:00:39. > :00:40.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:41. > :00:42.Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
:00:43. > :00:44.Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
:00:45. > :00:48.by forcing a second vote before we leave?
:00:49. > :00:51.Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
:00:52. > :00:55.pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
:00:56. > :00:58.Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
:00:59. > :01:04.It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
:01:05. > :01:10.And coming up here: how bad for our health,
:01:11. > :01:11.Jonathan Bell is suspended by the DUP,
:01:12. > :01:14.and Arlene Foster rebuffs Martin McGuinness's suggestion
:01:15. > :01:17.that she stand aside to allow an inquiry
:01:18. > :01:30.And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer
:01:31. > :01:33.and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,
:01:34. > :01:41.They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.
:01:42. > :01:47.First this morning, some say they will fight
:01:48. > :01:50.for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those
:01:51. > :01:53.who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British
:01:54. > :01:56.people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -
:01:57. > :02:00.The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have
:02:01. > :02:02.tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.
:02:03. > :02:05.The original resolution called on the European Parliament
:02:06. > :02:08.to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens
:02:09. > :02:23.of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".
:02:24. > :02:29.He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish
:02:30. > :02:31.must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%
:02:32. > :02:44.The amendments were proposed in October,
:02:45. > :02:47.but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels
:02:48. > :02:48.Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.
:02:49. > :02:51.The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.
:02:52. > :02:54.Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed
:02:55. > :03:03.Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try
:03:04. > :03:08.and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was
:03:09. > :03:12.simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months
:03:13. > :03:18.ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different
:03:19. > :03:24.newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort
:03:25. > :03:29.to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to
:03:30. > :03:34.rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You
:03:35. > :03:39.would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?
:03:40. > :03:45.I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory
:03:46. > :03:51.referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a
:03:52. > :03:54.questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,
:03:55. > :03:58.it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking
:03:59. > :04:02.the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a
:04:03. > :04:07.very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who
:04:08. > :04:11.said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save
:04:12. > :04:13.money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and
:04:14. > :04:31.our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But
:04:32. > :04:34.your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is
:04:35. > :04:36.to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would
:04:37. > :04:39.respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to
:04:40. > :04:42.be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain
:04:43. > :04:46.money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government
:04:47. > :04:51.said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need
:04:52. > :04:58.to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the
:04:59. > :05:01.single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options
:05:02. > :05:07.should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will
:05:08. > :05:11.be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more
:05:12. > :05:20.illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a
:05:21. > :05:25.report about future treaty amendments down the road for years
:05:26. > :05:33.to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side
:05:34. > :05:39.reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will
:05:40. > :05:47.you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the
:05:48. > :05:54.text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if
:05:55. > :05:57.the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you
:05:58. > :06:05.mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,
:06:06. > :06:09.was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of
:06:10. > :06:17.the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European
:06:18. > :06:21.Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of
:06:22. > :06:25.action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and
:06:26. > :06:29.disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to
:06:30. > :06:34.think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you
:06:35. > :06:40.might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be
:06:41. > :06:43.clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European
:06:44. > :06:51.Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am
:06:52. > :06:56.acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating
:06:57. > :06:59.things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out
:07:00. > :07:04.to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are
:07:05. > :07:10.going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the
:07:11. > :07:15.shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,
:07:16. > :07:19.in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is
:07:20. > :07:26.implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about
:07:27. > :07:33.whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because
:07:34. > :07:38.that has to take account of the future framework of relationships
:07:39. > :07:41.with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That
:07:42. > :07:45.means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be
:07:46. > :07:49.outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very
:07:50. > :07:54.damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the
:07:55. > :07:58.rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the
:07:59. > :08:02.customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give
:08:03. > :08:06.us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is
:08:07. > :08:10.not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the
:08:11. > :08:14.results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see
:08:15. > :08:17.that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the
:08:18. > :08:21.divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget
:08:22. > :08:26.for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single
:08:27. > :08:31.market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will
:08:32. > :08:34.know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be
:08:35. > :08:41.damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a
:08:42. > :08:44.minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider
:08:45. > :08:49.the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to
:08:50. > :08:54.leave it there but thank you for joining us.
:08:55. > :09:01.Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what
:09:02. > :09:06.happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview
:09:07. > :09:10.illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach
:09:11. > :09:16.taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one
:09:17. > :09:19.breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action
:09:20. > :09:22.subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are
:09:23. > :09:28.sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to
:09:29. > :09:32.happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists
:09:33. > :09:38.on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public
:09:39. > :09:45.opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together
:09:46. > :09:52.to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take
:09:53. > :09:56.moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every
:09:57. > :10:06.single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether
:10:07. > :10:10.it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not
:10:11. > :10:16.think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in
:10:17. > :10:19.the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to
:10:20. > :10:24.question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these
:10:25. > :10:28.things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he
:10:29. > :10:32.wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you
:10:33. > :10:37.can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But
:10:38. > :10:42.the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad
:10:43. > :10:49.deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is
:10:50. > :10:52.implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we
:10:53. > :10:57.are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a
:10:58. > :11:02.minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going
:11:03. > :11:06.to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,
:11:07. > :11:10.six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage
:11:11. > :11:15.Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,
:11:16. > :11:20.or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of
:11:21. > :11:27.2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa
:11:28. > :11:38.May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that
:11:39. > :11:46.Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I
:11:47. > :11:52.recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical
:11:53. > :11:58.drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't
:11:59. > :12:03.think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very
:12:04. > :12:07.long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we
:12:08. > :12:10.would stay in the customs union after Brexit.
