16/10/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Boris Johnson hosts a summit of allies in London

to discuss how to broker a peace settlement in Syria.

But as war continues to rage, could "no-bomb zones" -

thought to be backed by the Foreign Secretary -

protect civilians, and how would they work?

We were told by the Remain campaign that a vote to leave the EU would

But with the economy growing and employment at record

Can Theresa May make a decision on airport expansion

without triggering a Conservative cabinet bust-up

We look at what's at stake, as the PM prepares to choose

And coming up here: A plan to deal with the legacy

of the past is stuck in the starting blocks -

We'll hear from the Victims Commissioner, Sinn Fein

and the Ulster Unionists. on whether to expand Heathrow, is

Brexit causing uncertainty in the aviation sector?

All that to come before 12.15 - and the Scottish Secretary, David

Mundell, on Nicola Sturgeon's plans for a second referendum

And with me throughout - Tom Newtown Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.

They'll all be tweeting their thoughts and comments

So, in just over an hour, the Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, will host a meeting of foreign allies in London,

including US Secretary of State John Kerry,

to discuss military options in Syria.

Last week, Mr Johnson said the public mood had changed

after relentless bomb attacks on Aleppo

and that more "kinetic action" might be possible.

Has the public mood changed on Syria? There is a desire to end the

horror, but has the public mood really changed? Not really. When

asked, the Public say that something must be done and we must stop the

slaughter, but when also asked whether to put British troops there,

they say, probably not. We have a new Foreign Secretary and British

government, and we will have a new White House come January for sure.

So there is a feeling that what has gone so far in terms of not

intervening, not trying to oppose or block Putin from doing what he wants

in Syria has failed, so time to try something else. There was talk of a

no-fly zone. There's not so much talk about it now. Now there's

suddenly a no-bomb zone. Are we clear what that would be? It is

meaningless without a no-fly zone and no one is willing to enforce it.

For me, the biggest issue is, what is the point of the United Nations?

With Russia vetoing any possible peace plan, we are in a situation

where we are basically handing over our moral authority in the world for

dealing with humanitarian disasters and war crimes being committed by

the side regime and Putin to an organisation which is controlled by

Putin effectively because he has a veto on the Security Council. The

situation is untenable. We cannot sit and pretend we don't want to be

involved in this war. We are already at war, and we will be at war. We

need to get to grips with it sooner or later. If we are willing to say

that we don't care about Syrian children dying... But we are not

willing to say that, so we need to do something about it. We could care

deeply but admits there is not something we can do about it.

Indeed. When Julia says "Get involved", that does not translate

to anything precise or specific. The problem is you go round in circles

when it comes to reaction, because when people are then asked what the

endgame is - and you do need to have a sense of the end and an aim, and

one of the problems with Iraq was that there was not that - you can

simply say, something needs to be done and we are involved and there

should be military action, but that raises 10,000 other questions which

no one is capable of answering. As I understand it, the no-bomb zone

would be that we would designate areas where no bombing would be

allowed. We wouldn't have planes to stop it happening, but if bombing

did happen in those areas, we would use missiles to take out Syrian

infrastructure. It seems complicated, and to not take into

account what we would do if the Russians put anti-missile batteries

around this Syrian infrastructure, as well they might. And you could go

one step further. Your understanding is the same as mine. Doing something

to prevent drops being -- ones being dropped in that area, but without

engaging with Russia. You could fire cruise missiles into a runway, which

we were warned could be done, but the problem is, you could have a

Russian jet in the middle of that runway, or a bus of school kids. We

know that they are capable of doing that. You are looking towards a

confrontation with Russia, what ever you do. Boris Johnson would say this

is the kind of HARDtalk we need to get the man to listen, because

everything else has failed. Mr Kerry being there is significant, but at

this stage in the election cycle, it's hard to sue what -- see what Mr

Obama would do. We have no idea what to reason may's foreign policy is in

terms of intervention. The last thing she would want to do is to get

involved in a Middle Eastern war. But we are already involved. And the

idea that our entire foreign policy should be based on not having a

conflict in the Putin... The West as a whole is not wanting to have a

conflict with him, and that is why he is acting how he is.

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has repeated her

warning that, if the UK leaves the single market, she will push for

Speaking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning, Ms Sturgeon said

she would not hesitate to protect Scotland's economic interests.

There's a principle here about, you know,

Does what we think, and what we say, and how

And that's what's going to be put to the test, I think,

Theresa May, perfectly legitimately, says she values the UK,

In the Independence Referendum, Scotland was told repeatedly

My message to the Prime Minister is, it's now time to prove these

things, and demonstrate to Scotland that our voice does count

within the UK, and our interests can be protected.

Because if that's not the case, then I think Scotland

would have the right to decide whether it wanted to follow

I've been joined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. During the Scottish referendum

campaign, two years ago, the ETA Together campaign claimed that the

only guaranteed way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to stay in the

UK. That turned out to be untrue. You owe the people of Scotland an

apology. That isn't the full facts. It was made clear during the

referendum in Scotland that there could be an EU referendum. Ruth

Davidson, on many occasions, made it clear that people in Scotland would

have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they remained in the

EU. What was clear in that referendum, and you played a

significant part in highlighting it, was that those who were advocating a

yes vote could not set out a clear route for Scotland to get into the

EU as an independent nation. They were told if they stayed in the UK,

that was their best route to remaining in Europe. It turned out,

it is obvious that that was untrue. It was a route that meant there was

going to be an EU referendum. That was made very clear throughout that.

