18/12/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


18/12/2016

Andrew discusses Brexit with former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell and Australian high commissioner Alexander Downer, and looks at the issue of air pollution.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

:00:39.:00:40.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

:00:41.:00:42.

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

:00:43.:00:44.

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

:00:45.:00:48.

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

:00:49.:00:51.

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

:00:52.:00:55.

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

:00:56.:00:58.

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

:00:59.:01:04.

And coming up here: how bad for our health,

:01:05.:01:10.

Jonathan Bell is suspended by the DUP,

:01:11.:01:11.

and Arlene Foster rebuffs Martin McGuinness's suggestion

:01:12.:01:14.

that she stand aside to allow an inquiry

:01:15.:01:17.

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

:01:18.:01:30.

and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,

:01:31.:01:33.

They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.

:01:34.:01:41.

First this morning, some say they will fight

:01:42.:01:47.

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

:01:48.:01:50.

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

:01:51.:01:53.

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

:01:54.:01:56.

The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have

:01:57.:02:00.

tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.

:02:01.:02:02.

The original resolution called on the European Parliament

:02:03.:02:05.

to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens

:02:06.:02:08.

of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".

:02:09.:02:23.

He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish

:02:24.:02:29.

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

:02:30.:02:31.

The amendments were proposed in October,

:02:32.:02:44.

but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels

:02:45.:02:47.

Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.

:02:48.:02:48.

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

:02:49.:02:51.

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

:02:52.:02:54.

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

:02:55.:03:03.

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

:03:04.:03:08.

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

:03:09.:03:12.

ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different

:03:13.:03:18.

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

:03:19.:03:24.

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

:03:25.:03:29.

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

:03:30.:03:34.

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

:03:35.:03:39.

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

:03:40.:03:45.

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

:03:46.:03:51.

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

:03:52.:03:54.

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

:03:55.:03:58.

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

:03:59.:04:02.

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

:04:03.:04:07.

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

:04:08.:04:11.

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

:04:12.:04:13.

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

:04:14.:04:31.

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

:04:32.:04:34.

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

:04:35.:04:36.

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

:04:37.:04:39.

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

:04:40.:04:42.

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

:04:43.:04:46.

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

:04:47.:04:51.

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

:04:52.:04:58.

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

:04:59.:05:01.

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

:05:02.:05:07.

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

:05:08.:05:11.

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

:05:12.:05:20.

report about future treaty amendments down the road for years

:05:21.:05:25.

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

:05:26.:05:33.

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

:05:34.:05:39.

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

:05:40.:05:47.

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

:05:48.:05:54.

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

:05:55.:05:57.

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

:05:58.:06:05.

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

:06:06.:06:09.

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

:06:10.:06:17.

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

:06:18.:06:21.

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

:06:22.:06:25.

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

:06:26.:06:29.

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

:06:30.:06:34.

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

:06:35.:06:40.

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

:06:41.:06:43.

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

:06:44.:06:51.

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

:06:52.:06:56.

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

:06:57.:06:59.

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

:07:00.:07:04.

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

:07:05.:07:10.

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

:07:11.:07:15.

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

:07:16.:07:19.

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

:07:20.:07:26.

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

:07:27.:07:33.

that has to take account of the future framework of relationships

:07:34.:07:38.

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

:07:39.:07:41.

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

:07:42.:07:45.

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

:07:46.:07:49.

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

:07:50.:07:54.

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

:07:55.:07:58.

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

:07:59.:08:02.

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

:08:03.:08:06.

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

:08:07.:08:10.

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

:08:11.:08:14.

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

:08:15.:08:17.

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

:08:18.:08:21.

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

:08:22.:08:26.

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

:08:27.:08:31.

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

:08:32.:08:34.

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

:08:35.:08:41.

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

:08:42.:08:44.

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

:08:45.:08:49.

leave it there but thank you for joining us.

:08:50.:08:54.

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

:08:55.:09:01.

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

:09:02.:09:06.

illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach

:09:07.:09:10.

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

:09:11.:09:16.

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

:09:17.:09:19.

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

:09:20.:09:22.

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

:09:23.:09:28.

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

:09:29.:09:32.

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

:09:33.:09:38.

opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together

:09:39.:09:45.

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

:09:46.:09:52.

moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every

:09:53.:09:56.