:12:11. > :12:16.There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff
:12:17. > :12:23.setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at
:12:24. > :12:26.all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it
:12:27. > :12:31.is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the
:12:32. > :12:39.customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the
:12:40. > :12:42.cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a
:12:43. > :12:47.member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would
:12:48. > :12:51.make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs
:12:52. > :12:55.union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as
:12:56. > :12:59.binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would
:13:00. > :13:04.suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to
:13:05. > :13:08.do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that
:13:09. > :13:14.is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his
:13:15. > :13:23.opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in
:13:24. > :13:26.Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury
:13:27. > :13:29.PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is
:13:30. > :13:36.Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the
:13:37. > :13:43.customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the
:13:44. > :13:47.customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is
:13:48. > :13:52.proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do
:13:53. > :14:00.free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade
:14:01. > :14:04.deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment
:14:05. > :14:08.but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade
:14:09. > :14:12.deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line
:14:13. > :14:16.for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought
:14:17. > :14:21.Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to
:14:22. > :14:26.suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an
:14:27. > :14:34.argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he
:14:35. > :14:38.wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet
:14:39. > :14:44.about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country
:14:45. > :14:48.we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,
:14:49. > :14:51.but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look
:14:52. > :14:55.at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is
:14:56. > :15:02.happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I
:15:03. > :15:06.think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it
:15:07. > :15:14.becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we
:15:15. > :15:15.are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this
:15:16. > :15:19.country. So, we've had a warning this week
:15:20. > :15:22.that it could take ten years to do a trade deal
:15:23. > :15:25.with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand
:15:26. > :15:27.trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first
:15:28. > :15:29.countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal
:15:30. > :15:32.with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told
:15:33. > :15:34.us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film
:15:35. > :15:50.for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High
:15:51. > :15:53.Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined
:15:54. > :15:55.the European Union, Now I'm in the job,
:15:56. > :16:03.the UK is leaving. Australia supported
:16:04. > :16:05.Britain remaining a member of the European Union,
:16:06. > :16:08.but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,
:16:09. > :16:14.we hope that Britain will get on with the process
:16:15. > :16:18.of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make
:16:19. > :16:22.the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,
:16:23. > :16:28.Australia approached the British Government
:16:29. > :16:30.with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,
:16:31. > :16:33.to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian
:16:34. > :16:40.governments have already established a working group to explore a future,
:16:41. > :16:42.ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide
:16:43. > :16:55.great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase
:16:56. > :17:00.British-made cars for less We would give British
:17:01. > :17:06.households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,
:17:07. > :17:11.so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce
:17:12. > :17:15.when the equivalent British or Australian households would have
:17:16. > :17:22.access to British products Free-trade agreements
:17:23. > :17:35.are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source
:17:36. > :17:39.of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests
:17:40. > :17:45.over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement
:17:46. > :17:48.would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade
:17:49. > :17:53.agreements are not just about trade and investment,
:17:54. > :17:57.they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations
:17:58. > :18:01.often work more closely together in other fields including security,
:18:02. > :18:05.the spread of democracy We may have preferred
:18:06. > :18:18.the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK
:18:19. > :18:21.to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can
:18:22. > :18:24.be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade
:18:25. > :18:26.agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement
:18:27. > :18:28.with the United States This is one of the reasons why
:18:29. > :18:40.the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years
:18:41. > :18:43.and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's
:18:44. > :18:53.vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help
:18:54. > :19:23.in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The
:19:24. > :19:26.Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal
:19:27. > :19:33.with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is
:19:34. > :19:38.complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.
:19:39. > :19:43.The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual
:19:44. > :19:48.trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with
:19:49. > :19:54.the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary
:19:55. > :19:59.examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking
:20:00. > :20:02.already, we have set up a joint working group with the British
:20:03. > :20:05.Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what
:20:06. > :20:12.questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have
:20:13. > :20:18.formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no
:20:19. > :20:22.free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long
:20:23. > :20:28.and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian
:20:29. > :20:34.agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its
:20:35. > :20:38.access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,
:20:39. > :20:44.is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a
:20:45. > :20:48.scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union
:20:49. > :20:53.and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.
:20:54. > :20:58.But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but
:20:59. > :21:03.one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain
:21:04. > :21:08.leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has
:21:09. > :21:12.always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not
:21:13. > :21:18.happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European
:21:19. > :21:24.Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality
:21:25. > :21:27.which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international
:21:28. > :21:32.relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.
:21:33. > :21:35.It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose
:21:36. > :21:41.that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped
:21:42. > :21:44.out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a
:21:45. > :21:50.free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is
:21:51. > :21:55.about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless
:21:56. > :22:00.you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that
:22:01. > :22:05.case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and
:22:06. > :22:09.that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of
:22:10. > :22:15.negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up
:22:16. > :22:19.nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this
:22:20. > :22:24.free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other
:22:25. > :22:28.than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both
:22:29. > :22:32.free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not
:22:33. > :22:37.think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the
:22:38. > :22:42.UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to
:22:43. > :22:46.Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot
:22:47. > :22:53.of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years
:22:54. > :22:57.is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has
:22:58. > :23:02.made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal
:23:03. > :23:06.is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin
:23:07. > :23:12.and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we
:23:13. > :23:15.returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country
:23:16. > :23:23.rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we
:23:24. > :23:26.will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the
:23:27. > :23:30.transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have
:23:31. > :23:35.other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate
:23:36. > :23:41.would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to
:23:42. > :23:44.achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a
:23:45. > :23:51.free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is
:23:52. > :23:56.more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with
:23:57. > :24:00.China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and
:24:01. > :24:09.they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing
:24:10. > :24:12.with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think
:24:13. > :24:18.Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there
:24:19. > :24:23.is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and
:24:24. > :24:28.the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.
:24:29. > :24:32.So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct
:24:33. > :24:37.barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved
:24:38. > :24:44.in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade
:24:45. > :24:48.system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United
:24:49. > :24:53.Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European
:24:54. > :24:58.Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will
:24:59. > :25:03.try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly
:25:04. > :25:07.commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a
:25:08. > :25:11.free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the
:25:12. > :25:18.Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our
:25:19. > :25:21.present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate
:25:22. > :25:26.against any country. The European Union's free movement means you
:25:27. > :25:30.discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.
:25:31. > :25:33.It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building
:25:34. > :25:36.of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it
:25:37. > :25:38.more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.
:25:39. > :25:40.Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis
:25:41. > :25:43.of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?
:25:44. > :25:56.40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.
:25:57. > :26:03.Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.
:26:04. > :26:09.It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions
:26:10. > :26:11.about air pollution, that this is a public health
:26:12. > :26:15.emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,
:26:16. > :26:23.But how bad is air quality in Britain really?
:26:24. > :26:27.Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works
:26:28. > :26:29.at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.
:26:30. > :26:31.He has been looking into the recent claims
:26:32. > :26:37.It's a problem and it affects people's health.
:26:38. > :26:40.But when people start talking about the numbers
:26:41. > :26:42.of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.
:26:43. > :26:47.There have been tremendous improvements in air quality
:26:48. > :26:52.There is a lot less pollution than there used to be
:26:53. > :26:55.and none of that is coming through in the public
:26:56. > :26:59.So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels
:27:00. > :27:03.of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?
:27:04. > :27:05.It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution
:27:06. > :27:07.on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who
:27:08. > :27:12.It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening
:27:13. > :27:18.To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit
:27:19. > :27:23.I asked him about the data on which these claims
:27:24. > :27:28.They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities
:27:29. > :27:35.First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure
:27:36. > :27:41.29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000
:27:42. > :27:49.I will just talk about this group for a start.
:27:50. > :27:53.These are what are known as attributable deaths.
:27:54. > :27:57.Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.
:27:58. > :28:01.Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this
:28:02. > :28:05.was based on a study of US cities and they found out that
:28:06. > :28:09.by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had
:28:10. > :28:15.a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.