People voted in Scotland decisively to remain part of the UK in full

knowledge that there would be a referendum on whether the United

Kingdom remained in the European Union. That is what the vote on the

23rd of June in Scotland was about. It was about the UK remaining in the

EU, not Scotland. The people of Scotland were told to vote for the

union to be sure of staying in the UK. They also voted 62% to 38% to

stay in the EU. Now they are being dragged out against their will.

Surely that is grounds for a second Scottish referendum? I don't accept

that. I've voted to stay in the EU, but I didn't do so on the basis that

if I didn't get my own way that Scotland would be dragged out of the

United Kingdom. We have had a once in a generation vote as to whether

Scotland remained part of the UK. There was a decisive result in that.

On the assumption that we would also remain part of the European Union,

so a major change has taken place. I don't accept that analysis. People

were told that there would be a vote on whether the UK remained in the

EU. The reasons for Scotland remaining in the UK were

overwhelmingly economic, and those issues remain today in relation to

the UK single market. It is very odd that people who are concerned about

the EU single market are quite willing to

give up the UK single market, which is four times as valuable to

Scotland, and responsible for a million jobs. If the Scottish

Government demands another referendum, will the UK Government

grant it? The UK Government will have two agreed to a referendum, but

we want to argue that there shouldn't be another referendum. It

is in Scotland's best interests at the two governments work together

with 18 UK approach to get the best possible situation for Scotland...

If the Scottish Parliament decides that we do want -- we do not like

the terms of Brexit and we want another referendum, would you grant

it? There would have to be an agreement between the two

governments in the same form as the Edinburgh Agreement. The great shame

of the Edinburgh Agreement, which the SNP used to quote repeatedly, is

that they have not adhere to it, because a fundamental part of that

would be that both sides would respect the result. Viewers will

notice that you haven't really answered my question. Could Scotland

remain inside the single market in Europe as part of the Brexit

process? From the outset, I have said we would listen to any proposal

that the Scottish Government brought forward in relation to Scotland's

interests. We have had for months and no specific proposals have come

forward. Nicola Sturgeon was talking about proposals this morning, but at

this moment, I see it impossible that Scotland could remain within

the EU whilst the rest of the UK leads. It would be difficult to see

how that could be achieved. But we will listen to any proposals the

Scottish Government bring forward in relation to achieving the best

interests of Scotland. I am convinced that Scotland's best

interests are being part of the UK. You praised Scotland's membership of

the single market during the referendum. In March of this year

you said it secured jobs, was vital to tourism and industry, inbound

visitors and the rest of it. So why would you not want to retain it for

Scotland? I agree with the benefits Scotland has received from the

single market, but we are in a different situation now. The UK is

negotiating its exit from the EU. The Prime Minister has said it is

not going to be on the basis of existing arrangements, it will be on

the basis of a new arrangement, and as part of that, we will want to

secure the best arrangement for Scottish businesses. Given the

history we have gone through, do you want to guarantee a special post

Brexit status for Scotland. We leave the EU, but Scotland will have a

distinct status? I'm willing to look at any proposal brought forward that

looks at Scotland's interests. We have had no specifics from the

Scottish Government. They say now that they have them. It is a bit rum

to attack the Scottish Government. The principle is, could Scotland

have a special position, and would you help that or not? I am willing

to listen to any proposal brought forward. Will fishing and farming go

back to Edinburgh? The devolution settlement are going to be a

change,... Will they go to Edinburgh or to London? We will have a

decision at the end of that process. I want to make sure we have the best

arrangement for Scotland. You can't answer the question? We want to

listen to what fishermen and farmers say, and the people of Scotland. It

will be a package of arrangements, clearly, that need to be taken

forward as a result of leaving the EU. One final question. If the

Scottish Nationalist MPs vote against grammar schools, which are

purely for England, isn't that proof that your English votes for English

laws isn't working? It demonstrates all MPs in the

Parliament have the opportunity to vote on all issues. You wouldn't

mind if they voted to stop Grammar schools? Of course I wouldn't --

would mind... I think we have got the balance right in that

legislation. It is meaningless if they can vote to stop grammar

schools when it doesn't affect Scotland. They have to answer for

that, based on an opportunistic approach and cause resentment in

England. Thank you for being with us.

During the EU Referendum campaign, leading Remain supporters repeatedly

warned that a vote to leave the European Union would cause

Three months on, were their forecasts accurate?

Since the vote on June 23rd, the economic news

The value of the pound has been in pretty steady depreciation

since referendum day, falling to a 31-year

It was as low as $1.18 but has still rebounded a bit.

The weak pound left Tesco in a situation.

They stopped selling Marmite and other products for a day online

And a leaked Treasury report said that Government tax revenues

could be down by 66 billion a year in a post-Brexit economy.

Though the report emanated from Project Fear days.

However, many of the short-term economic fundamentals

The dominant service sector grew a healthy 0.4% in July.

In the same month, the unemployment rate dipped to under 5%,

House-buying has also been rising since the referendum,

nearly 110,000 properties were purchased in August.

Is the economy already suffering from the Brexit blues or not?