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

:09:57.:10:06.

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

:10:07.:10:10.

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

:10:11.:10:16.

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

:10:17.:10:19.

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

:10:20.:10:24.

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

:10:25.:10:28.

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

:10:29.:10:32.

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

:10:33.:10:37.

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

:10:38.:10:42.

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

:10:43.:10:49.

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

:10:50.:10:52.

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

:10:53.:10:57.

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

:10:58.:11:02.

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

:11:03.:11:06.

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

:11:07.:11:10.

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

:11:11.:11:15.

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

:11:16.:11:20.

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

:11:21.:11:27.

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

:11:28.:11:38.

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

:11:39.:11:46.

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

:11:47.:11:52.

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

:11:53.:11:58.

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

:11:59.:12:03.

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

:12:04.:12:07.

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

:12:08.:12:10.

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

:12:11.:12:16.

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

:12:17.:12:23.

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

:12:24.:12:26.

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

:12:27.:12:31.

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

:12:32.:12:39.

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

:12:40.:12:42.

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

:12:43.:12:47.

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

:12:48.:12:51.

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

:12:52.:12:55.

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

:12:56.:12:59.

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

:13:00.:13:04.

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

:13:05.:13:08.

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

:13:09.:13:14.

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

:13:15.:13:23.

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

:13:24.:13:26.

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

:13:27.:13:29.

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

:13:30.:13:36.

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

:13:37.:13:43.

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

:13:44.:13:47.

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

:13:48.:13:52.

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

:13:53.:14:00.

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

:14:01.:14:04.

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

:14:05.:14:08.

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

:14:09.:14:12.

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

:14:13.:14:16.

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

:14:17.:14:21.

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

:14:22.:14:26.

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

:14:27.:14:34.

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

:14:35.:14:38.

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

:14:39.:14:44.

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

:14:45.:14:48.

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

:14:49.:14:51.

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

:14:52.:14:55.

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

:14:56.:15:02.

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

:15:03.:15:06.

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

:15:07.:15:14.

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

:15:15.:15:15.

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

:15:16.:15:19.

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

:15:20.:15:22.

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

:15:23.:15:25.

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

:15:26.:15:27.

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

:15:28.:15:29.

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

:15:30.:15:32.

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

:15:33.:15:34.

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

:15:35.:15:50.

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

:15:51.:15:53.

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

:15:54.:15:55.

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

:15:56.:16:03.

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

:16:04.:16:05.

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

:16:06.:16:08.

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

:16:09.:16:14.

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

:16:15.:16:18.

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

:16:19.:16:22.

Australia approached the British Government

:16:23.:16:28.

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

:16:29.:16:30.

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

:16:31.:16:33.

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

:16:34.:16:40.

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

:16:41.:16:42.

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

:16:43.:16:55.

British-made cars for less We would give British

:16:56.:17:00.

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

:17:01.:17:06.

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

:17:07.:17:11.

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

:17:12.:17:15.

access to British products Free-trade agreements

:17:16.:17:22.

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

:17:23.:17:35.

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

:17:36.:17:39.

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

:17:40.:17:45.

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

:17:46.:17:48.

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

:17:49.:17:53.

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

:17:54.:17:57.

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

:17:58.:18:01.

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

:18:02.:18:05.

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

:18:06.:18:18.

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

:18:19.:18:21.

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

:18:22.:18:24.

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

:18:25.:18:26.

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

:18:27.:18:28.

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

:18:29.:18:40.

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

:18:41.:18:43.

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

:18:44.:18:53.

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

:18:54.:19:23.

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

:19:24.:19:26.

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

:19:27.:19:33.

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

:19:34.:19:38.

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

:19:39.:19:43.

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

:19:44.:19:48.

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

:19:49.:19:54.

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

:19:55.:19:59.

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

:20:00.:20:02.

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

:20:03.:20:05.

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

:20:06.:20:12.

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

:20:13.:20:18.

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

:20:19.:20:22.

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

:20:23.:20:28.

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

:20:29.:20:34.

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

:20:35.:20:38.

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

:20:39.:20:44.

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

:20:45.:20:48.

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

:20:49.:20:53.

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

:20:54.:20:58.

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

:20:59.:21:03.

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

:21:04.:21:08.

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

:21:09.:21:12.

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

:21:13.:21:18.

