18/12/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be

pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"

And coming up here: how bad for our health,

Jonathan Bell is suspended by the DUP,

and Arlene Foster rebuffs Martin McGuinness's suggestion

that she stand aside to allow an inquiry

And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer

and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,

They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.

First this morning, some say they will fight

for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those

who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British

people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -

The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have

tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.

The original resolution called on the European Parliament

to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens

of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".

He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish

must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%

The amendments were proposed in October,

but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels

Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.

The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.

Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed

Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try

and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was

simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months

ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different

newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort

to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to

rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You

would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?

I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory

referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a

questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,

it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking

the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a

very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who

said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save

money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and

our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But

your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is

to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would

respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to

be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain

money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government

said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need

to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the

single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options

should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will

be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more

illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a

report about future treaty amendments down the road for years

to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side

reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will

you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the

text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if

the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you

mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,

was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of

the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European

Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of

action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and

disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to

think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you

might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be

clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European

Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am

acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating

things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out

to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are

going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the

shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,

in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is

implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about

whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because

that has to take account of the future framework of relationships

with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That

means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be

outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very

damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the

rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the

customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give

us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is

not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the

results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see

that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the

divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget

for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single

market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will

know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be

damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a

minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider

the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to

leave it there but thank you for joining us.

Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what

happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview

illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach

taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one

breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action

subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are

sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to

happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists

on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public

opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together

to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take

moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every

single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether

it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not

think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in

the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to

question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these

things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he

wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you

can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But

the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad

deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is

implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we

are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a

minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going

to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,

six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage

Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,

or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of

2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa

May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that

Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I

recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical

drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't

think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very

long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff

setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at

all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it

is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the

customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the

cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a

member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would

make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs

union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as

binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would

suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to

do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that

is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his

opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is

Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the

customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the

customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is

proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do

free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade

deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment

but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade

deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line

for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an

argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he

wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet

about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country

we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,

but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look

at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is

happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I

think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it

becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we

are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this

country. So, we've had a warning this week

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

the European Union, Now I'm in the job,

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

Australia approached the British Government

with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

governments have already established a working group to explore a future,

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

British-made cars for less We would give British

households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

access to British products Free-trade agreements

are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source

of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests

over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement

would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK

to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years

and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's

vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help

in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is

complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.

The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual

trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with

the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary

examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking

already, we have set up a joint working group with the British

Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no

free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,

is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a

scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union

and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.

But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but

one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain

leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has

always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not

happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European

Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality

which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international

relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.

It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose

that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped

out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a

free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is

about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless

you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this

free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other

than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both

free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not

think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the

UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to

Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot

of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years

is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has

made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal

is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin

and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we

returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country

rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate

would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to

achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a

free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is

more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with

China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and

they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing

with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think

Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there

is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and

the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.

So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct

barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved

in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European

Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will

try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly

commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a

free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the

Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

against any country. The European Union's free movement means you

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building

of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?

40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions

about air pollution, that this is a public health

emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

He has been looking into the recent claims

It's a problem and it affects people's health.

But when people start talking about the numbers

of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

and none of that is coming through in the public

So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels

of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?

It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

I asked him about the data on which these claims

They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities

First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure

29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000

I will just talk about this group for a start.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

was based on a study of US cities and they found out that

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying

each year for each small increase in pollution.

So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.

So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths

How much should we invest in cycling?

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?

I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment

and for air pollution that they don't really

see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

If you are poor and you are in social class five,

compared to social class one, that would take seven

If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.

Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all

of the cars in London and all of the road transport,

we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,

but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact

on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are

remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the

studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the

UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air

pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if

you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is

impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of

solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is

down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which

we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from

the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is

something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.

If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of

the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really

worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe

good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far

from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is

it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the

last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health

Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they

need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if

you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if

you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities

and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very

high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors

and many studies by London University showing this to be true.

The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of

pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is

causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.