Joining me now is the former shadow Europe Minister,

the Labour MP Pat McFadden, who was a Business Minister

Do you know concede that nearly all the short-term economic forecasts

made by the Remain campaign have turned out to be untrue at best,

scaremongering at worst? No, I think this week was the week that the

beginnings of the economic effects of Brexit began to take hold, most

obviously on the currency fall. You talk about short-term, this began on

the night of the referendum itself and was given booster rockets by the

signals sent out by the Conservative Party conference. In terms of the

warnings next to reality, the warnings about the fall of the

currency speculated that it might fall in value by about 12%, the

reality is closer to 20%. Let's look at some of the warnings. We will

come back to the currency, but let's look at this. The Treasury report on

maybe 23rd said the following: That turned out to be untrue, didn't

it? What has happened here, which isn't in line with those warnings,

is consumer confidence has remained high. The actions of the Bank of

England in cutting interest have been important, so the short-term

effect in terms of consumer confidence... So it is wrong? Hasn't

turned out in line with that, but it would be complacent in the extreme

to conclude that with the effects of the currency which we know also from

the Bank of England's comments the other dates will feed into higher

prices, which will hit lower income consumers hardest. But we don't know

yet, I will come onto that but in the short term, I will show you

another one. A month before the referendum, the Chancellor George

Osborne said this: That turned out to be wronged too,

didn't it? We are not in recession but if you look at the forecasts of

growth over the next few years, the Bank of England have forecast growth

next year to not be the 2.3% it thought before the referendum but to

be 0.8%. Is it forecasting a recession? No, but it is forecasting

a slowdown which would mean GDP after two years would be for the ?5

billion less than the estimates before the referendum took place.

And it might be wrong, because look, it was wrong about the recession. Is

anybody now forecasting a recession? I don't know if anybody is

forecasting a recession. The IMF are certainly forecasting a slowdown in

a similar way to the Bank of England. George Osborne also said

house prices will plummet by 18%. Any sign of that? House prices are

not plummeting by 18%. Your side that you represent made much of the

IMF's claim that provoked Leave would mean an immediate slide into

recession, a collapse in house prices, and a crash in stock markets

which of course are currently at record levels. Even the IMF admits

there is none of that. There maybe longer term dangers but in the

short-term it happen. In the short-term it didn't happen. In the

short term what has happened here, as I said a moment ago, is consumer

confidence has remained high, the Bank of England cut interest rates

which put more money into people's pockets and I think the action they

took was important, but I think it would be wrong to say imply that

because these things haven't happened in the first few months

that we are somehow out of the woods on the economy. I understand that,

that's the last thing I would say, but here's the question - most of

these forecasters are still pretty gloomy about the long-term but if

they couldn't get the last few months right, why would you trust

them for 2025 when they couldn't say what will happen in September? Why

would you trust them to say what happens five years from now? People

will ask the question but the big tangible we have is in the decline

of the currency and that is a real and now effect. We can talk about

whether it is lost or minus, but the Government said the other day this

would bring inflation back, to use his words it is going to get

difficult, particularly for people on lower incomes and that will feed

into people's purchasing power. The international markets partaking of

you have our future prospects and at the moment it is not a vote of

confidence. Do you agree with the latest Remain mantra that people

might have voted to leave the EU but didn't necessarily vote to leave the

single market? I do agree with that. A lot of people have said people who

voted to leave didn't know that's what they were voting for, so let me

show you a clip of David Cameron at the height of the referendum

campaign. The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the

EU and the single market, we then have to negotiate a trade deal from

outside with the European Union. There you have it loud and clear on

BBC television, voting Leave means leaving the single market, not

losing access to it but leaving the membership of it. We have George

Osborne on tape saying the same thing, so why do you make out Leave

voters didn't know what they were voting for? I think people voted

Leave for a number of different reasons. For some it might have been

immigration, for some it might have been the promise of more money for

the NHS, but there are number of countries outside the EU which can

have full access to the single market, we know about Norway and on.

But they all have to pay in and have free movement. We can come onto that

but what I'm saying is it's not the case that when you are outside the

EU you necessarily have to be outside the single market and the

reason this is important is because this has been a cornerstone of

British economic policy for many years, particularly in terms of our

inward investment, and the reasons why both manufacturing industry and

financial services has invested and created employment in the UK, and I

think it would be cavalier to begin this negotiation by closing the door

on that. Is it Labour's policy, I know you don't speak for Labour

leadership, but is it their policy to remain in the single market? You

are right, I'm a backbencher, but it is the policy to have as full access

as possible to the single market. At least what we have now in terms of

goods and services. You can call it membership or not but that is what

Keir Starmer and the Labour Party wants. The old party home affairs

select committee is blaming Jeremy Corbyn's lack of leadership for

creating a safe space for what they call vile anti-Semitism. Do you

agree with that? I think this report should be taken seriously. The

atmosphere in the Labour Party, there has been a lot of nasty things

said on social media over the past year in particular. I hope we don't

make the mistake of shooting the messenger, I hope we take the report

seriously and I hope we don't fall into the trap that sometimes I see

when these accusations are wielded, that we point to antiracism records

and say look at our virtue in our record here, that must mean we

cannot be anti-Semitic. Let me be clear about this, pointing to your

own sense of righteousness is no excuse for nastiness or cruelty to

someone else so we should take this very seriously indeed. Pat McFadden,

thank you for being with us this morning.

A third runway at Heathrow was first given the green

light by Gordon Brown's government in 2009.

Almost eight years on, could Theresa May be about finally

to allow Heathrow expansion to go ahead?

Or could she surprise everyone and back Gatwick instead?

Maybe she will come out in favour of both of them!

A decision is expected imminently, but it's not straightforward

Several members of her cabinet are opposed to any plan to expand

Heathrow, and reports suggest as many as 60 of her backbenchers

Our reporter, Mark Lobel, has been looking at

A growing number of people want to take more flights and some

accuse the Government of dragging their feet over

All the while, our airports are operating flat-out.