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

:21:19.:21:24.

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

:21:25.:21:27.

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

:21:28.:21:32.

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

:21:33.:21:35.

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

:21:36.:21:41.

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

:21:42.:21:44.

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

:21:45.:21:50.

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

:21:51.:21:55.

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

:21:56.:22:00.

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

:22:01.:22:05.

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

:22:06.:22:09.

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

:22:10.:22:15.

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

:22:16.:22:19.

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

:22:20.:22:24.

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

:22:25.:22:28.

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

:22:29.:22:32.

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

:22:33.:22:37.

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

:22:38.:22:42.

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

:22:43.:22:46.

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

:22:47.:22:53.

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

:22:54.:22:57.

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

:22:58.:23:02.

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

:23:03.:23:06.

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

:23:07.:23:12.

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

:23:13.:23:15.

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

:23:16.:23:23.

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

:23:24.:23:26.

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

:23:27.:23:30.

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

:23:31.:23:35.

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

:23:36.:23:41.

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

:23:42.:23:44.

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

:23:45.:23:51.

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

:23:52.:23:56.

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

:23:57.:24:00.

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

:24:01.:24:09.

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

:24:10.:24:12.

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

:24:13.:24:18.

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

:24:19.:24:23.

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

:24:24.:24:28.

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

:24:29.:24:32.

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

:24:33.:24:37.

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

:24:38.:24:44.

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

:24:45.:24:48.

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

:24:49.:24:53.

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

:24:54.:24:58.

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

:24:59.:25:03.

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

:25:04.:25:07.

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

:25:08.:25:11.

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

:25:12.:25:18.

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

:25:19.:25:21.

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

:25:22.:25:26.

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

:25:27.:25:30.

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

:25:31.:25:33.

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

:25:34.:25:36.

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

:25:37.:25:38.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

:25:39.:25:40.

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

:25:41.:25:43.

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

:25:44.:25:56.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

:25:57.:26:03.

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

:26:04.:26:09.

about air pollution, that this is a public health

:26:10.:26:11.

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

:26:12.:26:15.

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

:26:16.:26:23.

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

:26:24.:26:27.

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

:26:28.:26:29.

He has been looking into the recent claims

:26:30.:26:31.

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

:26:32.:26:37.

But when people start talking about the numbers

:26:38.:26:40.

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

:26:41.:26:42.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

:26:43.:26:47.

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

:26:48.:26:52.

and none of that is coming through in the public

:26:53.:26:55.

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

:26:56.:26:59.

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

:27:00.:27:03.

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

:27:04.:27:05.

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

:27:06.:27:07.

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

:27:08.:27:12.

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

:27:13.:27:18.

I asked him about the data on which these claims

:27:19.:27:23.

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

:27:24.:27:28.

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

:27:29.:27:35.

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

:27:36.:27:41.

I will just talk about this group for a start.

:27:42.:27:49.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

:27:50.:27:53.

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

:27:54.:27:57.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

:27:58.:28:01.

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

:28:02.:28:05.

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

:28:06.:28:09.

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

:28:10.:28:15.

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

:28:16.:28:20.

each year for each small increase in pollution.

:28:21.:28:25.

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

:28:26.:28:28.

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

:28:29.:28:32.

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

:28:33.:28:38.

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

:28:39.:28:41.

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

:28:42.:28:46.

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

:28:47.:28:51.

How much should we invest in cycling?

:28:52.:28:58.

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

:28:59.:29:01.

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

:29:02.:29:05.

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

:29:06.:29:09.

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

:29:10.:29:14.

and for air pollution that they don't really

:29:15.:29:16.

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

:29:17.:29:22.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

:29:23.:29:24.

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

:29:25.:29:27.

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

:29:28.:29:32.

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

:29:33.:29:35.

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

:29:36.:29:37.

compared to social class one, that would take seven

:29:38.:29:39.

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

:29:40.:29:44.

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

:29:45.:29:47.

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

:29:48.:29:50.

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

:29:51.:29:54.

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

:29:55.:29:59.

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

:30:00.:30:01.

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

:30:02.:30:04.

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

:30:05.:30:08.

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

:30:09.:30:18.

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

:30:19.:30:36.

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

:30:37.:30:40.

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

:30:41.:30:50.

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

:30:51.:30:56.