:28:16. > :28:20.They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying
:28:21. > :28:25.each year for each small increase in pollution.
:28:26. > :28:28.So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise
:28:29. > :28:32.it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises
:28:33. > :28:38.the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.
:28:39. > :28:41.So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000
:28:42. > :28:46.Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.
:28:47. > :28:51.And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths
:28:52. > :28:58.How much should we invest in cycling?
:28:59. > :29:01.Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?
:29:02. > :29:05.We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,
:29:06. > :29:09.but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?
:29:10. > :29:14.I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment
:29:15. > :29:16.and for air pollution that they don't really
:29:17. > :29:22.see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.
:29:23. > :29:24.Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing
:29:25. > :29:27.London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
:29:28. > :29:32.If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,
:29:33. > :29:35.that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.
:29:36. > :29:37.If you are poor and you are in social class five,
:29:38. > :29:39.compared to social class one, that would take seven
:29:40. > :29:44.If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.
:29:45. > :29:47.Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all
:29:48. > :29:50.of the cars in London and all of the road transport,
:29:51. > :29:54.we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air
:29:55. > :29:59.pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.
:30:00. > :30:01.There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,
:30:02. > :30:04.but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact
:30:05. > :30:08.on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making
:30:09. > :30:18.And we are joined now by the Executive Director
:30:19. > :30:36.You have called pollution and national crisis and a health
:30:37. > :30:40.emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are
:30:41. > :30:50.remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the
:30:51. > :30:56.studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the
:30:57. > :31:00.UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air
:31:01. > :31:05.pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if
:31:06. > :31:08.you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is
:31:09. > :31:13.impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of
:31:14. > :31:23.solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is
:31:24. > :31:29.down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which
:31:30. > :31:34.we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from
:31:35. > :31:39.the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is
:31:40. > :31:46.something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.
:31:47. > :31:53.If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of
:31:54. > :32:02.the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really
:32:03. > :32:07.worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe
:32:08. > :32:12.good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far
:32:13. > :32:21.from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is
:32:22. > :32:26.it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the
:32:27. > :32:30.last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health
:32:31. > :32:35.Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they
:32:36. > :32:38.need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if
:32:39. > :32:42.you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if
:32:43. > :32:48.you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities
:32:49. > :32:51.and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very
:32:52. > :32:55.high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors
:32:56. > :33:01.and many studies by London University showing this to be true.
:33:02. > :33:05.The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of
:33:06. > :33:10.pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is
:33:11. > :33:14.causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.
:33:15. > :33:19.The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and
:33:20. > :33:24.there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we
:33:25. > :33:28.have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution
:33:29. > :33:35.causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is
:33:36. > :33:45.40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.
:33:46. > :33:50.Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are
:33:51. > :33:55.talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air
:33:56. > :33:59.pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to
:34:00. > :34:03.phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner
:34:04. > :34:06.tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and
:34:07. > :34:10.clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had
:34:11. > :34:18.the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to
:34:19. > :34:24.me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most
:34:25. > :34:30.polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking
:34:31. > :34:35.at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure
:34:36. > :34:41.which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical
:34:42. > :34:50.effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is
:34:51. > :34:54.everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of
:34:55. > :34:58.people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,
:34:59. > :35:02.but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air
:35:03. > :35:08.pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more
:35:09. > :35:17.individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be
:35:18. > :35:21.premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be
:35:22. > :35:23.by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing
:35:24. > :35:32.difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke
:35:33. > :35:40.and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do
:35:41. > :35:48.you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined
:35:49. > :35:58.that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.
:35:59. > :36:03.But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000
:36:04. > :36:08.deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by
:36:09. > :36:12.that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do
:36:13. > :36:16.something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly
:36:17. > :36:21.caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem
:36:22. > :36:26.of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I
:36:27. > :36:33.am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another
:36:34. > :36:39.claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe
:36:40. > :36:44.clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have
:36:45. > :36:49.also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50
:36:50. > :36:56.cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you
:36:57. > :36:58.look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the
:36:59. > :37:02.actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent
:37:03. > :37:08.effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in
:37:09. > :37:14.terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am
:37:15. > :37:18.throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed
:37:19. > :37:22.that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and
:37:23. > :37:26.that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us
:37:27. > :37:30.that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does
:37:31. > :37:35.take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine
:37:36. > :37:39.months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten
:37:40. > :37:42.years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a
:37:43. > :37:48.piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken
:37:49. > :37:51.it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the
:37:52. > :37:56.professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the
:37:57. > :38:00.thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the
:38:01. > :38:06.impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young
:38:07. > :38:11.children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,
:38:12. > :38:15.this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the
:38:16. > :38:20.underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not
:38:21. > :38:25.arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate
:38:26. > :38:30.things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree
:38:31. > :38:35.with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I
:38:36. > :38:39.absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been
:38:40. > :38:44.made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think
:38:45. > :38:48.the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,
:38:49. > :38:54.diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can
:38:55. > :38:58.get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see
:38:59. > :39:00.us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.
:39:01. > :39:03.It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:39:04. > :39:13.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:39:14. > :39:16.Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.
:39:17. > :39:19.So, Jonathan Bell has been suspended by the DUP and relations
:39:20. > :39:22.between the Executive parties are tense after Martin McGuinness
:39:23. > :39:26.called on Arlene Foster to step aside as First Minister.
:39:27. > :39:28.I'll be asking the MP Jeffrey Donaldson
:39:29. > :39:34.And I'll be asking Sinn Fein how it plans to tackle the issue.
:39:35. > :39:36.And with me throughout with their thoughts
:39:37. > :39:46.Tomorrow the First Minister will make a statement
:39:47. > :39:48.to the Assembly on the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme.
:39:49. > :39:51.It comes after a nightmare week for the DUP after the former
:39:52. > :39:56.Minister, Jonathan Bell, made allegations against party
:39:57. > :39:58.colleagues which was countered by Arlene Foster making her own
:39:59. > :40:03.And on Friday, the Deputy First Minister called on Mrs Foster
:40:04. > :40:06.to stand aside to allow an investigation into
:40:07. > :40:10.the heating scheme to take place - a suggestion she promptly rejected.
:40:11. > :40:15.With me now is the DUP's Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.
:40:16. > :40:19.Sir Jeffrey, to be clear, before we go any further,
:40:20. > :40:23.Mr Bell has now been suspended by the party, is that right?
:40:24. > :40:29.Yes, I understand that the party officers met over the weekend and
:40:30. > :40:34.they have taken the decision, which is in accordance with the rules,
:40:35. > :40:37.that Jonathan Bede is suspended, there will be a full investigation
:40:38. > :40:41.and Jonathan will be afforded the opportunity to put his side on all
:40:42. > :40:46.of this before any final decision is made. At this point Mr Bell did not
:40:47. > :40:52.have an opportunity to participate in that process, is that correct?