So this is fully autonomous, you just have to press the start

Matthew Hill is from a business-backed group campaigning

We haven't had a full-length runway in London and the south-east

Gatwick was built in the 1930s, Heathrow in the 1940s,

Heathrow is full, Gatwick will be full in the next few years.

Matthew's group claims the lack of a new runway is costing us

I think there are huge economic benefits from the construction

At the moment, because we don't have that new runway, we don't

have that new capacity, the new flights to new markets,

we are missing out on ?9.5 billion a year in lost trade.

Until we get that decision and we get that runway

built, we will continue to lose out on that trade.

One airport that's eager to expand is Heathrow,

either by expanding this northern runway, the one closest to us here,

or, the Airports Commission's favourite proposal, building

a new runway parallel to here, about a kilometre that way in place

It's said that would offer 40 new destinations from the airport,

carry lots more air freight, provide 70,000 new jobs

and an overall boost to economic activity in the country,

with a promise of no night flights, new environmental and community

Heathrow's hub status also services many of the UK's other airports,

On average, every year a quarter of a million passengers travel

to and from this key exporting region via Heathrow,

While we've been very strong supporters of a third runway

at Heathrow, we think it's in the best interests

of the north-east, we also think it's in the best

Our services connect to many, many destinations across the world,

and allow businesses to trade right the way across the globe.

Gatwick Airport also wants to expand with another runway here.

By doubling Gatwick's capacity, the plan would create 22,000

new jobs, a vastly expanded short-haul network, and more

I think the expansion of Gatwick will bring firstly

the certainty of delivery, we can have spades in the ground

in this Parliament and we can be operational in the next,

so that's within ten years we can have a new runway,

and Gatwick can provide the increased capacity at a price

Now, before anyone gets carried away, there are of course some

people who would far prefer no extra planes in the sky.

We already fly more than everybody else,

most of these are leisure flights, well who's taking

Actually 70% of all of our flights are taken by 15% of the population.

It's a wealthy frequent-flying elite.

But with approval of a third runway looking likely,

could more protests be on the horizon?

I can tell you now, they are dusting off the handcuffs, you know,

And you have to remember, Heathrow, if they choose to expand

Heathrow, you are talking about hundreds of homes

being bulldozed, whole communities being eradicated, wiped off the map.

Over the last few years, since the last big protest around

Heathrow, the relationship between local people around

the airport and grass roots climate change activists

Those guys are going to get together and just cause merry hell for people

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, who once called for a better not

bigger Heathrow whilst in opposition, will chair a select

group of colleagues expected to decide imminently

on whether to build a new runway and where.

It will then take months for a national policy statement

outlining the new works to get drawn up before MPs get to vote on it,

leaving plenty of time for any further opposition to airport

I've been joined by two Conservative MPs.