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

:30:57.:31:00.

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

:31:01.:31:05.

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

:31:06.:31:08.

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

:31:09.:31:13.

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

:31:14.:31:23.

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

:31:24.:31:29.

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

:31:30.:31:34.

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

:31:35.:31:39.

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

:31:40.:31:46.

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

:31:47.:31:53.

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

:31:54.:32:02.

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

:32:03.:32:07.

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

:32:08.:32:12.

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

:32:13.:32:21.

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

:32:22.:32:26.

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

:32:27.:32:30.

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

:32:31.:32:35.

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

:32:36.:32:38.

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

:32:39.:32:42.

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

:32:43.:32:48.

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

:32:49.:32:51.

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

:32:52.:32:55.

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

:32:56.:33:01.

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

:33:02.:33:05.

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

:33:06.:33:10.

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

:33:11.:33:14.

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

:33:15.:33:19.

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

:33:20.:33:24.

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

:33:25.:33:28.

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

:33:29.:33:35.

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

:33:36.:33:45.

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

:33:46.:33:50.

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

:33:51.:33:55.

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

:33:56.:33:59.

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

:34:00.:34:03.

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

:34:04.:34:06.

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

:34:07.:34:10.

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

:34:11.:34:18.

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

:34:19.:34:24.

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

:34:25.:34:30.

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

:34:31.:34:35.

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

:34:36.:34:41.

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

:34:42.:34:50.

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

:34:51.:34:54.

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

:34:55.:34:58.

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

:34:59.:35:02.

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

:35:03.:35:08.

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

:35:09.:35:17.

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

:35:18.:35:21.

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

:35:22.:35:23.

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

:35:24.:35:32.

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

:35:33.:35:40.

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

:35:41.:35:48.

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

:35:49.:35:58.

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

:35:59.:36:03.

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

:36:04.:36:08.

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

:36:09.:36:12.

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

:36:13.:36:16.

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

:36:17.:36:21.

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

:36:22.:36:26.

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

:36:27.:36:33.

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

:36:34.:36:39.

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

:36:40.:36:44.

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

:36:45.:36:49.

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

:36:50.:36:56.

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

:36:57.:36:58.

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

:36:59.:37:02.

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

:37:03.:37:08.

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

:37:09.:37:14.

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

:37:15.:37:18.

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

:37:19.:37:22.

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

:37:23.:37:26.

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

:37:27.:37:30.

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

:37:31.:37:35.

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

:37:36.:37:39.

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

:37:40.:37:42.

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

:37:43.:37:48.

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

:37:49.:37:51.

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

:37:52.:37:56.

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

:37:57.:38:00.

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

:38:01.:38:06.

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

:38:07.:38:11.

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

:38:12.:38:15.

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

:38:16.:38:20.

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

:38:21.:38:25.

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

:38:26.:38:30.

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

:38:31.:38:35.

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

:38:36.:38:39.

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

:38:40.:38:44.

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

:38:45.:38:48.

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

:38:49.:38:54.

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

:38:55.:38:58.

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

:38:59.:39:00.

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

:39:01.:39:03.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

:39:04.:39:13.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

:39:14.:39:16.

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

:39:17.:39:19.

between the Executive parties are tense after Martin McGuinness

:39:20.:39:22.

called on Arlene Foster to step aside as First Minister.

:39:23.:39:26.

I'll be asking the MP Jeffrey Donaldson

:39:27.:39:28.

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

:39:29.:39:34.

And with me throughout with their thoughts

:39:35.:39:36.

Tomorrow the First Minister will make a statement

:39:37.:39:46.

to the Assembly on the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme.

:39:47.:39:48.

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

:39:49.:39:51.

Minister, Jonathan Bell, made allegations against party

:39:52.:39:56.

colleagues which was countered by Arlene Foster making her own

:39:57.:39:58.

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

:39:59.:40:03.

to stand aside to allow an investigation into

:40:04.:40:06.

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

:40:07.:40:10.

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

:40:11.:40:15.

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

:40:16.:40:19.

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

:40:20.:40:23.

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

:40:24.:40:29.

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

:40:30.:40:34.

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

:40:35.:40:37.

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

:40:38.:40:41.

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

:40:42.:40:46.

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

:40:47.:40:52.

This is the first stage of the investigation, under our

:40:53.:40:55.