:40:53. > :40:55.This is the first stage of the investigation, under our
:40:56. > :41:00.disciplinary rules, and in matters and cases like this suspension is
:41:01. > :41:04.the normal first step. He has been suspended without prejudice?
:41:05. > :41:10.Absolutely, yes. He has been suspended without prejudice
:41:11. > :41:15.following an investigation, but Mrs Foster hasn't been required to step
:41:16. > :41:21.aside, why the unequal treatment? They are two very different issues.
:41:22. > :41:27.They are. There is no evidence that Arlene Foster has broken any rules,
:41:28. > :41:31.there is no evidence against Arlene Foster... There are allegations from
:41:32. > :41:40.Jonathan Bell. Yes, but no prima facie case has been presented.
:41:41. > :41:44.Jonathan has clearly broken the rules and they are very clear if you
:41:45. > :41:48.look at the DUP rules, Jonathan did not seek permission for the
:41:49. > :41:53.interview that he did, he did not tell the party in advance what he
:41:54. > :41:58.was doing, and, you know, that is not the way that most political
:41:59. > :42:01.parties operate. Jonathan knew that he actually said in his interview,
:42:02. > :42:07.he knew that what he was doing was putting himself outside of the party
:42:08. > :42:14.discipline. He said it himself. So serious his allegations where that
:42:15. > :42:18.that was what he had to do. He said it was a difficult day for him, he
:42:19. > :42:21.sat down in a TV studio to say what he had estate and he knew what the
:42:22. > :42:27.risks well but was prepared to do it because he believes it is the truth.
:42:28. > :42:34.And for that he is thrown out of the temporary billy macro party,
:42:35. > :42:37.temporarily. It is temporary. He will be given the opportunity to put
:42:38. > :42:41.his side forward in the party procedures. Surely the problem for
:42:42. > :42:44.the DUP is it looks like party officers have prejudged the case in
:42:45. > :42:48.the favour of the party leader against Jonathan Bell. That's what
:42:49. > :42:54.it looks like. I don't except that at all. This is not about policy
:42:55. > :42:58.issues, this is not about the RHI scheme, this is about party
:42:59. > :43:02.discipline. This was an act of disloyalty, was it? It was a breach
:43:03. > :43:05.of party rules, a potential breach. I'm not going to prejudge the
:43:06. > :43:09.outcome, the party officers that officers will meet again and
:43:10. > :43:15.consider all of these things in the round. Was he not disloyal? He broke
:43:16. > :43:19.the rules, and even he said that publicly. In his interview he
:43:20. > :43:23.recognised that in doing the interview he was stepping outside of
:43:24. > :43:28.the party to do so. That was his choice. Who break the rules in
:43:29. > :43:31.criticising Arlene Foster? Rewrote the rules giving the interview in
:43:32. > :43:35.the first place without going through the party processes, without
:43:36. > :43:40.going through the press office. You haven't done that, the DUP has never
:43:41. > :43:46.done that before? Well if they had they would be held to account. With
:43:47. > :43:52.a? Yes. It is a bit that are a bit rich from you, though, because 13
:43:53. > :43:57.years ago on this very day you had Arlene Foster did something arguably
:43:58. > :44:00.far worse walking out of the Ulster Unionist Party and subsequently
:44:01. > :44:04.joining the DUP. That was disloyal, that was treacherous outside the
:44:05. > :44:08.party rules. Yet you did it, you justified it in exactly the same way
:44:09. > :44:13.that Jonathan Bell has justified himself. Bsorry, but we left the
:44:14. > :44:16.body, we recognised because the party was bringing disciplinary
:44:17. > :44:21.procedures against us and we recognised that the fault lines in
:44:22. > :44:31.the Ulster Unionist Party were so deep, and the best interest of
:44:32. > :44:36.everyone involved we resigned. Before you did that come me openly
:44:37. > :44:41.criticised David Trimble before finally leaving the party. And we
:44:42. > :44:45.were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and we did what we
:44:46. > :44:50.believed was the honourable thing. So did Jonathan. How can wait was
:44:51. > :44:56.right for you and wrong for him? There are two different approaches.
:44:57. > :45:00.They look very similar from here. I resigned from the party and they did
:45:01. > :45:03.so on the basis that I felt that the gulf in the party was an
:45:04. > :45:08.unbridgeable, and there was no point in going forward on that basis. Why
:45:09. > :45:12.should Arlene Foster not stand aside now without prejudice pending an
:45:13. > :45:16.investigation in to her rule, as other party leaders have said and as
:45:17. > :45:22.indeed her partner in government Martin McGuinness has said. There
:45:23. > :45:27.was no doubt that opposition parties are out to get Arlene Foster. That
:45:28. > :45:32.is their job. If you let me complete one sentence in this interview, I
:45:33. > :45:35.will get to that. From day one, they have called for Arlene to resign,
:45:36. > :45:40.from day one Mike Nesbitt said Arlene had been given information by
:45:41. > :45:44.a whistle-blower and should have acted upon it and therefore she
:45:45. > :45:50.should resign. Now, it so happens that that very person who was the
:45:51. > :45:54.whistle-blower said in her own words, I wasn't a whistle-blower.
:45:55. > :45:57.Her words, not mine. And the information she gave to Arlene
:45:58. > :46:05.Foster was not about whistle-blowing, her words. Do you
:46:06. > :46:08.want to talk about that? You couldn't -- she couldn't remember
:46:09. > :46:13.the information or correspondence she used. In a macro Mark, this was
:46:14. > :46:18.three years later. Does every minister remember the content of
:46:19. > :46:22.every e-mail? Ministers it thousands of e-mails. She relented a lots of
:46:23. > :46:27.the conversation but forgot the correspondence with the
:46:28. > :46:31.whistle-blower. How? She didn't forget what she did, she referred
:46:32. > :46:35.the matter to officials, that is what she said she did, and that is
:46:36. > :46:41.exact... The point I am making in this, Mark, is that from day one the
:46:42. > :46:44.opposition parties have called for Arlene to resign. That is what they
:46:45. > :46:53.have been doing. Big surprise, that's what they are expected to do.
:46:54. > :46:56.My point is this is that anyone is surprised that the DUP was monster
:46:57. > :47:00.that is that we haven't seen the evidence that says Arlene has done
:47:01. > :47:03.wrong, and therefore we do not believe that she should retire. So,
:47:04. > :47:10.have an independent enquiry. Why would you not? If Arlene Foster and
:47:11. > :47:13.other senior figures in the DUP have nothing to fear, then make a clean
:47:14. > :47:20.breast of it, put all of the relevant correspondence in the
:47:21. > :47:27.public domain, and allow truth to come out. All of the information
:47:28. > :47:31.will be in the public domain, the DUP has nothing to hide on this,
:47:32. > :47:36.neither has Arlene, she has said so. The Public Accounts Committee is
:47:37. > :47:42.already conducting an enquiry. Who are the members of the DUP on the
:47:43. > :47:47.PAC? Jelinek we are entitled to those members. This committee was
:47:48. > :47:53.crowned -- created for this purpose. What I don't understand is why do
:47:54. > :47:57.the opposition parties lack confidence in their own MLAs to do
:47:58. > :48:01.the job they were elected to do to hold the Executive to account? What
:48:02. > :48:05.is the point of an opposition party if they are unprepared to criticise
:48:06. > :48:10.the institution for this purpose, and allow MLAs to seek the truth?
:48:11. > :48:15.Their point is but that is is a bigger issue than any so far, and
:48:16. > :48:25.goes beyond politicians investigation themselves. With four
:48:26. > :48:30.DUP members on the PAC, that might not help the committee gets to the
:48:31. > :48:36.absolute stew. Why? Because for members of the DUP may not see it in
:48:37. > :48:43.their best interests to get into the absolute truth. They may not be
:48:44. > :48:48.investigating in the same vein as a independent enquiry. The committee
:48:49. > :48:57.can operate fairly with the DUP members there. It isn't to speak for
:48:58. > :49:00.opposition leaders. Yellow mac I speak for the DUP and answer your
:49:01. > :49:06.question clearly. Why should the DUP not have a say? Why should not be
:49:07. > :49:11.parties of Stormont that has been elected, why should we be
:49:12. > :49:15.disenfranchised in how this matter is dealt with? Why would that be
:49:16. > :49:19.disenfranchised in? You would be taking away the responsibility from
:49:20. > :49:25.people elected to do this job on the Public Accounts Committee. People
:49:26. > :49:28.talk about curbing the cost. And yet don't hesitate for one moment to
:49:29. > :49:33.take this outside of the elected body and put it into a public
:49:34. > :49:39.enquiry which is going to add to the cost. It would add to the 400
:49:40. > :49:44.million that has been wasted by the failure of politicians at the end of
:49:45. > :49:49.the day. The cost issue some people will seriously wonder about when you
:49:50. > :49:52.read that. Let me ask about Martin McGuinness. He reportedly asked
:49:53. > :50:00.Arlene Foster to take the Christmas break to reconsider standing aside.
:50:01. > :50:04.He said she should she said she didn't take instructions from Sinn
:50:05. > :50:07.Fein. He suggested that she might have a ginger part with the benefit
:50:08. > :50:12.of mature reflection over Christmas. Is that not the sensible thing to
:50:13. > :50:15.do? Any dummy the last time a Sinn Fein members that aside when there
:50:16. > :50:20.were serious allegations made against Sinn Fein? Haven't stopped
:50:21. > :50:26.the DUP calling for it to happen. Yes, it is politics, and as Arlene
:50:27. > :50:30.Foster said she has a job to do. Let me be clear. Arlene has a job to do,
:50:31. > :50:34.she is not a quitter and went run away from responsibilities as some
:50:35. > :50:37.would want her to do. She is up for the challenge, has nothing to hide,
:50:38. > :50:44.has made it absolutely clear that she will give full disclosure of
:50:45. > :50:47.every single document paper or record relevant, and crucially,
:50:48. > :50:51.Mark, and this is the important thing, when Stephen Nolan ended his
:50:52. > :50:56.interviews on Wednesday evening, he said what the public really wants to
:50:57. > :50:59.do is what is going to happen to stop this expenditure? Arlene will
:51:00. > :51:03.come to the assembly tomorrow will make herself accountable to the
:51:04. > :51:08.assembly, and will outline her position, and she wants to continue
:51:09. > :51:13.the job of not only addressing what has happened but also ensuring that
:51:14. > :51:17.this expenditure is curbed. The 400 million has not been wasted, Mark,
:51:18. > :51:20.and potentially over a 20 year period it could be polar but we
:51:21. > :51:24.still have the opportunity to do something to stop that and Arlene
:51:25. > :51:28.Foster says she has a responsibility to take that on. Do you think that
:51:29. > :51:32.the public have trust in Arlene Foster being the person to do that
:51:33. > :51:36.given they may have serious reservations about the role she
:51:37. > :51:40.played in this process up to now? They may believe, if they listen to
:51:41. > :51:43.Jonathan Bell, that she was not sure-footed in the decision-making
:51:44. > :51:48.process. Why would they now suddenly believe she is sure-footed enough to
:51:49. > :51:50.take it out of the hole that it is in? Because when this game went
:51:51. > :52:02.wrong Jonathan Bell was the minister. Who set it up, Arlene
:52:03. > :52:05.Foster. During the time that Arlene was the enterprise minister, there
:52:06. > :52:09.was an underspend on the scheme and that no stage did anyone, say there
:52:10. > :52:13.is a problem. There were no submissions made for her. There were
:52:14. > :52:21.-- when she said the scheme up she took advice from officials. There
:52:22. > :52:26.was an underspend, yes. She made the decision to move away from the GB
:52:27. > :52:31.scheme into a non-tiered generalised tariff incentive and did not after
:52:32. > :52:36.doing that keep a close eye on what happens next. That is the point. She
:52:37. > :52:39.made a big decision to do things differently and didn't follow it up.
:52:40. > :52:42.In any department that employs thousands of civil servants, the
:52:43. > :52:49.Minister cannot be dealing with everything. She can't be dealing
:52:50. > :52:56.with everything. But she wasn't dealing with everything. -- she
:52:57. > :53:01.wasn't dealing with anything. During her time, she had thousands of jobs
:53:02. > :53:07.brought to Northern Ireland. I don't accept that she wasn't doing
:53:08. > :53:10.anything. She said that she was, she handed it to officials and they
:53:11. > :53:15.dropped the ball. She was in keeping an eye out on it. Is she now
:53:16. > :53:19.qualified to keep an eye on it? I am sure members of the public take a
:53:20. > :53:25.different view but I am saying to you that I have met many members of
:53:26. > :53:28.the public who want Arlene to continue in her role. That is very
:53:29. > :53:31.clear. Thank you very much for joining us today.
:53:32. > :53:35.Let's hear from Alex Kane and Allison Morris.
:53:36. > :53:41.That is an issue for members of the public and Jeffrey Donaldson is
:53:42. > :53:45.quite right, there are those who believe that Arlene is the person to
:53:46. > :53:49.fix it but clearly there are people who will believe that it is not the
:53:50. > :53:54.person to be in charge to dig us out of the hole. That is understandable.