Adam Afriyie is opposed to Heathrow expansion,

Adam, the independent Daviess report into runway expansion said the case

for Heathrow was clear and unanimous in the Commission. 180,000 more

jobs, more than ?200 billion in economic benefits. So why are you

putting the interests of your constituency before the national

interest? I will fight tooth and nail for the interests of my

constituents, but the wonderful thing about the binary choice

between Heathrow and Gatwick is that it is not in the regional or

consumers' interests to expand Heathrow. The Daviess report has

already been largely undermined. There are 17 reasons why it doesn't

work and is wrong. Number one, they said Gatwick would not have 42

million passengers until 2024. This year, they already have 42 million

passengers. Gatwick have increased their destinations to 20 now, which

they didn't expect either. The Davies review was good in its day,

but is it had a limited remit. They were talking about Heathrow as a

hub, but the airline industry has changed. We have to pay to this for

more than 15 years. The government White Paper in 2003 suggested we

should expand Heathrow. ?20 million and 12 years later, the Davis Report

came to the same conclusion. We are never going to get any form of

progress on this is competing MPs are allowed to frustrate the

process. You could have had about three people who are Gatwick MPs

arguing very passionately against Adam's desire to expand Gatwick. The

point is, we are in a paralysis. We are having a theological debate that

will last decades, and Heathrow is... Why Heathrow? Why not expand

Gatwick and increase the capacity of our regional airports? I thought the

government's strategy was to rebalance the economy in favour of

the North and the Midlands. If you listen to northern MPs, or people

representing Northern or Scottish interests, they all say they want to

increase Heathrow. The SNP said last week they wanted Heathrow to be

expanded. If you want to help the economy is in those areas, listen to

what they are saying. They are saying expand Heathrow. 32 regional

airports support the expansion of Heathrow to maintain its position as

one of the global hubs. Even the Scottish Government agrees with

expanding Heathrow. They all say, we want to be a serious player in

aviation. We need a global hub, and that is Heathrow. The interesting

thing is that there is no argument that Heathrow is the UK hub, and no

one is trying to get rid of that. But if you are adding a single new

runway, is it better to add it at Heathrow or Gatwick, and for me it

is overwhelmingly clear. Heathrow is the most expensive airport in the

world. If you add another runway at taxpayer expense, you make it even

more expensive. So flight prices go up. Whether or not Heathrow could

ever be delivered is another question. My own Borough Council as

part of the legal action... So even if the decision is made, we may not

see the capacity. At Gatwick is dirt cheap. It can be delivered within

ten years. But it is not a global hub airport. But the hub that we

have at Heathrow is perfectly adequate for the next ten or 15

years. It is running at 99% capacity. Every airline, the new

planes being ordered... The airline have decided that the hub capacity

is sufficient and they are moving to a different model. Let me ask you

this. We haven't built a major new runway in London and the south-east

for 60 years. Since 1946, so 70 years. Why not expand Heathrow and

Gatwick? Personally, I would do both. If we are serious about having

international trade and Golding links to the outside world,

especially after Brexit, we have to get serious about aviation and

accept that we need more capacity. I think it's scandalous we haven't

managed to expand capacity for 70 years, when we think of the economic

growth that has happened in that time. If we want to build a

prosperous economy, it seems bizarre we are reluctant to increase

aviation. Whatever the decision, do you think there will be a free vote

on this? I think this is one area where I think the government does

need to take a lead, and I hope they will make a rational choice for

Gatwick. If the government comes out for Heathrow, will you defy the

whips? Yes. I will always vote for Heathrow, because it doesn't make

economic sense. If MPs are happy at the prospect of Heathrow... Does the

figure strike a chord with you? I would hope there would be more, but

it depends on the political position of Labour and the SNP. I hope that

the government decides inclusively... Ad is doing what he

feels is the best for his constituents. I think 60 is way off

the mark. I don't know what journalists suggested 60 Tory MPs.

My sense is that it is probably about 20 hard-core people in the

House of Commons. I think it will be a free vote. If it is 20 hard-core,

you will need Labour to get it through? Labour MPs were very keen

on supporting Heathrow, in my experience. It may be delayed again,

of course. After 70 years, what's another week here or there!

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

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

They've agreed the structures to deal

with the legacy of the past, but the plan remains stuck

in the starting blocks because of a row over disclosure

and a failure to agree funding for inquests.

So almost a year after the Fresh Start Agreement, what does

the Victims' Commissioner think of the efforts being made

on the latest efforts to help bring this issue to a conclusion.

And with their thoughts on all of that and more,

my guests of the day are

They agreed it as part of the Stormont House negotiations,

but making any real progress on dealing with the legacy

Victims and survivors had hoped that a package which includes

a new investigations unit, an oral history archive and enhanced

funding for Troubles-related inquests would be up

But instead, Sinn Fein and the Secretary of State

are still in dispute over disclosure of official papers, while the DUP's

being accused of blocking funding for inquests

We'll hear from Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly and the Ulster Unionist

leader, Mike Nesbitt, in just a moment.

But first, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors,

You were disappointed when this issue wasn't resolved

in the Fresh Start deal and was put on hold before the election -

We currently have around 12 hundred to 1600 deaths not yet investigated.

We have proposed legislation for that unit and I believe that that

has been a further worked on in the margins since last November and I

believe there have been conversations in the margins about

how some of those things which were blocked at the time could be

overcome and I have not been privy to all those discussions and will

not expect to be, but I believe these matters certainly run the

disclosure of information are not insuperable if we can get over them.

There are individuals who have been through repeated iterations over the

years, initiatives designed to give them some truth and access in

principle to justice and accountability. These people have

been let down many, many times. It doesn't make it easier, but it is

happening again. I think there is a loss of faith in people's intention

to deliver for them, if we delay this. But I do think it's achievable

and now is the time. In March this year, you warned

the Government that it can't hide behind national security in dealing

with the legacy from the Troubles. Is that what it's still attempting

to do, in your view? I know it is still under

consideration and there have been proposed solutions. I don't believe

it is impossible to agree something sufficiently robust and transparent

to give confidence and yet does recognise that there are genuine

human rights issues around keeping people safe and community safety

matters of disclosure. So when a James Brokenshire says he believes

it should enter a public face sooner rather than later, does that

indicate to you that we may just be inching towards the point where that

matter, one of the key sticking points, is resolvable and the two

sides to that disagreement believe that to be the case? On the halves

of victims, survivors and witnesses, I hope so. I believe if we're going

to see the legislation needed to put some of these institutions in place,

if we're going to see that in this session, then we need to see

something of a consultation on this side of Christmas, so I hope that

is... Also, it is really important and, for a moment, I'm not critical

politicians here, it is important that what does get put in place is

fit for purpose, trustworthy, transparent and deals evenhandedly

with issues where I think right across different victims and

survivors who have different wishes, fears and priorities, that wish more

truth and the balanced fair process is the only way forward to deal with

it. That hasn't changed, has it? You are now talking about a need for

that to happen sooner rather than later. But you said that several

months ago. Before the election, before the party is going to serious

business of electioneering, and that did not happen. It hasn't, I

absolutely urge politicians to do this. I believe that at the time of

the Good Friday Agreement there were reasons why these issues were too

difficult and, if you like, be pushed down the road. But it is now

18 years later and those who suffered most are still awaiting for

truth and acknowledgement, justice where it is achievable and, let us

not forget, there are a series of measures he designed to look after

people who have been harmed, so we have something like 500 people who

have been permanently and severely injured as a consequence of Tripple

X III related incidents. There are now old and have not been able to

earn a living under without a pension. A pension was promised and

that is equally something we need to look at, because people aren't

getting younger and we need to look after those who were harmed as well

as dealing with those truth and justice issues.

The huge issues looking back on the past and facing up to what people

did and did not do over 35 or more years ago, may never in fact be

resolved. That could be kicked down the street in perpetuity. Does that

worry you that that may be the case? I fundamentally disagree you should

disentangle these things. You think they can't be? I think they should

not be and probably, the achievement of the whole package will be best

achieved by doing it all at once, because different people have

different needs, and priorities, and if you look after one set not

another, you inevitably create a situation which some people feel

disadvantaged. There is a need for transparency, openness and

acknowledgement, but equally, you must look after those who were

harmed. If you do one without the other, you miss out on the fact they

are connected. Actually, justice issues cause mental health problems,

that people who are denied truth and acknowledgement suffer mental health

issues as a consequence. These things are not separate and the

approach to dealing with as a collective IQ seems correct to me.

