the economic
:36:30. > :36:34.growth that has happened in that time. If we want to build a
:36:35. > :36:38.prosperous economy, it seems bizarre we are reluctant to increase
:36:39. > :36:43.aviation. Whatever the decision, do you think there will be a free vote
:36:44. > :36:55.on this? I think this is one area where I think the government does
:36:56. > :36:57.need to take a lead, and I hope they will make a rational choice for
:36:58. > :37:03.Gatwick. If the government comes out for Heathrow, will you defy the
:37:04. > :37:09.whips? Yes. I will always vote for Heathrow, because it doesn't make
:37:10. > :37:15.economic sense. If MPs are happy at the prospect of Heathrow... Does the
:37:16. > :37:19.figure strike a chord with you? I would hope there would be more, but
:37:20. > :37:23.it depends on the political position of Labour and the SNP. I hope that
:37:24. > :37:29.the government decides inclusively... Ad is doing what he
:37:30. > :37:35.feels is the best for his constituents. I think 60 is way off
:37:36. > :37:43.the mark. I don't know what journalists suggested 60 Tory MPs.
:37:44. > :37:46.My sense is that it is probably about 20 hard-core people in the
:37:47. > :37:54.House of Commons. I think it will be a free vote. If it is 20 hard-core,
:37:55. > :37:58.you will need Labour to get it through? Labour MPs were very keen
:37:59. > :38:05.on supporting Heathrow, in my experience. It may be delayed again,
:38:06. > :38:08.of course. After 70 years, what's another week here or there!
:38:09. > :38:21.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
:38:22. > :38:23.Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.
:38:24. > :38:25.They've agreed the structures to deal
:38:26. > :38:27.with the legacy of the past, but the plan remains stuck
:38:28. > :38:29.in the starting blocks because of a row over disclosure
:38:30. > :38:34.and a failure to agree funding for inquests.
:38:35. > :38:36.So almost a year after the Fresh Start Agreement, what does
:38:37. > :38:38.the Victims' Commissioner think of the efforts being made
:38:39. > :38:48.on the latest efforts to help bring this issue to a conclusion.
:38:49. > :38:50.And with their thoughts on all of that and more,
:38:51. > :38:52.my guests of the day are
:38:53. > :39:04.They agreed it as part of the Stormont House negotiations,
:39:05. > :39:07.but making any real progress on dealing with the legacy
:39:08. > :39:11.Victims and survivors had hoped that a package which includes
:39:12. > :39:15.a new investigations unit, an oral history archive and enhanced
:39:16. > :39:17.funding for Troubles-related inquests would be up
:39:18. > :39:22.But instead, Sinn Fein and the Secretary of State
:39:23. > :39:25.are still in dispute over disclosure of official papers, while the DUP's
:39:26. > :39:28.being accused of blocking funding for inquests
:39:29. > :39:33.We'll hear from Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly and the Ulster Unionist
:39:34. > :39:35.leader, Mike Nesbitt, in just a moment.
:39:36. > :39:37.But first, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors,
:39:38. > :39:47.You were disappointed when this issue wasn't resolved
:39:48. > :39:50.in the Fresh Start deal and was put on hold before the election -
:39:51. > :40:11.We currently have around 12 hundred to 1600 deaths not yet investigated.
:40:12. > :40:16.We have proposed legislation for that unit and I believe that that
:40:17. > :40:20.has been a further worked on in the margins since last November and I
:40:21. > :40:23.believe there have been conversations in the margins about
:40:24. > :40:27.how some of those things which were blocked at the time could be
:40:28. > :40:30.overcome and I have not been privy to all those discussions and will
:40:31. > :40:35.not expect to be, but I believe these matters certainly run the
:40:36. > :40:42.disclosure of information are not insuperable if we can get over them.