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

:40:56.:41:00.

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

:41:01.:41:04.

Absolutely, yes. He has been suspended without prejudice

:41:05.:41:10.

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

:41:11.:41:15.

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

:41:16.:41:21.

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

:41:22.:41:27.

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

:41:28.:41:31.

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

:41:32.:41:40.

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

:41:41.:41:44.

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

:41:45.:41:48.

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

:41:49.:41:53.

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

:41:54.:41:58.

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

:41:59.:42:01.

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

:42:02.:42:07.

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

:42:08.:42:14.

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

:42:15.:42:18.

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

:42:19.:42:21.

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

:42:22.:42:27.

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

:42:28.:42:34.

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

:42:35.:42:37.

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

:42:38.:42:41.

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

:42:42.:42:44.

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

:42:45.:42:48.

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

:42:49.:42:54.

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

:42:55.:42:58.

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

:42:59.:43:02.

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

:43:03.:43:05.

outcome, the party officers that officers will meet again and

:43:06.:43:09.

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

:43:10.:43:15.

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

:43:16.:43:19.

recognised that in doing the interview he was stepping outside of

:43:20.:43:23.

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

:43:24.:43:28.

criticising Arlene Foster? Rewrote the rules giving the interview in

:43:29.:43:31.

the first place without going through the party processes, without

:43:32.:43:35.

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

:43:36.:43:40.

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

:43:41.:43:46.

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

:43:47.:43:52.

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

:43:53.:43:57.

far worse walking out of the Ulster Unionist Party and subsequently

:43:58.:44:00.

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

:44:01.:44:04.

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

:44:05.:44:08.

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

:44:09.:44:13.

body, we recognised because the party was bringing disciplinary

:44:14.:44:16.

procedures against us and we recognised that the fault lines in

:44:17.:44:21.

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

:44:22.:44:31.

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

:44:32.:44:36.

criticised David Trimble before finally leaving the party. And we

:44:37.:44:41.

were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and we did what we

:44:42.:44:45.

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

:44:46.:44:50.

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

:44:51.:44:56.

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

:44:57.:45:00.

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

:45:01.:45:03.

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

:45:04.:45:08.

should Arlene Foster not stand aside now without prejudice pending an

:45:09.:45:12.

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

:45:13.:45:16.

indeed her partner in government Martin McGuinness has said. There

:45:17.:45:22.

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

:45:23.:45:27.

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

:45:28.:45:32.

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

:45:33.:45:35.

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

:45:36.:45:40.

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

:45:41.:45:44.

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

:45:45.:45:50.

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

:45:51.:45:54.

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

:45:55.:45:57.

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

:45:58.:46:05.

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

:46:06.:46:08.

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

:46:09.:46:13.

three years later. Does every minister remember the content of

:46:14.:46:18.

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

:46:19.:46:22.

the conversation but forgot the correspondence with the

:46:23.:46:27.

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

:46:28.:46:31.

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

:46:32.:46:35.

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

:46:36.:46:41.

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

:46:42.:46:44.

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

:46:45.:46:53.

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

:46:54.:46:56.

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

:46:57.:47:00.

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

:47:01.:47:03.

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

:47:04.:47:10.

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

:47:11.:47:13.

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

:47:14.:47:20.

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

:47:21.:47:27.

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

:47:28.:47:31.

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

:47:32.:47:36.

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

:47:37.:47:42.

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

:47:43.:47:47.

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

:47:48.:47:53.

the opposition parties lack confidence in their own MLAs to do

:47:54.:47:57.

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

:47:58.:48:01.

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

:48:02.:48:05.

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

:48:06.:48:10.

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

:48:11.:48:15.

goes beyond politicians investigation themselves. With four

:48:16.:48:25.

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

:48:26.:48:30.

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

:48:31.:48:36.

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

:48:37.:48:43.

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

:48:44.:48:48.

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

:48:49.:48:57.

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

:48:58.:49:00.

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

:49:01.:49:06.

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

:49:07.:49:11.

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

:49:12.:49:15.

disenfranchised in? You would be taking away the responsibility from

:49:16.:49:19.

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

:49:20.:49:25.

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

:49:26.:49:28.

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

:49:29.:49:33.

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

:49:34.:49:39.

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

:49:40.:49:44.

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

:49:45.:49:49.