The issue is not directly connected to this one and it is not explicitly

part of what you necessarily want to talk about at the moment and what

you are responsible for, but do you believe that if that issue of the

outstanding inquests into troubles related killings can be unlocked and

the process can be set in motion? That could help movement on some of

these other seemingly contracts will issues? Yes, legacy inquests are not

technically part of this agreement, but I believe they've become

entangled in these negotiations. There are something like 54 inquests

still to be conducted and we've achieved justice and took

responsibility a year ago for a situation not of his making. He has

made proposals and put a cost on them and I feel that should we get

agreement on the historical investigations unit and other

measures that are likely to make it easier to unlock the issue of legacy

interests. You hope for them? I would be hopeful that we will see

some progress on legacy inquests as well. Thank you.

Well, Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly and the Ulster Unionist leader,

Mike Nesbitt, have been listening to that.

Gerry, your reaction to the comments of Judith Thompson?

Well, I listened to that and there's nothing she said I would disagree

with. Nothing at all? Nothing I can see. She's pointed out what is

necessary and we agreed on it. He pointed out the problems at the

beginning of the programme and one of them is the veto that the state

and managed to keep in terms of national so at it. James

Brokenshire, and we've met him in the last few weeks, he doesn't seem

to be giving any indication that they are prepared to move on that

basis. Are you? Our opinion was that there is already an existence in the

ombudsman and the criminal cases commission whereby they have a duty

to deal with Article two national security, but can make the decision

in the end honours tutors on what to give to the public or not. We argue

that that duty should be given to the new director. We tried to move a

bit and said OK, if there's a dispute, let us put up a panel of

judges who would say, OK, here's our decision, so this should -- should

they release this to the family is not? We give an alternative. Do you

believe James Brokenshire is a man who has the commitment that he says

he has two resolve this issue and once more public phase to this

process? He wants the matter resolved once and for all. If that

is dealt with, then a lot of the other pieces of the jigsaw

potentially fall into place. Well, that's correct it is dealt with.

Martin McGuinness says he'd like to see it resolved by the first

anniversary of fresh start, next month. Before that. We've gone

through a number of these talks, we've so we are up for negotiation,

let us get it sorted out. And yet, the British Government are not

showing. If he says he's determined to do that and there's a compromise,

then put it forward. Would you accept that analysis any of it? No,

no I don't. We need to take a step back. What do we mean by dealing

with the past, because politicians defining narrowly and truth and

justice and acknowledgement. The second question is whose benefit is

it for? For those most affected incident by incident, which is a

fine way to do it and what we've been trying to do for decades, or do

we want to deal with the past in a manner that allows society to move

on? They are not parallel tracks, they will clash and there will be

tension. We haven't resolved that issue. Were I to disagree with the

Commissioner is this idea of nothing is agreed until everything is

agreed. Because when I accept this overlap

between people having poorer mental health because they've not had

access to truth acknowledgement and possibly justice, I do think that we

could find the political world to say we are doing the pension for the

physically injured, people who can't contribute to a pension because

they've been unable to work through no fault of their own for perhaps 40

years, and we could tackle the most toxic legacy of the troubles which

is bad mental health and well-being. Even allowing for a fact that a

percentage will not find comfort without truth. Will you begin the

process? What is possible is agreement on the pension, what is

possible as mental health and well-being will be a big issue. In

terms of truth and justice, we argue the interest should of gone with the

body while it was being created and we shouldn't let them finish their

work. As the Commissioner says, it got halfway and stopped. We have a

hierarchy of investigations ranging from over a thousand people with

access to nothing up to people who have access to public enquirers,

very expensive bodies. That hierarchy of enquirers means by

definition there is a hierarchy of victims, no matter what Jerry says.

Do you believe the process is about to ramp up a gear of the back of

James Brokenshire's meeting with Martin McGuinness and the comments

about needing a public face? Do you get the sense we are inching towards

something? It is a devolved matter. At the moment, the executive is

trying to claim 90% of the commitments were met. It is not

about percentages, it is the big-ticket issues the executive

failed to deliver all. Dealing with the past, 5000 jobs... Those are

separate issues, there are not what we are discussing. The deal with the

past, the whole legacy and you've taken eight -- it completely from

what is meant to be about ten seconds let's forget about that,

here are the other issues we need to deal with. It is an inability of the

British Government, not the DUP. The British Government frankly the ones

who wants to have veto. It is separate, and that's the other issue

here. We have a Lord Chief Justice and says he can deal with the

backlog. Some of these victims have been waiting 40-45 years, which in

itself is a scandal. So they've said I can clear the backlog in the next

five years, I need 5 million a year to do it and the British Government

are refusing to give them the resources to do that. You are

refusing to agree that goes into the H I U. An important point you just

danced around are not mentioned is that a draw down the money that is

to be agreed between Sinn Fein and the DUP... That is part of the

architecture of the situation we find ourselves in. At the moment,

the DUP is not prepared to join Sinn Fein in making that request. That's

right isn't it? First of all, legacy is an issue to deal with the British

Government, they're responsible for it. They should supply the money.

There's a there... On the other hand, if the money was to be

supplied by the executive, Vic the DUP have refused to do that. So you

need to address this issue with your partners in Government to persuade

the DUP to join you in making our request to the governors of the Lord

Chief Justice can get on. No, that's not true. You've ignored the fact

that I said it is the legacy that the issue belonging to the British

Government. They have ownership of it and should sort it out. The money

coming from the British Government said... Why will be not deal with

inquests? -- why will they not deal with inquests? That could be done if

James Brokenshire said OK, let us do that. The Victims Commissioner has

suggested dealing with the inquest issue could help unlock some of the

wider sticking points. Do you agree with her on that point, because you

said you didn't agree with her on everything? Is it possible that if

the DUP and Sinn Fein was to go to the British Government and ask for

the money, the Lord Chief Justice gets the money, sets the troubles

related inquest in process, perhaps I may unlock broader architecture of

this legacy issue? We think that is an imperfect solution. It would not

necessarily work, because the issue Sinn Fein identified is we have a

body people can go to an legacy inquests, as well. They can shop

around. Be having a choice of how they deal with her own path, that is

what we're trying to discuss. Why would you not give victims and

survivors that ability? Within the basket of measures that all truth,

acknowledgement and justice, we object to what we have at the moment

is imbalance, incomplete and imperfect, and we're not supporting

a continuation of that. We want a full solution to truth. With the

greatest respect, does it matter? You another self appointed Leader of

the Opposition. The DUP and Sinn Fein are in the driving seat and

long with James Brokenshire they will sort it out or not. And my

point is it is my job to say forget the percentages when you look at the

big issues, they can't deliver on the big-ticket issues and this is

one of them. In 2040 when we first sat down to talk over this, Mike

Nesbitt left the talks because of a decision... The solicitor for some

of those families involved in troubles related inquests have now

apparently been asked to give the Government more time to try to deal

with this issue to put off their pending request for a judicial

review until the next Friday. Does that suggest to you as many people

are reading it that it means we could be inching toward some sort of

agreement? Because we now have a time frame. Next Friday. Both

parties have asked for an extra fortnight, but I hope we are moving

towards it. It still comes down the British Government and whether they

are prepared to deal with this issue. Thank you both.

And now with a look back at the political week gone

The Justice Minister says she wants more wide ranging legislation to

tackle domestic abuse. The legislation we see in other parts of

the UK is appropriate for here and something I committed to. The Health

Minister is also open to changing the law here, this time on abortion.

If there is a recommendation I am up for bringing forth a legislative

change. I would not rule out alliance having a future Westminster

seat. In tributes to the former grand secretary of the Orange

Order,. Should we commend the Secretary of State at least once

again for presenting us with a full range of cosmetics about a single

micro-substance? Allison, you are listening carefully

to what the commissioner had to say. Any sign of progress anywhere in all

of that did you think? The Victims Commissioner said it needs to be

delivered as a package, but there is scope to have the inquest issue deal

with immediately. These people are dying they've waited so long. The

Lord Chief Justice was to get on with it, but I thought it was

interesting jelly Kelly refused to condemn the DUP for not releasing

the money. They can release the money tomorrow. His focus was on the

British Government, and I know they are responsible for the

national-security issue, but not funding the inquests. The executive

could do that. Did you find that telling? We did ask the DUP to take

part today, we told nobody for the party was available. It is hard to

get both the DUP and Sinn Fein together on some of these issues.

That is evidence of grown-up Government in some way, they don't

want to be seen attacking each other in public. There is a genuine

difference in policy on both sides and potentially it seems like they

are running away from those issues. The DUP have been reluctant to

explain their position on this and I think fundamentally there's still an

overhang from how the maze issue unfolded. They are wary of coming up

with solutions to victims issue which leads to sort of lightning rod

for this content within the party forming. Allison, do you think they

can be a piecemeal approach to this, we could pick bits off, solve them

and leave the big issues resolved? Or does it have to be nothing is

agreed until everything gives? I think it is unfair with people

waiting for pensions while parties argue over details. Salmon?

Fundamentally, there will be a solution. The architecture for the

overwhelming majority of this was agreed, is just that once that

happens, we need to make sure the victims are happy.

Thanks both. has to be some degree of allowances

Back to Andrew in London. in return for renewing vehicles.

You. Why are the Lib Dems throwing

everything they've got at the by-election in

David Cameron's old constituency? And what will happen next in the US

presidential election? So this cross-party push to make the

government come forward with the outlines of this negotiating

strategy for Brexit, and put it to the Commons in particular, has that

got traction? It has in that it is attracting a wide range of support

in the House of Commons, which is now the crucial forum for these

debates. Theresa May has said there will not be a vote before she

triggers article 50. So we have two assume there will not be a vote.

With this whole debate, there is a myth going about that we don't know

much about what Brexit means. We know a heck of a lot about what it

means. We know that when she opens her mouth, the pound falls. The

pound is in a different position to the other Brexiteers. There is an

accountability issue in terms of what the House of Commons will have

a say in, and that could become a big story. Nicola Sturgeon has

supported a second referendum. We know a huge amount, all of it dire,

and I hope that MPs do get votes at some point. I suspect they will. For

example, we are going to get one on this so-called repeal act, which is

an act of consolidation. There will be others. We cannot leave the

European Union without votes, but I don't think we will get one on

Article 50. What they seem to be pushing for at the moment is a vote

on the government's bargaining position. They are not saying they

want all the details, although Labour has asked 70 questions. The

Commons needs to improve them, it is said. Is that fair? It is absurd.