:40:43. > :40:46.There are individuals who have been through repeated iterations over the
:40:47. > :40:49.years, initiatives designed to give them some truth and access in
:40:50. > :40:56.principle to justice and accountability. These people have
:40:57. > :41:01.been let down many, many times. It doesn't make it easier, but it is
:41:02. > :41:09.happening again. I think there is a loss of faith in people's intention
:41:10. > :41:11.to deliver for them, if we delay this. But I do think it's achievable
:41:12. > :41:14.and now is the time. In March this year, you warned
:41:15. > :41:16.the Government that it can't hide behind national security in dealing
:41:17. > :41:19.with the legacy from the Troubles. Is that what it's still attempting
:41:20. > :41:27.to do, in your view? I know it is still under
:41:28. > :41:32.consideration and there have been proposed solutions. I don't believe
:41:33. > :41:37.it is impossible to agree something sufficiently robust and transparent
:41:38. > :41:41.to give confidence and yet does recognise that there are genuine
:41:42. > :41:47.human rights issues around keeping people safe and community safety
:41:48. > :41:50.matters of disclosure. So when a James Brokenshire says he believes
:41:51. > :41:55.it should enter a public face sooner rather than later, does that
:41:56. > :41:59.indicate to you that we may just be inching towards the point where that
:42:00. > :42:07.matter, one of the key sticking points, is resolvable and the two
:42:08. > :42:12.sides to that disagreement believe that to be the case? On the halves
:42:13. > :42:16.of victims, survivors and witnesses, I hope so. I believe if we're going
:42:17. > :42:21.to see the legislation needed to put some of these institutions in place,
:42:22. > :42:25.if we're going to see that in this session, then we need to see
:42:26. > :42:31.something of a consultation on this side of Christmas, so I hope that
:42:32. > :42:34.is... Also, it is really important and, for a moment, I'm not critical
:42:35. > :42:40.politicians here, it is important that what does get put in place is
:42:41. > :42:43.fit for purpose, trustworthy, transparent and deals evenhandedly
:42:44. > :42:50.with issues where I think right across different victims and
:42:51. > :42:55.survivors who have different wishes, fears and priorities, that wish more
:42:56. > :43:00.truth and the balanced fair process is the only way forward to deal with
:43:01. > :43:05.it. That hasn't changed, has it? You are now talking about a need for
:43:06. > :43:10.that to happen sooner rather than later. But you said that several
:43:11. > :43:14.months ago. Before the election, before the party is going to serious
:43:15. > :43:21.business of electioneering, and that did not happen. It hasn't, I
:43:22. > :43:27.absolutely urge politicians to do this. I believe that at the time of
:43:28. > :43:31.the Good Friday Agreement there were reasons why these issues were too
:43:32. > :43:35.difficult and, if you like, be pushed down the road. But it is now
:43:36. > :43:41.18 years later and those who suffered most are still awaiting for
:43:42. > :43:45.truth and acknowledgement, justice where it is achievable and, let us
:43:46. > :43:49.not forget, there are a series of measures he designed to look after
:43:50. > :43:55.people who have been harmed, so we have something like 500 people who
:43:56. > :43:58.have been permanently and severely injured as a consequence of Tripple
:43:59. > :44:03.X III related incidents. There are now old and have not been able to
:44:04. > :44:08.earn a living under without a pension. A pension was promised and
:44:09. > :44:11.that is equally something we need to look at, because people aren't
:44:12. > :44:14.getting younger and we need to look after those who were harmed as well
:44:15. > :44:32.as dealing with those truth and justice issues.
:44:33. > :44:39.The huge issues looking back on the past and facing up to what people
:44:40. > :44:45.did and did not do over 35 or more years ago, may never in fact be
:44:46. > :44:51.resolved. That could be kicked down the street in perpetuity. Does that
:44:52. > :44:54.worry you that that may be the case? I fundamentally disagree you should
:44:55. > :45:00.disentangle these things. You think they can't be? I think they should
:45:01. > :45:04.not be and probably, the achievement of the whole package will be best
:45:05. > :45:08.achieved by doing it all at once, because different people have
:45:09. > :45:12.different needs, and priorities, and if you look after one set not
:45:13. > :45:18.another, you inevitably create a situation which some people feel
:45:19. > :45:21.disadvantaged. There is a need for transparency, openness and
:45:22. > :45:24.acknowledgement, but equally, you must look after those who were
:45:25. > :45:28.harmed. If you do one without the other, you miss out on the fact they
:45:29. > :45:33.are connected. Actually, justice issues cause mental health problems,
:45:34. > :45:36.that people who are denied truth and acknowledgement suffer mental health
:45:37. > :45:43.issues as a consequence. These things are not separate and the
:45:44. > :45:46.approach to dealing with as a collective IQ seems correct to me.