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

:49:50.:49:52.

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

:49:53.:50:00.

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

:50:01.:50:04.

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

:50:05.:50:07.

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

:50:08.:50:12.

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

:50:13.:50:15.

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

:50:16.:50:20.

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

:50:21.:50:26.

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

:50:27.:50:30.

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

:50:31.:50:34.

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

:50:35.:50:37.

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

:50:38.:50:44.

every single document paper or record relevant, and crucially,

:50:45.:50:47.

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

:50:48.:50:51.

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

:50:52.:50:56.

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

:50:57.:50:59.

come to the assembly tomorrow will make herself accountable to the

:51:00.:51:03.

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

:51:04.:51:08.

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

:51:09.:51:13.

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

:51:14.:51:17.

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

:51:18.:51:20.

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

:51:21.:51:24.

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

:51:25.:51:28.

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

:51:29.:51:32.

given they may have serious reservations about the role she

:51:33.:51:36.

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

:51:37.:51:40.

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

:51:41.:51:43.

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

:51:44.:51:48.

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

:51:49.:51:50.

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

:51:51.:52:02.

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

:52:03.:52:05.

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

:52:06.:52:09.

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

:52:10.:52:13.

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

:52:14.:52:21.

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

:52:22.:52:26.

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

:52:27.:52:31.

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

:52:32.:52:36.

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

:52:37.:52:39.

In any department that employs thousands of civil servants, the

:52:40.:52:42.

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

:52:43.:52:49.

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

:52:50.:52:56.

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

:52:57.:53:01.

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

:53:02.:53:07.

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

:53:08.:53:10.

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

:53:11.:53:15.

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

:53:16.:53:19.

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

:53:20.:53:25.

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

:53:26.:53:28.

clear. Thank you very much for joining us today.

:53:29.:53:31.

Let's hear from Alex Kane and Allison Morris.

:53:32.:53:35.

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

:53:36.:53:41.

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

:53:42.:53:45.

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

:53:46.:53:49.

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

:53:50.:53:54.

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

:53:55.:53:58.

and inefficiencies and ineptitude and incompetence then suddenly

:53:59.:54:02.

exploded into this personal political psychological power

:54:03.:54:06.

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

:54:07.:54:12.

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

:54:13.:54:17.

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

:54:18.:54:22.

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

:54:23.:54:26.

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

:54:27.:54:30.

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

:54:31.:54:34.

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

:54:35.:54:36.

Minister has called upon the First Minister to stand aside even

:54:37.:54:40.

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

:54:41.:54:45.

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

:54:46.:54:48.

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

:54:49.:54:53.

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

:54:54.:54:58.

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

:54:59.:55:03.

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

:55:04.:55:06.

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

:55:07.:55:14.

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

:55:15.:55:18.

in the institution. Elected representatives and the PAC is the

:55:19.:55:21.

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

:55:22.:55:30.

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

:55:31.:55:33.

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

:55:34.:55:40.

clear that the public trust the public institutions but want

:55:41.:55:42.

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

:55:43.:55:46.

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

:55:47.:55:48.

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

:55:49.:55:49.

Fein in just a moment, but the opposition parties have

:55:50.:55:53.

called for a public inquiry into the whole renewable heating

:55:54.:55:56.

affair, while the SDLP and Alliance are also demanding that

:55:57.:56:00.

Arlene Foster stand aside. First, though,

:56:01.:56:02.

here's the Ulster Unionist Arlene Foster needs to understand

:56:03.:56:14.

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

:56:15.:56:18.

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

:56:19.:56:22.

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

:56:23.:56:27.

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

:56:28.:56:31.

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

:56:32.:56:35.

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

:56:36.:56:40.

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

:56:41.:56:46.

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

:56:47.:56:50.

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

:56:51.:56:54.

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

:56:55.:56:57.

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

:56:58.:57:02.

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

:57:03.:57:07.

bullying or party priorities, independently, and also need the

:57:08.:57:13.

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

:57:14.:57:17.

investigation to take place. The alliance leader Naomi Long.

:57:18.:57:19.

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

:57:20.:57:21.

for tomorrow's sitting of the Assembly.

:57:22.:57:23.

MLAs and party officials gathered in the Bogside area

:57:24.:57:25.

He pointed out that the party still has significant differences

:57:26.:57:29.