:53:55. > :53:58.Two weeks ago, this story started about two ministers and a department
:53:59. > :54:02.and inefficiencies and ineptitude and incompetence then suddenly
:54:03. > :54:06.exploded into this personal political psychological power
:54:07. > :54:12.struggle, almost pantomime. Nobody knows what do believe, and the other
:54:13. > :54:17.thing about it is it is has become a water cooler story, people in bars
:54:18. > :54:22.and restaurants and petrol stations were asking what is going on? This
:54:23. > :54:26.they are genuinely interested and the DUP have throughout this have no
:54:27. > :54:30.idea of the scale of the interest in this story and the scale of the
:54:31. > :54:34.discontent from the public not just for them but for the whole system.
:54:35. > :54:36.How big a deal is it, Alison, do you believe that the Deputy First
:54:37. > :54:40.Minister has called upon the First Minister to stand aside even
:54:41. > :54:45.temporarily? It is very significant because at the beginning of the week
:54:46. > :54:48.Sinn Fein went been drawn on whether or not they still had confidence in
:54:49. > :54:53.Arlene full stop we ended with the week with calls her to stand aside.
:54:54. > :54:58.She will feel that pressure whether or not she says she feels it was the
:54:59. > :55:03.she has to be feeling the pressure, now, despite standing her ground.
:55:04. > :55:06.The public are furious, absolutely furious. The DUP didn't grasp at the
:55:07. > :55:14.beginning the scale of that anger and what has happened and they need
:55:15. > :55:18.to attempt to claw back some of this money because there is no confidence
:55:19. > :55:21.in the institution. Elected representatives and the PAC is the
:55:22. > :55:30.place to sort this out. It is their job to keep an on public covers and
:55:31. > :55:33.this is what they are doing. But this has gone beyond the assembly
:55:34. > :55:40.and politicians and is now an issue of public confidence and this is not
:55:41. > :55:42.clear that the public trust the public institutions but want
:55:43. > :55:46.something bigger than that Stewart was in their interest S. Even the
:55:47. > :55:48.opposition parties are un-trusted. This story was generated by the
:55:49. > :55:49.media not by the opposition. I'll be talking to Sinn
:55:50. > :55:53.Fein in just a moment, but the opposition parties have
:55:54. > :55:56.called for a public inquiry into the whole renewable heating
:55:57. > :56:00.affair, while the SDLP and Alliance are also demanding that
:56:01. > :56:02.Arlene Foster stand aside. First, though,
:56:03. > :56:14.here's the Ulster Unionist Arlene Foster needs to understand
:56:15. > :56:18.that openness and transparency is of the essence and every scrap of paper
:56:19. > :56:22.should now be put into the public domain, including the bit of paper
:56:23. > :56:27.Jonathan Bell referred to last night from I think September 20 15th where
:56:28. > :56:31.she said he was allowed to read but not copy. I think we are in a
:56:32. > :56:35.situation where the only way that the public can have confidence in
:56:36. > :56:40.our institutions do have the full truth told and the only way for that
:56:41. > :56:46.to be told is for all papers, all e-mails, all of that do remain open
:56:47. > :56:50.and transparent and available to a public enquiry, so we can find out
:56:51. > :56:54.what is at the bottom of this. We won't be able to do that with Arlene
:56:55. > :56:57.Foster still residing in the First Minister 's office. We need to get
:56:58. > :57:02.this resolved and quickly and I think in order to make that happen
:57:03. > :57:07.we need independent in that enquiry, away from any allegations of party
:57:08. > :57:13.bullying or party priorities, independently, and also need the
:57:14. > :57:17.First Minister to step aside without prejudice in order to allow the
:57:18. > :57:19.investigation to take place. The alliance leader Naomi Long.
:57:20. > :57:21.Well, Sinn Fein members met in Derry yesterday to decide their plan
:57:22. > :57:23.for tomorrow's sitting of the Assembly.
:57:24. > :57:25.MLAs and party officials gathered in the Bogside area
:57:26. > :57:29.He pointed out that the party still has significant differences
:57:30. > :57:31.with the DUP on issues such as the Irish language and legacy,
:57:32. > :57:33.and he repeated Martin McGuinness's call
:57:34. > :57:34.for Arlene Foster to stand aside.
:57:35. > :57:40.With me now is the Sinn Fein MLA Conor Murphy.
:57:41. > :57:44.Mr Murphy, thank you very much indeed for joining us today.
:57:45. > :57:48.So, will you support the no confidence motion tomorrow?
:57:49. > :57:58.Sinn Fein will decide the my desperate tomorrow. We have not
:57:59. > :58:05.decided just yet. What about in Derry? We were discussing that. We
:58:06. > :58:11.will meet on the Monday morning and decide what to do. In relation to
:58:12. > :58:15.the motion it doesn't address the issues of Jonathan Bell, nor the
:58:16. > :58:18.issues of the special advisers in their relation in all of this nor
:58:19. > :58:26.the issues of getting the funds back as best we can. It only deals with
:58:27. > :58:33.the issue of Arlene Foster. That motion of no-confidence in Arlene
:58:34. > :58:36.Foster. It's a motion... The Deputy First Minister clearly has no
:58:37. > :58:40.confidence. It is a motion to exclude Arlene Foster for six
:58:41. > :58:45.months, out of any position in the assembly. It doesn't address the
:58:46. > :58:50.issues at the thought this would be public need to see address which is
:58:51. > :58:53.an investigation, full transparent investigation into this matter and
:58:54. > :59:02.the role of the two ministers involved, Arlene Foster and Jonathan
:59:03. > :59:06.Bell, to any role of Jonathan allegations about the special
:59:07. > :59:12.advisers. Why did Sinn Fein not table a motion? If you are led by
:59:13. > :59:15.the leader in the north calling upon Arlene Foster to step aside until
:59:16. > :59:20.there is a full investigation why didn't Sinn Fein table the motion of
:59:21. > :59:27.no-confidence? Firstly, the call has been reasonable. I hope she will
:59:28. > :59:30.reconsider her answer. Others have stepped aside when there were
:59:31. > :59:34.investigations into their it's liberties. Why not follow it up
:59:35. > :59:37.tomorrow? The request has been made to the DUP to consider this issue.
:59:38. > :59:44.We will also request for a full public inquest. We are in the
:59:45. > :59:47.Executive, and recognise very clearly there is a Ute dent in
:59:48. > :59:55.public confidence and the functioning of the Executive. All
:59:56. > :59:59.this asks you to do is to agree that the assembly no longer has the
:00:00. > :00:02.confidence in the First Minister. If you have called for an independent
:00:03. > :00:05.investigation, and if you have called first had to step down how
:00:06. > :00:09.could you possibly argue that she has your confidence? You have two,
:00:10. > :00:12.the logic is that you had to support this motion tomorrow. I'm not
:00:13. > :00:16.arguing that she has are confident at all. The motion is to exclude her
:00:17. > :00:23.full six months, and that is all it addresses. That might be wonderful
:00:24. > :00:26.or knee jerk and the public theatre will run around, but we have a
:00:27. > :00:29.responsibility in the Executive to get to the heart of these
:00:30. > :00:35.these very serious allegations about the operation of government by
:00:36. > :00:41.Jonathan Bell, and puts together a plan which the finance minister will
:00:42. > :00:49.now eventually have an option from the Minister,... You might ask her
:00:50. > :00:55.to step aside but like her in the chamber tomorrow? That is presumably
:00:56. > :01:02.a possibility if you haven't made your mind up. I'm not indicating
:01:03. > :01:07.anything in this programme. Do you accept it would look odd to members
:01:08. > :01:10.of the public for Sinn Fein to call for the First Minister to step
:01:11. > :01:14.aside, to say there needs to be a full independent investigation but
:01:15. > :01:21.not to back the opposition parties in expressing their lack of
:01:22. > :01:26.confidence in the chamber tomorrow. And that would look odd. I don't
:01:27. > :01:34.agree. Because Martin McGuinness has asked her to step aside until at
:01:35. > :01:38.least... Amend the motion! It is now difficult to amend that
:01:39. > :01:43.administration because it is rooted in the 1988 act. He has asked her to
:01:44. > :01:48.step aside which is a reasonable request... Why is it reasonable,
:01:49. > :01:59.when no Sinn Fein minister has ever stepped aside why was it OK for you
:02:00. > :02:09.to remain in post but for the DUP not to? There hasn't been
:02:10. > :02:12.allegations against survey in other like that Jeffrey Donaldson has been
:02:13. > :02:21.talking about. Earlier this year when there was a an issue to deal
:02:22. > :02:27.with one of our members come out we dealt with quickly. He got it wrong?
:02:28. > :02:33.He did. What Martin McGuinness has asked Arlene Foster to do is to step
:02:34. > :02:40.aside as long as I'm enquiry can put together a Bruno Nehru report. Had
:02:41. > :02:46.come Jeffrey Donaldson suggests the place is to resolve these issues,
:02:47. > :02:51.despite the validity of all of the above, the place to do that is he
:02:52. > :02:56.says in the PAC. Is that not the case? They have work to do, I think,
:02:57. > :02:59.and they need to continue. Particularly in the advent of the
:03:00. > :03:02.programme where you have a First Minister and a former senior
:03:03. > :03:08.colleague making allegations against each other, making allegations
:03:09. > :03:11.relating to senior DUP members of government, special advisers in
:03:12. > :03:14.government, that takes it beyond what the Public Accounts Committee
:03:15. > :03:17.seeking gets to them and there is a need for an independent enquiry to
:03:18. > :03:20.get to the heart of these matters with these serious allegations and I
:03:21. > :03:28.don't believe that the DUP our anger immune. They cannot fail to
:03:29. > :03:36.recognise that there is anger in this matter from everyone to all
:03:37. > :03:41.parties. For that reason the DUP needs to do the right thing, have
:03:42. > :03:44.the ministers that aside, agree to the Independent enquiry and get to
:03:45. > :03:53.the core of these matters and decide... Is there is indifference
:03:54. > :04:01.in the working of government. Corrupt purposes. That is a very
:04:02. > :04:05.serious allegation. You make an eloquent case for Sinn Fein backing
:04:06. > :04:07.the opposition motion of no-confidence in the chamber
:04:08. > :04:12.tomorrow but aren't prepared to say that what is what you're going to
:04:13. > :04:15.do. Let me ask the question. I don't want to go back because you've not
:04:16. > :04:20.answer the question before so I won't travel about it any more.
:04:21. > :04:24.People will wonder if this is in fact about Sinn Fein positioning
:04:25. > :04:29.itself to have a better negotiating hand with the DUP on issues like
:04:30. > :04:33.legacy, Brexit and Irish language. Don't this the DUP at the moment
:04:34. > :04:40.because you might get a better deal is a few months down the The issue
:04:41. > :04:45.we just talked about in the enquiry is no part of the motion, no logic
:04:46. > :04:51.is to say that we won't vote for that, or anything else. It is only
:04:52. > :04:59.emotion about excluding. We want institutions work. There were cries
:05:00. > :05:02.of confidence in the Executive and centres round the DUP who are
:05:03. > :05:07.partners in the Executive. That needs to be sorted out and we want
:05:08. > :05:10.to see it sorted in a public and transparent way and satisfying
:05:11. > :05:16.public opinion and allow the Executive to get on. I will think
:05:17. > :05:21.people will find this impossible to understand. Martin McGuinness says
:05:22. > :05:23.she should stand aside, the motion tomorrow says she should be excluded
:05:24. > :05:33.for six months, but you don't back it which decides exactly what Martin
:05:34. > :05:36.McGuinness said should happen. We have argued or rather Martin
:05:37. > :05:42.McGuinness has argued and asked to consider to step aside... She said
:05:43. > :05:46.no. The fact that Martin McGuinness has now boxed into a corner says she
:05:47. > :05:49.had to come out fighting saying she doesn't take instruction from Sinn
:05:50. > :05:55.Fein. The one thing that won't happen after being asked to step
:05:56. > :05:58.aside is that you want step aside. The DUP are not immune from the
:05:59. > :06:07.sense of anger related to the scheme. Party colleagues tearing
:06:08. > :06:12.strips of each other, fighting over special advisers... If the DUP are
:06:13. > :06:14.immune to all of that then they are walking themselves into serious
:06:15. > :06:18.difficulties and we call upon them to do the right thing here. When the
:06:19. > :06:21.Deputy First Minister says she should think about it over Christmas
:06:22. > :06:26.and reconsider her position in the New Year, is that some kind of
:06:27. > :06:30.ultimatum, for her? No, it's not in public advice to her. He said that
:06:31. > :06:34.if he was in her position that is what he would do, it's his advised
:06:35. > :06:37.to make a reasonable quest and has precedent, and it is a
:06:38. > :06:42.recommendation given that this has gone bananas -- beyond ineptitude
:06:43. > :06:49.about setting up a very unappeasable scheme. It is confidence in the
:06:50. > :06:53.leadership of institution. If she doesn't take his advice, just to be
:06:54. > :06:56.clear, and stays in post, how damaged is the relationship between
:06:57. > :07:00.Martin McGuinness and Arlene Foster? How damaged if the relationship
:07:01. > :07:04.running this country between Sinn Fein and the DUP? The relationship
:07:05. > :07:08.is damaged because of the nature of the DUP anyway and we need to do
:07:09. > :07:12.recommend you take that to two experts. That is what they are being
:07:13. > :07:14.asked to do. We look forward to seeing what it position is tomorrow.