:45:47. > :45:49.The issue is not directly connected to this one and it is not explicitly
:45:50. > :45:53.part of what you necessarily want to talk about at the moment and what
:45:54. > :45:59.you are responsible for, but do you believe that if that issue of the
:46:00. > :46:03.outstanding inquests into troubles related killings can be unlocked and
:46:04. > :46:07.the process can be set in motion? That could help movement on some of
:46:08. > :46:14.these other seemingly contracts will issues? Yes, legacy inquests are not
:46:15. > :46:17.technically part of this agreement, but I believe they've become
:46:18. > :46:24.entangled in these negotiations. There are something like 54 inquests
:46:25. > :46:27.still to be conducted and we've achieved justice and took
:46:28. > :46:31.responsibility a year ago for a situation not of his making. He has
:46:32. > :46:37.made proposals and put a cost on them and I feel that should we get
:46:38. > :46:40.agreement on the historical investigations unit and other
:46:41. > :46:47.measures that are likely to make it easier to unlock the issue of legacy
:46:48. > :46:50.interests. You hope for them? I would be hopeful that we will see
:46:51. > :46:52.some progress on legacy inquests as well. Thank you.
:46:53. > :46:55.Well, Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly and the Ulster Unionist leader,
:46:56. > :46:57.Mike Nesbitt, have been listening to that.
:46:58. > :47:20.Gerry, your reaction to the comments of Judith Thompson?
:47:21. > :47:28.Well, I listened to that and there's nothing she said I would disagree
:47:29. > :47:33.with. Nothing at all? Nothing I can see. She's pointed out what is
:47:34. > :47:36.necessary and we agreed on it. He pointed out the problems at the
:47:37. > :47:40.beginning of the programme and one of them is the veto that the state
:47:41. > :47:45.and managed to keep in terms of national so at it. James
:47:46. > :47:50.Brokenshire, and we've met him in the last few weeks, he doesn't seem
:47:51. > :47:56.to be giving any indication that they are prepared to move on that
:47:57. > :48:01.basis. Are you? Our opinion was that there is already an existence in the
:48:02. > :48:09.ombudsman and the criminal cases commission whereby they have a duty
:48:10. > :48:13.to deal with Article two national security, but can make the decision
:48:14. > :48:17.in the end honours tutors on what to give to the public or not. We argue
:48:18. > :48:25.that that duty should be given to the new director. We tried to move a
:48:26. > :48:32.bit and said OK, if there's a dispute, let us put up a panel of
:48:33. > :48:38.judges who would say, OK, here's our decision, so this should -- should
:48:39. > :48:45.they release this to the family is not? We give an alternative. Do you
:48:46. > :48:49.believe James Brokenshire is a man who has the commitment that he says
:48:50. > :48:53.he has two resolve this issue and once more public phase to this
:48:54. > :48:56.process? He wants the matter resolved once and for all. If that
:48:57. > :49:01.is dealt with, then a lot of the other pieces of the jigsaw
:49:02. > :49:08.potentially fall into place. Well, that's correct it is dealt with.