The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and

there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we

have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution

causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is

40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.

Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are

talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air

pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to

phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner

tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and

clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had

the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to

me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most

polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking

at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure

which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical

effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is

everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be

premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be

by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing

difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke

and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do

you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined

that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.

But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000

deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by

that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do

something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly

caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem

of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I

am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another

claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe

clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have

also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50

cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you

look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the

actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent

effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in

terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and

that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us

that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does

take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine

months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten

years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a

piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken

it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the

professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the

thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the

impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young

children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,

this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the

underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not

arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate

things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree

with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think

the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,

diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can

get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see

us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.

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

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

So, Jonathan Bell has been suspended by the DUP and relations

between the Executive parties are tense after Martin McGuinness

called on Arlene Foster to step aside as First Minister.

I'll be asking the MP Jeffrey Donaldson

And I'll be asking Sinn Fein how it plans to tackle the issue.

And with me throughout with their thoughts

Tomorrow the First Minister will make a statement

to the Assembly on the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme.

It comes after a nightmare week for the DUP after the former

Minister, Jonathan Bell, made allegations against party

colleagues which was countered by Arlene Foster making her own

And on Friday, the Deputy First Minister called on Mrs Foster

to stand aside to allow an investigation into

the heating scheme to take place - a suggestion she promptly rejected.

With me now is the DUP's Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.

Sir Jeffrey, to be clear, before we go any further,

Mr Bell has now been suspended by the party, is that right?

Yes, I understand that the party officers met over the weekend and

they have taken the decision, which is in accordance with the rules,

that Jonathan Bede is suspended, there will be a full investigation

and Jonathan will be afforded the opportunity to put his side on all

of this before any final decision is made. At this point Mr Bell did not

have an opportunity to participate in that process, is that correct?

This is the first stage of the investigation, under our

disciplinary rules, and in matters and cases like this suspension is

the normal first step. He has been suspended without prejudice?

Absolutely, yes. He has been suspended without prejudice

following an investigation, but Mrs Foster hasn't been required to step

aside, why the unequal treatment? They are two very different issues.

They are. There is no evidence that Arlene Foster has broken any rules,

there is no evidence against Arlene Foster... There are allegations from

Jonathan Bell. Yes, but no prima facie case has been presented.

Jonathan has clearly broken the rules and they are very clear if you

look at the DUP rules, Jonathan did not seek permission for the

interview that he did, he did not tell the party in advance what he

was doing, and, you know, that is not the way that most political

parties operate. Jonathan knew that he actually said in his interview,

he knew that what he was doing was putting himself outside of the party

discipline. He said it himself. So serious his allegations where that

that was what he had to do. He said it was a difficult day for him, he

sat down in a TV studio to say what he had estate and he knew what the

risks well but was prepared to do it because he believes it is the truth.

And for that he is thrown out of the temporary billy macro party,

temporarily. It is temporary. He will be given the opportunity to put

his side forward in the party procedures. Surely the problem for

the DUP is it looks like party officers have prejudged the case in

the favour of the party leader against Jonathan Bell. That's what

it looks like. I don't except that at all. This is not about policy

issues, this is not about the RHI scheme, this is about party

discipline. This was an act of disloyalty, was it? It was a breach

of party rules, a potential breach. I'm not going to prejudge the

outcome, the party officers that officers will meet again and

consider all of these things in the round. Was he not disloyal? He broke

the rules, and even he said that publicly. In his interview he

recognised that in doing the interview he was stepping outside of

the party to do so. That was his choice. Who break the rules in

criticising Arlene Foster? Rewrote the rules giving the interview in

the first place without going through the party processes, without

going through the press office. You haven't done that, the DUP has never

done that before? Well if they had they would be held to account. With

a? Yes. It is a bit that are a bit rich from you, though, because 13

years ago on this very day you had Arlene Foster did something arguably

far worse walking out of the Ulster Unionist Party and subsequently

joining the DUP. That was disloyal, that was treacherous outside the

party rules. Yet you did it, you justified it in exactly the same way

that Jonathan Bell has justified himself. Bsorry, but we left the

body, we recognised because the party was bringing disciplinary

procedures against us and we recognised that the fault lines in

the Ulster Unionist Party were so deep, and the best interest of

everyone involved we resigned. Before you did that come me openly

criticised David Trimble before finally leaving the party. And we

were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and we did what we

believed was the honourable thing. So did Jonathan. How can wait was

right for you and wrong for him? There are two different approaches.