:07:15. > :07:18.By the way, if you want to watch Arlene Foster's statement
:07:19. > :07:20.to the Assembly and the no confidence debate that follows,
:07:21. > :07:23.you can see it live on the BBC Parliament channel
:07:24. > :07:36.What do you make of the position that Sinn Fein is adopting, albeit
:07:37. > :07:39.the day before the crunch vote in the chamber tomorrow? It will be
:07:40. > :07:45.interesting to see what happens tomorrow. Conor isn't being drawn on
:07:46. > :07:47.what Sinn Fein are plans to do. I really have to protect the
:07:48. > :07:51.coalition, and the institutions and we know that and they can't go hard
:07:52. > :07:53.on the coalition partners but at the same time Sinn Fein just like
:07:54. > :07:57.everyone else are busy feeling pressure from the public and the
:07:58. > :08:01.anger, and they have two be seen to be acting in some way and I think an
:08:02. > :08:05.independent enquiry at these state deeds lease the public should accept
:08:06. > :08:12.them regardless. The PAC aren't fit for purpose and Conor Murphy is
:08:13. > :08:16.right, the PAC won't the other get to the bottom of this scandal and
:08:17. > :08:20.that the release needs to be do. It is unlikely, I would have thought,
:08:21. > :08:24.that Sinn Fein will vote against the motion tomorrow. The question is
:08:25. > :08:28.whether Sinn Fein vote in favour of the motion or at Spain 's. What do
:08:29. > :08:32.you think is likely to happen and what are the risks with the various
:08:33. > :08:35.options? They have given themselves a little bit of wiggle room when
:08:36. > :08:42.Martin McGuinness said reflect over Christmas. It doesn't much make
:08:43. > :08:48.sense to say reflect and then vote tomorrow... It doesn't sound like an
:08:49. > :08:56.ultimatum? It doesn't. I think more will emerge, and at this stage, I
:08:57. > :08:59.would be genuinely surprised if Sinn Fein back to the SDLP motion of no
:09:00. > :09:05.confidence because it makes a mockery of their position of let her
:09:06. > :09:09.reflect. What about the notion that perhaps honestly this is about the
:09:10. > :09:13.Sinn Fein trying to position themselves in terms of negotiating a
:09:14. > :09:16.better deal on legacy, Irish language, Brexit, for example? That
:09:17. > :09:19.has been raised by a number of commentators in the last few days
:09:20. > :09:25.and doesn't ring true? That has precedent in the past because in
:09:26. > :09:28.previous times, and better deals have been used in devolution and on
:09:29. > :09:30.the police, for example. That's an accurate assessment.
:09:31. > :09:34.Now let's take a look back at the week in just 60 Seconds,
:09:35. > :09:50.In a week when we learned that two former soldiers are to be prosecuted
:09:51. > :09:57.in relation to the fatal shooting of an IRA men, can a minister see that
:09:58. > :10:00.ex-servicemen are being treated differently to the most exclusive
:10:01. > :10:05.focus on the actions of the state is disproportionately and must be
:10:06. > :10:08.challenged and redressed. Conclusion continues over who is responsible
:10:09. > :10:15.for delays to legacy inquests. The British Government are the main
:10:16. > :10:19.lackeys to this. I think Sinn Fein needs to recognise the need for
:10:20. > :10:23.compromise. I hold my duties very clearly in relation to national
:10:24. > :10:26.security, I'm protecting the public. The House of Lords EU committee said
:10:27. > :10:30.that local farmers could be hit hard by Brett said. I don't think there
:10:31. > :10:34.can be any confidence at all that they will continue to get the same
:10:35. > :10:36.amount of money with the common agricultural policy from the British
:10:37. > :10:44.Government. And the Justice Minister presents a prediction claiming 300
:10:45. > :10:46.sounds -- signatures consists of multiple petitions in fact instead
:10:47. > :10:49.of just the one. Gareth Gordon, there,
:10:50. > :10:51.looking back at the political week. Now, looking ahead, and tomorrow
:10:52. > :10:54.sees the return of the Assembly Alex and Allison, what
:10:55. > :11:12.does she need to say? Alex, a danger to the institutions
:11:13. > :11:18.themselves. And highly do you rate that that the stage? The Sinn Fein
:11:19. > :11:21.and the DUP needs to work this out. There is nowhere else to go from
:11:22. > :11:26.this, if they walk away from if they bring it down, there are no other
:11:27. > :11:30.parties involved. For the past few months there have been in aggression
:11:31. > :11:36.pacts. A few weeks ago a big article in a joint articles, note innings no
:11:37. > :11:41.grants, we will make it work. They can't turn around and say it will be
:11:42. > :11:45.collapsed three weeks later. What does Arlene Foster needs to say
:11:46. > :11:49.tomorrow to restore public confidence? She is in a very bad
:11:50. > :11:52.position and a weak position to restore public confidence and has to
:11:53. > :11:55.come up with some sort of plan to reassess those contracts and call
:11:56. > :11:58.back some of the money that has been wasted, and at this point in time I
:11:59. > :12:03.don't think she will stand out and say it, and she won't stick her feet
:12:04. > :12:06.in -- she will do you feed him, and unless something connect her
:12:07. > :12:12.directly with leaving the scheme open and allowing the issue to
:12:13. > :12:16.continue, I don't think her position as leader is in jeopardy, Jonathan
:12:17. > :12:23.Bell will actually take the fort for that. That waterfall for that. I
:12:24. > :12:27.think Arlene Foster has been damaged by this. She replaced Peter Robinson
:12:28. > :12:30.on the basis she wasn't him, but also a safe pair of hands. Her
:12:31. > :12:35.handling of this has been dreadful and watching used to do tomorrow is
:12:36. > :12:38.restore public confidence, needs to get off that high horse and say I
:12:39. > :12:43.can understand why you are angry, I can understand why this looks like
:12:44. > :12:48.appalling government, but this, over its not to do with me... A touch of
:12:49. > :12:52.humility? Thai touch of humility and humanity and the ability to say no,
:12:53. > :12:58.folks, I got it wrong. This an apology would be nice. No, it was my
:12:59. > :13:03.advisors fault, is all we have heard to date. Of course, once she does
:13:04. > :13:10.apologise, this opens a whole can of worms, potentially. We will watch it
:13:11. > :13:12.and see what happens tomorrow. I'm likely to disappoint!
:13:13. > :13:13.That's it from Sunday Politics for 2016.
:13:14. > :13:15.There will be a special Stormont Today
:13:16. > :13:17.on BBC Two at 11 o'clock tomorrow evening
:13:18. > :13:18.featuring that statement by Arlene Foster
:13:19. > :13:20.and the debate on the no confidence motion.
:13:21. > :13:22.But from all of us on the team, bye-bye,
:13:23. > :14:03.The most a writer can hope from a reader