:49:09. > :49:13.Martin McGuinness says he'd like to see it resolved by the first
:49:14. > :49:18.anniversary of fresh start, next month. Before that. We've gone
:49:19. > :49:23.through a number of these talks, we've so we are up for negotiation,
:49:24. > :49:28.let us get it sorted out. And yet, the British Government are not
:49:29. > :49:33.showing. If he says he's determined to do that and there's a compromise,
:49:34. > :49:39.then put it forward. Would you accept that analysis any of it? No,
:49:40. > :49:43.no I don't. We need to take a step back. What do we mean by dealing
:49:44. > :49:46.with the past, because politicians defining narrowly and truth and
:49:47. > :49:51.justice and acknowledgement. The second question is whose benefit is
:49:52. > :49:54.it for? For those most affected incident by incident, which is a
:49:55. > :49:58.fine way to do it and what we've been trying to do for decades, or do
:49:59. > :50:02.we want to deal with the past in a manner that allows society to move
:50:03. > :50:07.on? They are not parallel tracks, they will clash and there will be
:50:08. > :50:11.tension. We haven't resolved that issue. Were I to disagree with the
:50:12. > :50:15.Commissioner is this idea of nothing is agreed until everything is
:50:16. > :50:38.agreed. Because when I accept this overlap
:50:39. > :50:42.between people having poorer mental health because they've not had
:50:43. > :50:44.access to truth acknowledgement and possibly justice, I do think that we
:50:45. > :50:47.could find the political world to say we are doing the pension for the
:50:48. > :50:49.physically injured, people who can't contribute to a pension because
:50:50. > :50:52.they've been unable to work through no fault of their own for perhaps 40
:50:53. > :50:54.years, and we could tackle the most toxic legacy of the troubles which
:50:55. > :50:57.is bad mental health and well-being. Even allowing for a fact that a
:50:58. > :50:59.percentage will not find comfort without truth. Will you begin the
:51:00. > :51:01.process? What is possible is agreement on the pension, what is
:51:02. > :51:04.possible as mental health and well-being will be a big issue. In
:51:05. > :51:07.terms of truth and justice, we argue the interest should of gone with the
:51:08. > :51:09.body while it was being created and we shouldn't let them finish their
:51:10. > :51:13.work. As the Commissioner says, it got halfway and stopped. We have a
:51:14. > :51:17.hierarchy of investigations ranging from over a thousand people with
:51:18. > :51:27.access to nothing up to people who have access to public enquirers,
:51:28. > :51:29.very expensive bodies. That hierarchy of enquirers means by
:51:30. > :51:36.definition there is a hierarchy of victims, no matter what Jerry says.
:51:37. > :51:39.Do you believe the process is about to ramp up a gear of the back of
:51:40. > :51:43.James Brokenshire's meeting with Martin McGuinness and the comments
:51:44. > :51:48.about needing a public face? Do you get the sense we are inching towards
:51:49. > :51:52.something? It is a devolved matter. At the moment, the executive is
:51:53. > :52:00.trying to claim 90% of the commitments were met. It is not
:52:01. > :52:04.about percentages, it is the big-ticket issues the executive
:52:05. > :52:10.failed to deliver all. Dealing with the past, 5000 jobs... Those are
:52:11. > :52:19.separate issues, there are not what we are discussing. The deal with the
:52:20. > :52:24.past, the whole legacy and you've taken eight -- it completely from
:52:25. > :52:27.what is meant to be about ten seconds let's forget about that,
:52:28. > :52:37.here are the other issues we need to deal with. It is an inability of the
:52:38. > :52:47.British Government, not the DUP. The British Government frankly the ones
:52:48. > :52:52.who wants to have veto. It is separate, and that's the other issue
:52:53. > :52:57.here. We have a Lord Chief Justice and says he can deal with the
:52:58. > :53:03.backlog. Some of these victims have been waiting 40-45 years, which in
:53:04. > :53:07.itself is a scandal. So they've said I can clear the backlog in the next
:53:08. > :53:11.five years, I need 5 million a year to do it and the British Government
:53:12. > :53:17.are refusing to give them the resources to do that. You are
:53:18. > :53:25.refusing to agree that goes into the H I U. An important point you just
:53:26. > :53:30.danced around are not mentioned is that a draw down the money that is
:53:31. > :53:33.to be agreed between Sinn Fein and the DUP... That is part of the
:53:34. > :53:41.architecture of the situation we find ourselves in. At the moment,
:53:42. > :53:48.the DUP is not prepared to join Sinn Fein in making that request. That's
:53:49. > :53:52.right isn't it? First of all, legacy is an issue to deal with the British
:53:53. > :54:02.Government, they're responsible for it. They should supply the money.