They look very similar from here. I resigned from the party and they did

so on the basis that I felt that the gulf in the party was an

unbridgeable, and there was no point in going forward on that basis. Why

should Arlene Foster not stand aside now without prejudice pending an

investigation in to her rule, as other party leaders have said and as

indeed her partner in government Martin McGuinness has said. There

was no doubt that opposition parties are out to get Arlene Foster. That

is their job. If you let me complete one sentence in this interview, I

will get to that. From day one, they have called for Arlene to resign,

from day one Mike Nesbitt said Arlene had been given information by

a whistle-blower and should have acted upon it and therefore she

should resign. Now, it so happens that that very person who was the

whistle-blower said in her own words, I wasn't a whistle-blower.

Her words, not mine. And the information she gave to Arlene

Foster was not about whistle-blowing, her words. Do you

want to talk about that? You couldn't -- she couldn't remember

the information or correspondence she used. In a macro Mark, this was

three years later. Does every minister remember the content of

every e-mail? Ministers it thousands of e-mails. She relented a lots of

the conversation but forgot the correspondence with the

whistle-blower. How? She didn't forget what she did, she referred

the matter to officials, that is what she said she did, and that is

exact... The point I am making in this, Mark, is that from day one the

opposition parties have called for Arlene to resign. That is what they

have been doing. Big surprise, that's what they are expected to do.

My point is this is that anyone is surprised that the DUP was monster

that is that we haven't seen the evidence that says Arlene has done

wrong, and therefore we do not believe that she should retire. So,

have an independent enquiry. Why would you not? If Arlene Foster and

other senior figures in the DUP have nothing to fear, then make a clean

breast of it, put all of the relevant correspondence in the

public domain, and allow truth to come out. All of the information

will be in the public domain, the DUP has nothing to hide on this,

neither has Arlene, she has said so. The Public Accounts Committee is

already conducting an enquiry. Who are the members of the DUP on the

PAC? Jelinek we are entitled to those members. This committee was

crowned -- created for this purpose. What I don't understand is why do

the opposition parties lack confidence in their own MLAs to do

the job they were elected to do to hold the Executive to account? What

is the point of an opposition party if they are unprepared to criticise

the institution for this purpose, and allow MLAs to seek the truth?

Their point is but that is is a bigger issue than any so far, and

goes beyond politicians investigation themselves. With four

DUP members on the PAC, that might not help the committee gets to the

absolute stew. Why? Because for members of the DUP may not see it in

their best interests to get into the absolute truth. They may not be

investigating in the same vein as a independent enquiry. The committee

can operate fairly with the DUP members there. It isn't to speak for

opposition leaders. Yellow mac I speak for the DUP and answer your

question clearly. Why should the DUP not have a say? Why should not be

parties of Stormont that has been elected, why should we be

disenfranchised in how this matter is dealt with? Why would that be

disenfranchised in? You would be taking away the responsibility from

people elected to do this job on the Public Accounts Committee. People

talk about curbing the cost. And yet don't hesitate for one moment to

take this outside of the elected body and put it into a public

enquiry which is going to add to the cost. It would add to the 400

million that has been wasted by the failure of politicians at the end of

the day. The cost issue some people will seriously wonder about when you

read that. Let me ask about Martin McGuinness. He reportedly asked

Arlene Foster to take the Christmas break to reconsider standing aside.