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

:57:30.:57:31.

and he repeated Martin McGuinness's call

:57:32.:57:33.

for Arlene Foster to stand aside.

:57:34.:57:34.

With me now is the Sinn Fein MLA Conor Murphy.

:57:35.:57:40.

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

:57:41.:57:44.

So, will you support the no confidence motion tomorrow?

:57:45.:57:48.

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

:57:49.:57:58.

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

:57:59.:58:05.

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

:58:06.:58:11.

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

:58:12.:58:15.

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

:58:16.:58:18.

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

:58:19.:58:26.

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

:58:27.:58:33.

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

:58:34.:58:36.

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

:58:37.:58:40.

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

:58:41.:58:45.

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

:58:46.:58:50.

an investigation, full transparent investigation into this matter and

:58:51.:58:53.

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

:58:54.:59:02.

Bell, to any role of Jonathan allegations about the special

:59:03.:59:06.

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

:59:07.:59:12.

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

:59:13.:59:15.

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

:59:16.:59:20.

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

:59:21.:59:27.

reconsider her answer. Others have stepped aside when there were

:59:28.:59:30.

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

:59:31.:59:34.

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

:59:35.:59:37.

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

:59:38.:59:44.

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

:59:45.:59:47.

public confidence and the functioning of the Executive. All

:59:48.:59:55.

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

:59:56.:59:59.

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

:00:00.:00:02.

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

:00:03.:00:05.

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

:00:06.:00:09.

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

:00:10.:00:12.

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

:00:13.:00:16.

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

:00:17.:00:23.

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

:00:24.:00:26.

responsibility in the Executive to get to the heart of these

:00:27.:00:29.

these very serious allegations about the operation of government by

:00:30.:00:35.

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

:00:36.:00:41.

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

:00:42.:00:49.

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

:00:50.:00:55.

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

:00:56.:01:02.

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

:01:03.:01:07.

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

:01:08.:01:10.

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

:01:11.:01:14.

not to back the opposition parties in expressing their lack of

:01:15.:01:21.

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

:01:22.:01:26.

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

:01:27.:01:34.

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

:01:35.:01:38.

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

:01:39.:01:43.

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

:01:44.:01:48.

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

:01:49.:01:59.

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

:02:00.:02:09.

allegations against survey in other like that Jeffrey Donaldson has been

:02:10.:02:12.

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

:02:13.:02:21.

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

:02:22.:02:27.

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

:02:28.:02:33.

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

:02:34.:02:40.

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

:02:41.:02:46.

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

:02:47.:02:51.

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

:02:52.:02:56.

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

:02:57.:02:59.

programme where you have a First Minister and a former senior

:03:00.:03:02.

colleague making allegations against each other, making allegations

:03:03.:03:08.

relating to senior DUP members of government, special advisers in

:03:09.:03:11.

government, that takes it beyond what the Public Accounts Committee

:03:12.:03:14.

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

:03:15.:03:17.

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

:03:18.:03:20.

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

:03:21.:03:28.

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

:03:29.:03:36.

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

:03:37.:03:41.

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

:03:42.:03:44.

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

:03:45.:03:53.

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

:03:54.:04:01.

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

:04:02.:04:05.

the opposition motion of no-confidence in the chamber

:04:06.:04:07.

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

:04:08.:04:12.

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

:04:13.:04:15.

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

:04:16.:04:20.

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

:04:21.:04:24.

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

:04:25.:04:29.

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

:04:30.:04:33.

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

:04:34.:04:40.

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

:04:41.:04:45.

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

:04:46.:04:51.

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

:04:52.:04:59.

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

:05:00.:05:02.

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

:05:03.:05:07.

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

:05:08.:05:10.

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

:05:11.:05:16.

people will find this impossible to understand. Martin McGuinness says

:05:17.:05:21.

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

:05:22.:05:23.

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

:05:24.:05:33.

McGuinness said should happen. We have argued or rather Martin

:05:34.:05:36.

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

:05:37.:05:42.

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

:05:43.:05:46.

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

:05:47.:05:49.

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

:05:50.:05:55.

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

:05:56.:05:58.

sense of anger related to the scheme. Party colleagues tearing

:05:59.:06:07.

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

:06:08.:06:12.

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

:06:13.:06:14.

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

:06:15.:06:18.