:54:03. > :54:08.There's a there... On the other hand, if the money was to be
:54:09. > :54:14.supplied by the executive, Vic the DUP have refused to do that. So you
:54:15. > :54:17.need to address this issue with your partners in Government to persuade
:54:18. > :54:25.the DUP to join you in making our request to the governors of the Lord
:54:26. > :54:28.Chief Justice can get on. No, that's not true. You've ignored the fact
:54:29. > :54:32.that I said it is the legacy that the issue belonging to the British
:54:33. > :54:38.Government. They have ownership of it and should sort it out. The money
:54:39. > :54:45.coming from the British Government said... Why will be not deal with
:54:46. > :54:52.inquests? -- why will they not deal with inquests? That could be done if
:54:53. > :54:58.James Brokenshire said OK, let us do that. The Victims Commissioner has
:54:59. > :55:02.suggested dealing with the inquest issue could help unlock some of the
:55:03. > :55:07.wider sticking points. Do you agree with her on that point, because you
:55:08. > :55:11.said you didn't agree with her on everything? Is it possible that if
:55:12. > :55:14.the DUP and Sinn Fein was to go to the British Government and ask for
:55:15. > :55:18.the money, the Lord Chief Justice gets the money, sets the troubles
:55:19. > :55:25.related inquest in process, perhaps I may unlock broader architecture of
:55:26. > :55:32.this legacy issue? We think that is an imperfect solution. It would not
:55:33. > :55:37.necessarily work, because the issue Sinn Fein identified is we have a
:55:38. > :55:46.body people can go to an legacy inquests, as well. They can shop
:55:47. > :55:55.around. Be having a choice of how they deal with her own path, that is
:55:56. > :56:02.what we're trying to discuss. Why would you not give victims and
:56:03. > :56:05.survivors that ability? Within the basket of measures that all truth,
:56:06. > :56:09.acknowledgement and justice, we object to what we have at the moment
:56:10. > :56:13.is imbalance, incomplete and imperfect, and we're not supporting
:56:14. > :56:18.a continuation of that. We want a full solution to truth. With the
:56:19. > :56:22.greatest respect, does it matter? You another self appointed Leader of
:56:23. > :56:25.the Opposition. The DUP and Sinn Fein are in the driving seat and
:56:26. > :56:33.long with James Brokenshire they will sort it out or not. And my
:56:34. > :56:37.point is it is my job to say forget the percentages when you look at the
:56:38. > :56:42.big issues, they can't deliver on the big-ticket issues and this is
:56:43. > :56:49.one of them. In 2040 when we first sat down to talk over this, Mike
:56:50. > :56:57.Nesbitt left the talks because of a decision... The solicitor for some
:56:58. > :57:02.of those families involved in troubles related inquests have now
:57:03. > :57:05.apparently been asked to give the Government more time to try to deal
:57:06. > :57:12.with this issue to put off their pending request for a judicial
:57:13. > :57:16.review until the next Friday. Does that suggest to you as many people
:57:17. > :57:21.are reading it that it means we could be inching toward some sort of
:57:22. > :57:26.agreement? Because we now have a time frame. Next Friday. Both
:57:27. > :57:31.parties have asked for an extra fortnight, but I hope we are moving
:57:32. > :57:33.towards it. It still comes down the British Government and whether they
:57:34. > :57:38.are prepared to deal with this issue. Thank you both.
:57:39. > :57:41.And now with a look back at the political week gone
:57:42. > :57:56.The Justice Minister says she wants more wide ranging legislation to
:57:57. > :57:59.tackle domestic abuse. The legislation we see in other parts of
:58:00. > :58:09.the UK is appropriate for here and something I committed to. The Health
:58:10. > :58:19.Minister is also open to changing the law here, this time on abortion.
:58:20. > :58:26.If there is a recommendation I am up for bringing forth a legislative
:58:27. > :58:32.change. I would not rule out alliance having a future Westminster
:58:33. > :58:42.seat. In tributes to the former grand secretary of the Orange
:58:43. > :58:45.Order,. Should we commend the Secretary of State at least once
:58:46. > :58:47.again for presenting us with a full range of cosmetics about a single
:58:48. > :59:06.micro-substance? Allison, you are listening carefully
:59:07. > :59:10.to what the commissioner had to say. Any sign of progress anywhere in all
:59:11. > :59:14.of that did you think? The Victims Commissioner said it needs to be
:59:15. > :59:23.delivered as a package, but there is scope to have the inquest issue deal
:59:24. > :59:27.with immediately. These people are dying they've waited so long. The
:59:28. > :59:32.Lord Chief Justice was to get on with it, but I thought it was
:59:33. > :59:34.interesting jelly Kelly refused to condemn the DUP for not releasing
:59:35. > :59:40.the money. They can release the money tomorrow. His focus was on the
:59:41. > :59:43.British Government, and I know they are responsible for the
:59:44. > :59:49.national-security issue, but not funding the inquests. The executive
:59:50. > :59:53.could do that. Did you find that telling? We did ask the DUP to take
:59:54. > :00:00.part today, we told nobody for the party was available. It is hard to
:00:01. > :00:05.get both the DUP and Sinn Fein together on some of these issues.