He said she should she said she didn't take instructions from Sinn

Fein. He suggested that she might have a ginger part with the benefit

of mature reflection over Christmas. Is that not the sensible thing to

do? Any dummy the last time a Sinn Fein members that aside when there

were serious allegations made against Sinn Fein? Haven't stopped

the DUP calling for it to happen. Yes, it is politics, and as Arlene

Foster said she has a job to do. Let me be clear. Arlene has a job to do,

she is not a quitter and went run away from responsibilities as some

would want her to do. She is up for the challenge, has nothing to hide,

has made it absolutely clear that she will give full disclosure of

every single document paper or record relevant, and crucially,

Mark, and this is the important thing, when Stephen Nolan ended his

interviews on Wednesday evening, he said what the public really wants to

do is what is going to happen to stop this expenditure? Arlene will

come to the assembly tomorrow will make herself accountable to the

assembly, and will outline her position, and she wants to continue

the job of not only addressing what has happened but also ensuring that

this expenditure is curbed. The 400 million has not been wasted, Mark,

and potentially over a 20 year period it could be polar but we

still have the opportunity to do something to stop that and Arlene

Foster says she has a responsibility to take that on. Do you think that

the public have trust in Arlene Foster being the person to do that

given they may have serious reservations about the role she

played in this process up to now? They may believe, if they listen to

Jonathan Bell, that she was not sure-footed in the decision-making

process. Why would they now suddenly believe she is sure-footed enough to

take it out of the hole that it is in? Because when this game went

wrong Jonathan Bell was the minister. Who set it up, Arlene

Foster. During the time that Arlene was the enterprise minister, there

was an underspend on the scheme and that no stage did anyone, say there

is a problem. There were no submissions made for her. There were

-- when she said the scheme up she took advice from officials. There

was an underspend, yes. She made the decision to move away from the GB

scheme into a non-tiered generalised tariff incentive and did not after

doing that keep a close eye on what happens next. That is the point. She

made a big decision to do things differently and didn't follow it up.

In any department that employs thousands of civil servants, the

Minister cannot be dealing with everything. She can't be dealing

with everything. But she wasn't dealing with everything. -- she

wasn't dealing with anything. During her time, she had thousands of jobs

brought to Northern Ireland. I don't accept that she wasn't doing

anything. She said that she was, she handed it to officials and they

dropped the ball. She was in keeping an eye out on it. Is she now

qualified to keep an eye on it? I am sure members of the public take a

different view but I am saying to you that I have met many members of

the public who want Arlene to continue in her role. That is very

clear. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Let's hear from Alex Kane and Allison Morris.

That is an issue for members of the public and Jeffrey Donaldson is

quite right, there are those who believe that Arlene is the person to

fix it but clearly there are people who will believe that it is not the

person to be in charge to dig us out of the hole. That is understandable.

Two weeks ago, this story started about two ministers and a department

and inefficiencies and ineptitude and incompetence then suddenly

exploded into this personal political psychological power

struggle, almost pantomime. Nobody knows what do believe, and the other

thing about it is it is has become a water cooler story, people in bars

and restaurants and petrol stations were asking what is going on? This

they are genuinely interested and the DUP have throughout this have no

idea of the scale of the interest in this story and the scale of the

discontent from the public not just for them but for the whole system.

How big a deal is it, Alison, do you believe that the Deputy First

Minister has called upon the First Minister to stand aside even

temporarily? It is very significant because at the beginning of the week

Sinn Fein went been drawn on whether or not they still had confidence in

Arlene full stop we ended with the week with calls her to stand aside.

She will feel that pressure whether or not she says she feels it was the

she has to be feeling the pressure, now, despite standing her ground.