You don't go into negotiating with Brussels talking about what was

published in all the national newspapers last week about what our

red lines are. I don't remember any other international trade deal being

done in the public eye. Theresa May hasn't said a red line on

immigration. She has uttered those words. There are lots of other

intricate details. Of course they are, but we broadly know her

position. And broadly we know the EU position. Broad knowledge is not the

same as specific. The point is that the British Parliament, all these

people who are so obsessed with the British Parliament having its say

and democracy, they didn't care for very many years when they happily

handed over powers. The Lisbon Treaty, which is like a new

constitution. It handed over far more powers again and again. And

there was an express vote not to have a referendum for the British

people. But we have now given our say. Putting aside whether you are

for or against, is it realistic that the government will come forward

with some kind of green paper all white paper that gives a broad

outline of the government's Brexit position? When you have the majority

of between ten and 20, there is one thing you have to do as Prime

Minister, and that is to learn to count. Theresa May hasn't done that.

There will be a vote in the House of Commons. Whether it's binding or

not, because MPs will make one. What will vote be on? They will demand

that the government spelt out its Brexit strategy. It will not be

binding, unless they tried to shoehorn something onto government

legislation, which I don't think they will do. They will be unsure.

The will of the House of Commons will express itself simply because

there is a majority in the House of Commons, a clear one, for soft

Brexit. There will be a vote, the government will lose it, and then it

is up to Theresa May whether to pay any attention to it. But she has got

herself into this problem because she has adopted the views of the 52

against the 48, dropping any sort of language about consensus and

bringing the country back together. If the Commons votes against the

government on this, it will be seen as a major setback for the

government and the Prime Minister. Yes, seismic. Of course she can

ignore it if you are talking about it in relation to triggering Article

50. In a way, it happened with Maastricht as well. The House of

Commons will move centrestage, and that context is that tiny majority.

She has a smaller majority than John Major had in the 90s, and it's going

to be far more turbulent than perhaps her calm, assured a facade

suggests. Theresa May is a serious, fully formed politician, with six

years in the Home Office, but she has never had experience of the

Treasury or the Foreign Office. This is massive, massive politics, and I

don't think she's ready for it. I don't blame her for that. If it

comes to a conflict between the result of the referendum and the

position Parliament has taken, there is a chance she will call another

election? Effectively, it will be a vote of no-confidence in her

government. She should call another election. I think the British people

be very clear. The remainers I know have all completely accept it that

we are going to have this. There is a mandate for leaves and the Prime

Minister should get on with it. I think the British people will not

take kindly to any MP who gets in the way. We have two by-elections

this week. One in Whitley and one in Batley and Spen, the seat held by Jo

Cox. The main parties are not competing in that because of the

appalling circumstances in which her terrible murder took place. The Lib

Dems are coming big in Witney. They came fourth in the general election,

rather forepaws, that they are bigging themselves up in this one.

That wise? They've got to do something to get themselves

attention. They need to get noticed. But what they have in their favour

is that the constituency Witney voted 53% remain and 47% leave in

the EU referendum. So they will be trying to get the remain a vote.

This is the first test of their remain a strategy. It is interesting

that Theresa May bothered to come out and campaign on Saturdays. There

she is. The Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister out

campaigning. They are not going to win, that they would have to come

second. David Cameron had a 60% vote there, for goodness sake. The Tory

candidate was a Leave campaign. The fact she is out campaigning isn't a

sign of lack of confidence. She must be confident they will win,

otherwise she wouldn't be seen near the place. OK, the American

election. Just when you thought it couldn't get crazier. We are

familiar with drug tests for athletes and cyclists, and all sorts

of things in sport. But Mr Trump has now called for a drug test before

the third and final debate coming up this Wednesday. Am I making it up?

No, I'm not. I think we should take a drug test

prior to the debate. We should take a drug test prior,

because I don't know what's going on with her,

but at the beginning of her last debate she was all pumped

up at the beginning, and at the end it was like,

uuh, take me down. So I think we should

take a drug test. He's also talking about the election

being rigged as well, which may be ground work for making his excuses.

But here's the issue. That was yesterday. With everything that went

before, overnight, the latest Washington post-ABC News poll. Mrs

Clinton is ahead by only four points. It's almost within the

margin of error. Down from about ten points after sexual assault gate.

The simple reason why Trump got the Republican nomination, beating 50 or

60 Republican moderates, why he's been doing pretty well in the polls

until the last two of weeks, people buy into the anti-establishment

thing. All you need to do is stand there and say, of course they would

say that, because they are all crooked. That is the single biggest

thing he's got going for him. The Washington Post - ABC News poll

suggests the whole business of the nude tapes actually haven't made

that much difference. -- huge tape. -- lewd tape. Once you position

yourself, you can almost say anything you like, and then respond

by saying, the elite would say that, wouldn't they? You cannot really

deal with that as an argument, because you would just say, oh,

that's you lot, you would say that. There is a point where it becomes

absurd, though, and I think this current thing on doping tests is

laugh out loud stuff. That surely can't help him. You cannot think,

what are the undecideds thinking about this? There was a lot of

information, not in the century, but some information is more e-mails

from Mrs Clinton are leaked. They are showing her to be very much a

globalisation person, very close to Wall Street, talking about why... As

Donald Trump said last week, it was good to have the shackles off. This

is him with the shackles off. The reality is, all the stuff about

Hillary not being very likeable and dishonest, that is already factored

into the polls. All the stuff about Donald Trump being lecherous and

racist is already factored in. What still blows my mind is that people

are still undecided! He's given Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. It

is going to be very interesting to see.

Jo Coburn has more Daily Politics tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.

I'll be back next Sunday at 11am here on BBC One.

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