:00:06. > :00:08.That is evidence of grown-up Government in some way, they don't
:00:09. > :00:14.want to be seen attacking each other in public. There is a genuine
:00:15. > :00:18.difference in policy on both sides and potentially it seems like they
:00:19. > :00:21.are running away from those issues. The DUP have been reluctant to
:00:22. > :00:28.explain their position on this and I think fundamentally there's still an
:00:29. > :00:31.overhang from how the maze issue unfolded. They are wary of coming up
:00:32. > :00:37.with solutions to victims issue which leads to sort of lightning rod
:00:38. > :00:42.for this content within the party forming. Allison, do you think they
:00:43. > :00:46.can be a piecemeal approach to this, we could pick bits off, solve them
:00:47. > :00:50.and leave the big issues resolved? Or does it have to be nothing is
:00:51. > :00:56.agreed until everything gives? I think it is unfair with people
:00:57. > :01:05.waiting for pensions while parties argue over details. Salmon?
:01:06. > :01:07.Fundamentally, there will be a solution. The architecture for the
:01:08. > :01:11.overwhelming majority of this was agreed, is just that once that
:01:12. > :01:12.happens, we need to make sure the victims are happy.
:01:13. > :01:13.Thanks both. has to be some degree of allowances
:01:14. > :01:15.Back to Andrew in London. in return for renewing vehicles.
:01:16. > :01:18.You. Why are the Lib Dems throwing
:01:19. > :01:27.everything they've got at the by-election in
:01:28. > :01:29.David Cameron's old constituency? And what will happen next in the US
:01:30. > :01:55.presidential election? So this cross-party push to make the
:01:56. > :01:59.government come forward with the outlines of this negotiating
:02:00. > :02:03.strategy for Brexit, and put it to the Commons in particular, has that
:02:04. > :02:07.got traction? It has in that it is attracting a wide range of support
:02:08. > :02:13.in the House of Commons, which is now the crucial forum for these
:02:14. > :02:20.debates. Theresa May has said there will not be a vote before she
:02:21. > :02:24.triggers article 50. So we have two assume there will not be a vote.
:02:25. > :02:28.With this whole debate, there is a myth going about that we don't know
:02:29. > :02:33.much about what Brexit means. We know a heck of a lot about what it
:02:34. > :02:39.means. We know that when she opens her mouth, the pound falls. The
:02:40. > :02:43.pound is in a different position to the other Brexiteers. There is an
:02:44. > :02:48.accountability issue in terms of what the House of Commons will have
:02:49. > :02:53.a say in, and that could become a big story. Nicola Sturgeon has
:02:54. > :02:58.supported a second referendum. We know a huge amount, all of it dire,
:02:59. > :03:08.and I hope that MPs do get votes at some point. I suspect they will. For
:03:09. > :03:11.example, we are going to get one on this so-called repeal act, which is
:03:12. > :03:15.an act of consolidation. There will be others. We cannot leave the
:03:16. > :03:20.European Union without votes, but I don't think we will get one on
:03:21. > :03:24.Article 50. What they seem to be pushing for at the moment is a vote
:03:25. > :03:30.on the government's bargaining position. They are not saying they
:03:31. > :03:39.want all the details, although Labour has asked 70 questions. The
:03:40. > :03:46.Commons needs to improve them, it is said. Is that fair? It is absurd.
:03:47. > :03:50.You don't go into negotiating with Brussels talking about what was
:03:51. > :03:56.published in all the national newspapers last week about what our
:03:57. > :04:01.red lines are. I don't remember any other international trade deal being
:04:02. > :04:05.done in the public eye. Theresa May hasn't said a red line on
:04:06. > :04:11.immigration. She has uttered those words. There are lots of other
:04:12. > :04:15.intricate details. Of course they are, but we broadly know her
:04:16. > :04:23.position. And broadly we know the EU position. Broad knowledge is not the
:04:24. > :04:26.same as specific. The point is that the British Parliament, all these
:04:27. > :04:31.people who are so obsessed with the British Parliament having its say
:04:32. > :04:35.and democracy, they didn't care for very many years when they happily
:04:36. > :04:41.handed over powers. The Lisbon Treaty, which is like a new
:04:42. > :04:46.constitution. It handed over far more powers again and again. And
:04:47. > :04:50.there was an express vote not to have a referendum for the British
:04:51. > :04:55.people. But we have now given our say. Putting aside whether you are
:04:56. > :04:59.for or against, is it realistic that the government will come forward
:05:00. > :05:04.with some kind of green paper all white paper that gives a broad
:05:05. > :05:11.outline of the government's Brexit position? When you have the majority
:05:12. > :05:15.of between ten and 20, there is one thing you have to do as Prime
:05:16. > :05:21.Minister, and that is to learn to count. Theresa May hasn't done that.
:05:22. > :05:25.There will be a vote in the House of Commons. Whether it's binding or
:05:26. > :05:32.not, because MPs will make one. What will vote be on? They will demand
:05:33. > :05:37.that the government spelt out its Brexit strategy. It will not be
:05:38. > :05:40.binding, unless they tried to shoehorn something onto government
:05:41. > :05:45.legislation, which I don't think they will do. They will be unsure.
:05:46. > :05:50.The will of the House of Commons will express itself simply because
:05:51. > :05:55.there is a majority in the House of Commons, a clear one, for soft
:05:56. > :06:00.Brexit. There will be a vote, the government will lose it, and then it
:06:01. > :06:04.is up to Theresa May whether to pay any attention to it. But she has got
:06:05. > :06:10.herself into this problem because she has adopted the views of the 52
:06:11. > :06:16.against the 48, dropping any sort of language about consensus and
:06:17. > :06:20.bringing the country back together. If the Commons votes against the
:06:21. > :06:25.government on this, it will be seen as a major setback for the
:06:26. > :06:29.government and the Prime Minister. Yes, seismic. Of course she can
:06:30. > :06:35.ignore it if you are talking about it in relation to triggering Article
:06:36. > :06:39.50. In a way, it happened with Maastricht as well. The House of
:06:40. > :06:45.Commons will move centrestage, and that context is that tiny majority.
:06:46. > :06:51.She has a smaller majority than John Major had in the 90s, and it's going
:06:52. > :06:58.to be far more turbulent than perhaps her calm, assured a facade
:06:59. > :07:02.suggests. Theresa May is a serious, fully formed politician, with six
:07:03. > :07:07.years in the Home Office, but she has never had experience of the
:07:08. > :07:11.Treasury or the Foreign Office. This is massive, massive politics, and I
:07:12. > :07:17.don't think she's ready for it. I don't blame her for that. If it
:07:18. > :07:22.comes to a conflict between the result of the referendum and the
:07:23. > :07:27.position Parliament has taken, there is a chance she will call another
:07:28. > :07:31.election? Effectively, it will be a vote of no-confidence in her
:07:32. > :07:37.government. She should call another election. I think the British people
:07:38. > :07:41.be very clear. The remainers I know have all completely accept it that
:07:42. > :07:45.we are going to have this. There is a mandate for leaves and the Prime
:07:46. > :07:49.Minister should get on with it. I think the British people will not
:07:50. > :07:57.take kindly to any MP who gets in the way. We have two by-elections
:07:58. > :08:02.this week. One in Whitley and one in Batley and Spen, the seat held by Jo
:08:03. > :08:09.Cox. The main parties are not competing in that because of the
:08:10. > :08:14.appalling circumstances in which her terrible murder took place. The Lib
:08:15. > :08:18.Dems are coming big in Witney. They came fourth in the general election,
:08:19. > :08:24.rather forepaws, that they are bigging themselves up in this one.
:08:25. > :08:31.That wise? They've got to do something to get themselves
:08:32. > :08:37.attention. They need to get noticed. But what they have in their favour
:08:38. > :08:42.is that the constituency Witney voted 53% remain and 47% leave in
:08:43. > :08:48.the EU referendum. So they will be trying to get the remain a vote.
:08:49. > :08:51.This is the first test of their remain a strategy. It is interesting
:08:52. > :09:02.that Theresa May bothered to come out and campaign on Saturdays. There
:09:03. > :09:06.she is. The Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister out
:09:07. > :09:13.campaigning. They are not going to win, that they would have to come
:09:14. > :09:19.second. David Cameron had a 60% vote there, for goodness sake. The Tory
:09:20. > :09:23.candidate was a Leave campaign. The fact she is out campaigning isn't a
:09:24. > :09:30.sign of lack of confidence. She must be confident they will win,
:09:31. > :09:34.otherwise she wouldn't be seen near the place. OK, the American
:09:35. > :09:39.election. Just when you thought it couldn't get crazier. We are
:09:40. > :09:43.familiar with drug tests for athletes and cyclists, and all sorts
:09:44. > :09:48.of things in sport. But Mr Trump has now called for a drug test before
:09:49. > :09:50.the third and final debate coming up this Wednesday. Am I making it up?
:09:51. > :09:53.No, I'm not. I think we should take a drug test
:09:54. > :09:56.prior to the debate. We should take a drug test prior,
:09:57. > :10:01.because I don't know what's going on with her,
:10:02. > :10:05.but at the beginning of her last debate she was all pumped
:10:06. > :10:11.up at the beginning, and at the end it was like,
:10:12. > :10:14.uuh, take me down. So I think we should
:10:15. > :10:32.take a drug test. He's also talking about the election
:10:33. > :10:37.being rigged as well, which may be ground work for making his excuses.
:10:38. > :10:44.But here's the issue. That was yesterday. With everything that went
:10:45. > :10:48.before, overnight, the latest Washington post-ABC News poll. Mrs
:10:49. > :10:53.Clinton is ahead by only four points. It's almost within the
:10:54. > :11:02.margin of error. Down from about ten points after sexual assault gate.
:11:03. > :11:06.The simple reason why Trump got the Republican nomination, beating 50 or
:11:07. > :11:11.60 Republican moderates, why he's been doing pretty well in the polls
:11:12. > :11:15.until the last two of weeks, people buy into the anti-establishment
:11:16. > :11:19.thing. All you need to do is stand there and say, of course they would
:11:20. > :11:26.say that, because they are all crooked. That is the single biggest
:11:27. > :11:31.thing he's got going for him. The Washington Post - ABC News poll
:11:32. > :11:33.suggests the whole business of the nude tapes actually haven't made
:11:34. > :11:54.that much difference. -- huge tape. -- lewd tape. Once you position
:11:55. > :11:59.yourself, you can almost say anything you like, and then respond
:12:00. > :12:03.by saying, the elite would say that, wouldn't they? You cannot really
:12:04. > :12:09.deal with that as an argument, because you would just say, oh,
:12:10. > :12:14.that's you lot, you would say that. There is a point where it becomes
:12:15. > :12:20.absurd, though, and I think this current thing on doping tests is
:12:21. > :12:25.laugh out loud stuff. That surely can't help him. You cannot think,
:12:26. > :12:32.what are the undecideds thinking about this? There was a lot of
:12:33. > :12:41.information, not in the century, but some information is more e-mails
:12:42. > :12:43.from Mrs Clinton are leaked. They are showing her to be very much a
:12:44. > :12:54.globalisation person, very close to Wall Street, talking about why... As
:12:55. > :13:01.Donald Trump said last week, it was good to have the shackles off. This
:13:02. > :13:07.is him with the shackles off. The reality is, all the stuff about
:13:08. > :13:11.Hillary not being very likeable and dishonest, that is already factored
:13:12. > :13:15.into the polls. All the stuff about Donald Trump being lecherous and
:13:16. > :13:20.racist is already factored in. What still blows my mind is that people
:13:21. > :13:25.are still undecided! He's given Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. It
:13:26. > :13:27.is going to be very interesting to see.
:13:28. > :13:31.Jo Coburn has more Daily Politics tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.
:13:32. > :13:34.I'll be back next Sunday at 11am here on BBC One.
:13:35. > :13:39.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.