The public are furious, absolutely furious. The DUP didn't grasp at the

beginning the scale of that anger and what has happened and they need

to attempt to claw back some of this money because there is no confidence

in the institution. Elected representatives and the PAC is the

place to sort this out. It is their job to keep an on public covers and

this is what they are doing. But this has gone beyond the assembly

and politicians and is now an issue of public confidence and this is not

clear that the public trust the public institutions but want

something bigger than that Stewart was in their interest S. Even the

opposition parties are un-trusted. This story was generated by the

media not by the opposition. I'll be talking to Sinn

Fein in just a moment, but the opposition parties have

called for a public inquiry into the whole renewable heating

affair, while the SDLP and Alliance are also demanding that

Arlene Foster stand aside. First, though,

here's the Ulster Unionist Arlene Foster needs to understand

that openness and transparency is of the essence and every scrap of paper

should now be put into the public domain, including the bit of paper

Jonathan Bell referred to last night from I think September 20 15th where

she said he was allowed to read but not copy. I think we are in a

situation where the only way that the public can have confidence in

our institutions do have the full truth told and the only way for that

to be told is for all papers, all e-mails, all of that do remain open

and transparent and available to a public enquiry, so we can find out

what is at the bottom of this. We won't be able to do that with Arlene

Foster still residing in the First Minister 's office. We need to get

this resolved and quickly and I think in order to make that happen

we need independent in that enquiry, away from any allegations of party

bullying or party priorities, independently, and also need the

First Minister to step aside without prejudice in order to allow the

investigation to take place. The alliance leader Naomi Long.

Well, Sinn Fein members met in Derry yesterday to decide their plan

for tomorrow's sitting of the Assembly.

MLAs and party officials gathered in the Bogside area

He pointed out that the party still has significant differences

with the DUP on issues such as the Irish language and legacy,

and he repeated Martin McGuinness's call

for Arlene Foster to stand aside.

With me now is the Sinn Fein MLA Conor Murphy.

Mr Murphy, thank you very much indeed for joining us today.

So, will you support the no confidence motion tomorrow?

Sinn Fein will decide the my desperate tomorrow. We have not

decided just yet. What about in Derry? We were discussing that. We

will meet on the Monday morning and decide what to do. In relation to

the motion it doesn't address the issues of Jonathan Bell, nor the

issues of the special advisers in their relation in all of this nor

the issues of getting the funds back as best we can. It only deals with

the issue of Arlene Foster. That motion of no-confidence in Arlene

Foster. It's a motion... The Deputy First Minister clearly has no

confidence. It is a motion to exclude Arlene Foster for six

months, out of any position in the assembly. It doesn't address the

issues at the thought this would be public need to see address which is

an investigation, full transparent investigation into this matter and

the role of the two ministers involved, Arlene Foster and Jonathan

Bell, to any role of Jonathan allegations about the special

advisers. Why did Sinn Fein not table a motion? If you are led by

the leader in the north calling upon Arlene Foster to step aside until

there is a full investigation why didn't Sinn Fein table the motion of

no-confidence? Firstly, the call has been reasonable. I hope she will

reconsider her answer. Others have stepped aside when there were

investigations into their it's liberties. Why not follow it up

tomorrow? The request has been made to the DUP to consider this issue.

We will also request for a full public inquest. We are in the

Executive, and recognise very clearly there is a Ute dent in

public confidence and the functioning of the Executive. All

this asks you to do is to agree that the assembly no longer has the

confidence in the First Minister. If you have called for an independent

investigation, and if you have called first had to step down how

could you possibly argue that she has your confidence? You have two,

the logic is that you had to support this motion tomorrow. I'm not

arguing that she has are confident at all. The motion is to exclude her

full six months, and that is all it addresses. That might be wonderful

or knee jerk and the public theatre will run around, but we have a

responsibility in the Executive to get to the heart of these

these very serious allegations about the operation of government by

Jonathan Bell, and puts together a plan which the finance minister will

now eventually have an option from the Minister,... You might ask her

to step aside but like her in the chamber tomorrow? That is presumably

a possibility if you haven't made your mind up. I'm not indicating

anything in this programme. Do you accept it would look odd to members

of the public for Sinn Fein to call for the First Minister to step

aside, to say there needs to be a full independent investigation but

not to back the opposition parties in expressing their lack of

confidence in the chamber tomorrow. And that would look odd. I don't

agree. Because Martin McGuinness has asked her to step aside until at

least... Amend the motion! It is now difficult to amend that

administration because it is rooted in the 1988 act. He has asked her to

step aside which is a reasonable request... Why is it reasonable,

when no Sinn Fein minister has ever stepped aside why was it OK for you

to remain in post but for the DUP not to? There hasn't been

allegations against survey in other like that Jeffrey Donaldson has been

talking about. Earlier this year when there was a an issue to deal

with one of our members come out we dealt with quickly. He got it wrong?

He did. What Martin McGuinness has asked Arlene Foster to do is to step

aside as long as I'm enquiry can put together a Bruno Nehru report. Had

come Jeffrey Donaldson suggests the place is to resolve these issues,

despite the validity of all of the above, the place to do that is he

says in the PAC. Is that not the case? They have work to do, I think,

and they need to continue. Particularly in the advent of the

programme where you have a First Minister and a former senior

colleague making allegations against each other, making allegations

relating to senior DUP members of government, special advisers in

government, that takes it beyond what the Public Accounts Committee

seeking gets to them and there is a need for an independent enquiry to

get to the heart of these matters with these serious allegations and I

don't believe that the DUP our anger immune. They cannot fail to

recognise that there is anger in this matter from everyone to all

parties. For that reason the DUP needs to do the right thing, have

the ministers that aside, agree to the Independent enquiry and get to

the core of these matters and decide... Is there is indifference

in the working of government. Corrupt purposes. That is a very

serious allegation. You make an eloquent case for Sinn Fein backing

the opposition motion of no-confidence in the chamber

tomorrow but aren't prepared to say that what is what you're going to

do. Let me ask the question. I don't want to go back because you've not

answer the question before so I won't travel about it any more.

People will wonder if this is in fact about Sinn Fein positioning

itself to have a better negotiating hand with the DUP on issues like

legacy, Brexit and Irish language. Don't this the DUP at the moment

because you might get a better deal is a few months down the The issue

we just talked about in the enquiry is no part of the motion, no logic

is to say that we won't vote for that, or anything else. It is only

emotion about excluding. We want institutions work. There were cries

of confidence in the Executive and centres round the DUP who are

partners in the Executive. That needs to be sorted out and we want

to see it sorted in a public and transparent way and satisfying

public opinion and allow the Executive to get on. I will think

people will find this impossible to understand. Martin McGuinness says

she should stand aside, the motion tomorrow says she should be excluded

for six months, but you don't back it which decides exactly what Martin

McGuinness said should happen. We have argued or rather Martin

McGuinness has argued and asked to consider to step aside... She said

no. The fact that Martin McGuinness has now boxed into a corner says she

had to come out fighting saying she doesn't take instruction from Sinn

Fein. The one thing that won't happen after being asked to step

aside is that you want step aside. The DUP are not immune from the

sense of anger related to the scheme. Party colleagues tearing

strips of each other, fighting over special advisers... If the DUP are

immune to all of that then they are walking themselves into serious

difficulties and we call upon them to do the right thing here. When the

Deputy First Minister says she should think about it over Christmas

and reconsider her position in the New Year, is that some kind of

ultimatum, for her? No, it's not in public advice to her. He said that

if he was in her position that is what he would do, it's his advised

to make a reasonable quest and has precedent, and it is a

recommendation given that this has gone bananas -- beyond ineptitude

about setting up a very unappeasable scheme. It is confidence in the

leadership of institution. If she doesn't take his advice, just to be

clear, and stays in post, how damaged is the relationship between

Martin McGuinness and Arlene Foster? How damaged if the relationship

running this country between Sinn Fein and the DUP? The relationship

is damaged because of the nature of the DUP anyway and we need to do

recommend you take that to two experts. That is what they are being

asked to do. We look forward to seeing what it position is tomorrow.

By the way, if you want to watch Arlene Foster's statement

to the Assembly and the no confidence debate that follows,

you can see it live on the BBC Parliament channel

What do you make of the position that Sinn Fein is adopting, albeit

the day before the crunch vote in the chamber tomorrow? It will be

interesting to see what happens tomorrow. Conor isn't being drawn on

what Sinn Fein are plans to do. I really have to protect the

coalition, and the institutions and we know that and they can't go hard

on the coalition partners but at the same time Sinn Fein just like

everyone else are busy feeling pressure from the public and the

anger, and they have two be seen to be acting in some way and I think an

independent enquiry at these state deeds lease the public should accept

them regardless. The PAC aren't fit for purpose and Conor Murphy is

right, the PAC won't the other get to the bottom of this scandal and

that the release needs to be do. It is unlikely, I would have thought,

that Sinn Fein will vote against the motion tomorrow. The question is

whether Sinn Fein vote in favour of the motion or at Spain 's. What do

you think is likely to happen and what are the risks with the various

options? They have given themselves a little bit of wiggle room when

Martin McGuinness said reflect over Christmas. It doesn't much make

sense to say reflect and then vote tomorrow... It doesn't sound like an

ultimatum? It doesn't. I think more will emerge, and at this stage, I

would be genuinely surprised if Sinn Fein back to the SDLP motion of no

confidence because it makes a mockery of their position of let her

reflect. What about the notion that perhaps honestly this is about the

Sinn Fein trying to position themselves in terms of negotiating a

better deal on legacy, Irish language, Brexit, for example? That

has been raised by a number of commentators in the last few days

and doesn't ring true? That has precedent in the past because in

previous times, and better deals have been used in devolution and on

the police, for example. That's an accurate assessment.

Now let's take a look back at the week in just 60 Seconds,

In a week when we learned that two former soldiers are to be prosecuted

in relation to the fatal shooting of an IRA men, can a minister see that

ex-servicemen are being treated differently to the most exclusive

focus on the actions of the state is disproportionately and must be

challenged and redressed. Conclusion continues over who is responsible

for delays to legacy inquests. The British Government are the main

lackeys to this. I think Sinn Fein needs to recognise the need for

compromise. I hold my duties very clearly in relation to national

security, I'm protecting the public. The House of Lords EU committee said

that local farmers could be hit hard by Brett said. I don't think there

can be any confidence at all that they will continue to get the same

amount of money with the common agricultural policy from the British

Government. And the Justice Minister presents a prediction claiming 300

sounds -- signatures consists of multiple petitions in fact instead

of just the one. Gareth Gordon, there,

looking back at the political week. Now, looking ahead, and tomorrow

sees the return of the Assembly Alex and Allison, what

does she need to say? Alex, a danger to the institutions

themselves. And highly do you rate that that the stage? The Sinn Fein

and the DUP needs to work this out. There is nowhere else to go from

this, if they walk away from if they bring it down, there are no other

parties involved. For the past few months there have been in aggression

pacts. A few weeks ago a big article in a joint articles, note innings no

grants, we will make it work. They can't turn around and say it will be

collapsed three weeks later. What does Arlene Foster needs to say

tomorrow to restore public confidence? She is in a very bad

position and a weak position to restore public confidence and has to

come up with some sort of plan to reassess those contracts and call

back some of the money that has been wasted, and at this point in time I

don't think she will stand out and say it, and she won't stick her feet

in -- she will do you feed him, and unless something connect her

directly with leaving the scheme open and allowing the issue to

continue, I don't think her position as leader is in jeopardy, Jonathan

Bell will actually take the fort for that. That waterfall for that. I

think Arlene Foster has been damaged by this. She replaced Peter Robinson

on the basis she wasn't him, but also a safe pair of hands. Her

handling of this has been dreadful and watching used to do tomorrow is

restore public confidence, needs to get off that high horse and say I

can understand why you are angry, I can understand why this looks like

appalling government, but this, over its not to do with me... A touch of

humility? Thai touch of humility and humanity and the ability to say no,

folks, I got it wrong. This an apology would be nice. No, it was my

advisors fault, is all we have heard to date. Of course, once she does

apologise, this opens a whole can of worms, potentially. We will watch it

and see what happens tomorrow. I'm likely to disappoint!

That's it from Sunday Politics for 2016.

There will be a special Stormont Today

on BBC Two at 11 o'clock tomorrow evening

featuring that statement by Arlene Foster

and the debate on the no confidence motion.

But from all of us on the team, bye-bye,

The most a writer can hope from a reader