Deputy First Minister says she should think about it over Christmas

:06:19.:06:21.

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

:06:22.:06:26.

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

:06:27.:06:30.

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

:06:31.:06:34.

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

:06:35.:06:37.

recommendation given that this has gone bananas -- beyond ineptitude

:06:38.:06:42.

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

:06:43.:06:49.

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

:06:50.:06:53.

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

:06:54.:06:56.

Martin McGuinness and Arlene Foster? How damaged if the relationship

:06:57.:07:00.

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

:07:01.:07:04.

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

:07:05.:07:08.

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

:07:09.:07:12.

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

:07:13.:07:14.

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

:07:15.:07:18.

to the Assembly and the no confidence debate that follows,

:07:19.:07:20.

you can see it live on the BBC Parliament channel

:07:21.:07:23.

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

:07:24.:07:36.

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

:07:37.:07:39.

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

:07:40.:07:45.

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

:07:46.:07:47.

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

:07:48.:07:51.

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

:07:52.:07:53.

everyone else are busy feeling pressure from the public and the

:07:54.:07:57.

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

:07:58.:08:01.

independent enquiry at these state deeds lease the public should accept

:08:02.:08:05.

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

:08:06.:08:12.

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

:08:13.:08:16.

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

:08:17.:08:20.

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

:08:21.:08:24.

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

:08:25.:08:28.

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

:08:29.:08:32.

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

:08:33.:08:35.

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

:08:36.:08:42.

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

:08:43.:08:48.

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

:08:49.:08:56.

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

:08:57.:08:59.

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

:09:00.:09:05.

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

:09:06.:09:09.

Sinn Fein trying to position themselves in terms of negotiating a

:09:10.:09:13.

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

:09:14.:09:16.

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

:09:17.:09:19.

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

:09:20.:09:25.

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

:09:26.:09:28.

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

:09:29.:09:30.

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

:09:31.:09:34.

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

:09:35.:09:50.

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

:09:51.:09:57.

ex-servicemen are being treated differently to the most exclusive

:09:58.:10:00.

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

:10:01.:10:05.

challenged and redressed. Conclusion continues over who is responsible

:10:06.:10:08.

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

:10:09.:10:15.

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

:10:16.:10:19.

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

:10:20.:10:23.

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

:10:24.:10:26.

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

:10:27.:10:30.

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

:10:31.:10:34.

amount of money with the common agricultural policy from the British

:10:35.:10:36.

Government. And the Justice Minister presents a prediction claiming 300

:10:37.:10:44.

sounds -- signatures consists of multiple petitions in fact instead

:10:45.:10:46.

of just the one. Gareth Gordon, there,

:10:47.:10:49.

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

:10:50.:10:51.

sees the return of the Assembly Alex and Allison, what

:10:52.:10:54.

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

:10:55.:11:12.

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

:11:13.:11:18.

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

:11:19.:11:21.

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

:11:22.:11:26.

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

:11:27.:11:30.

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

:11:31.:11:36.

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

:11:37.:11:41.

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

:11:42.:11:45.

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

:11:46.:11:49.

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

:11:50.:11:52.

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

:11:53.:11:55.

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

:11:56.:11:58.

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

:11:59.:12:03.

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

:12:04.:12:06.

directly with leaving the scheme open and allowing the issue to

:12:07.:12:12.

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

:12:13.:12:16.

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

:12:17.:12:23.

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

:12:24.:12:27.

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

:12:28.:12:30.

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

:12:31.:12:35.

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

:12:36.:12:38.

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

:12:39.:12:43.

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

:12:44.:12:48.

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

:12:49.:12:52.

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

:12:53.:12:58.

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

:12:59.:13:03.

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

:13:04.:13:10.

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

:13:11.:13:12.

That's it from Sunday Politics for 2016.

:13:13.:13:13.

There will be a special Stormont Today

:13:14.:13:15.

on BBC Two at 11 o'clock tomorrow evening

:13:16.:13:17.

featuring that statement by Arlene Foster

:13:18.:13:18.

and the debate on the no confidence motion.

:13:19.:13:20.

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

:13:21.:13:22.

The most a writer can hope from a reader

:13:23.:14:03.

Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers are joined by Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Dorrell, chair of the NHS Confederation, and John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace.

Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, Iain Martin of Reaction and Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun review the papers.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS