09/07/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Donald Trump says he wants to do a "powerful" trade deal

Theresa May says other countries are ready to talk too.

But could the transitional deal with the EU that some are pushing

for scupper the Prime Minister's plans?

Having defied expectation in last month's general election,

are Jeremy Corbyn and his allies about to purge the party

The deadliest fire in London since the Second World War has

devastated a community and shocked Britain, but will the political

storm that's blown up in its aftermath help uncover

And coming up here: Deadlock at Stormont.

What will it take to get the institutions back?

We'll hear from the former Secretary of State, Peter Hain.

Plus - is all the political uncertainty

impacting on economic growth? on breaking away from the capital.

If we are darking today we apoll jierks it could be a power cut or

the BBC is trying to save money with its fuel bill! Assuming you can see

them... And with me - as always -

for TV's second most keenly watched on-screen relationships

after Love Island, the Sunday Politics panel -

Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer They'll be tweeting

throughout the programme. So - Donald Trump says a trade

deal with UK could be Theresa May says that

other world leaders, including those of China,

India and Japan, are also keen to do President and PM were speaking at

the G20 summit of the world's major President and PM were speaking at

the G20 summit of the world's major But could the transitional

deal that some want, that would keep the UK in the EU's

single market and Customs Union for several years after exit,

put paid to those plans? Here's what the man likely to be

the next Lib Dem leader - Vince Cable - told the Marr show

earlier. I'm beginning to think that

Brexit may never happen, The problems are so enormous,

the divisions within the two major parties are so enormous,

I can see a scenario We're joined now from

Shropshire by the former Conservative Cabinet Minister

and leading Brexit Ogise, it could be a power cut or

the BBC is trying to save money with its fuel bill! Assuming you can see

them... Good morning to you, Vince Cable says that he thinks Brexit may

now not happen, what do you say to that? What is new? Vince Cable

always wanted to stay in the European Union, he is chucking

buckets of water round, we had a huge vote last year, we had an

enormous vote in the House of Commons, 494 votes to trigger

Article 50, we had an election campaign in which the two main

parties took 85% of the vote they back the speech and leaving the

customs union and the single market and the ECJ and Vince Cable's party

went down in votes as did the other parties that want to stay in the

European Union. So Vince is behind history, we are going to leave, we

are on target, Michael Gove triggered leaving the 1964 London

convention so we can take back control of the seas and bring back a

sane fishing policy and more important getting environmental

gained in our marine environment, so... You think we are still heading

for the exit but Mrs May called the election because she wanted a

mandate for her version of Brexit. She didn't get it. Surely you can't

just continue with business as usual? Well, we have been over the

election, we did not get the number of sees we wanted but on votes, we

got 13.7 million, that is more than the great Blair landslide. You had

an overall majority and you lost it. That is a fact. I said that. We know

that. So you didn't get the mandate. We got the vote! We got a lot votes

and so did the Labour Party. You know we are in a Parliamentary

system where what matters is the number of seats you get in the

Commons, you know enough about the British constitution to know a that

is what determines the mandate. Not the number of votes, we are not a

Presidential system. I am First Minister throughly wear

of that. 85% of the election voted for parties that wanted to leave. If

you take votes in the Commons last week on the Queen's Speech not a

single Conservative MP abstained or voted against and the Labour Party

unwisely, Chuka Umunna triggered and amendment wanting us to stay in the

customs union and got hammered. So, I am clear that we have to deliver

this, much the most important point in all this, is if we do not deliver

a proper Brexit which means leaving the single market, leaving the

customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, there will be appalling

damage to the integrity of the whole establishment. Not just political,

you, the media, and the judicial establishment. Some would say that

damage has already been done in other area, let us look at the

detail. Under Article 50 Britain leaves the EU in 20 months which

means the deal will have to be done in 15 or 16 months to allow for

people to approve it in the various Parliaments and so son. Progress has

the been glacial. We have only just begun. Why should there not be a

transitional deal that keep some of the current arrangements in place to

mitigate this falling off a cliff? As Liam said in the Commons, Liam

who? Liam Fox, this should be one of the easiest ever deals to conclude,

because already, we have zero tariffs, already we have complete

conformty on standards and already, those who are negotiating with us

have an enormous surplus, the Germans sold an enormous number of

cars, so that is the basis on which, if you look at Nafta... We haven't

even started talking about free trade yet. That is not on the agenda

yet. Let me finish. If you look at Nafta, that took 14 months, we are

starting on a basis of mutual recognition of all our standard and

zero tariffs so yes, there will be an implementation period but it is

very very important politically this is concluded fast, as a huge

economic imperative as well, because it is uncertainty about this that

will damage future investment and job, the quicker we get on with it

and we know where we are going and we can reach out to the world, we

can take advantage of the fact stated on the European Commission

website that 9 a 5% of the world's growth is going to come from outside

European Union, which is what we are seeing, we have seen sales go from

61% to 43% and it is tumbling to 43%. We cannot take advantage of

these wonderful opportunities in the wider world... Why not? Why not?

Germany does. Because they can't conclude free trade deals. Germany

runs a balance of payment surplus, it finds it possible to trade with

the rest of the EU and with the rest of the world. It has a bigger

surplus than China, if Germany can do both why can't we? They can't.

They can't conclude deal, we Trump wants to do a deal with us. You saw

Theresa May sitting down with the economies of the future, India,

China, South Korea, these are all longing to do more business with us,

we can only do that once we are out of the customs union, that is vital

for the future of this country, that is where the future growth is. The

business in this country says we should stay in the single market and

the customs union, at least through a transition period. Does that count

for nothing, is Tory party now so antebusiness it ignores the wealth

creators? I think what you are saying is that the CBI which

represents very large organisations has made that statement, but talking

to business widely, and smaller private businesses which dominate

the economy, what is vital on this is to have a rapid implementation

period. That is what is important. And there has to be clarity of where

we are going, if we are in permanent limbo which will take a enormous

amount of negotiation and will take ratification by the 27 countries and

the European Parliament as well as our own, that will drag things out.

What we need to do is a clean Claire statement of reciprocal free trade

which should be really pretty easy to negotiate because we have that,

we have conformty of standard, we have an implementation period. That

needs to be done rapidly. Latest by the next election. OK, we shall see

how simple it turns out to be. Thank you for joining us here.

What do you make of this increasing talk of transition period in which

it is not clear, we remain full members of the single market, full

members of the customs union? Which came we cannot conclude very

quickly, in Mr Trump's word a free trade deal? This is where the battle

is now heading, between Brexiteer, levers, re-levers and the lot of it.

This will be really what the only thing we could achieve in the next

negotiations, what has changed since the general election which you were

touching on there, is of course Brussels in the year 2017 are no

longer negotiating with Theresa May, they are negotiating with the House

of Commons and the you know majority for a softer Brexit, so this will

begin, the transition deal will define the rest of deal, the rest of

the final relationship, so getting the transition on the right

trajectory is crucial, hence why you have Philip Hammond making a major

play to try and keep one foot in the EU, if not necessarily in the custom

union and the single market and everyone else says get out. These

are the opening skirmishes on what will certainly be the nettle that

will will be grasped round about some time between October and spring

next year. Are you worried that the election result, the fact that she

didn't get this mandate that she had looked for and she has ended up in a

weaker position than she was before the election, is going to make

Brexit more difficult, it is going to muddy the water, it means her

idea of Brexit is not necessarily the one that become Brexit? Yes I am

worried are about as a Brexiteer, the same remain yaks would have been

trying to scupper the will of the British people as expressed in June

2016. Now they might succeed. I don't think any will succeed. We

have to stop this nonsense and the media included, of this talk of soft

Brexit an transition period. We have a transition period once we are out

when we are leading to the next process, with have to be out of the

single market, and not under the European Court of Justice. All

within the two years, all by March... That happens automatically,

then we can agree for a two, three year max, three year period we will

have a position as we move to the new deal, but I don't think there

many Leave voters, most Remain voters accept that result, unlike

the people like the CBI who are fighting against it still, they will

accept anything more than that. I think Owen Paterson is right. We are

in a situation where we will face some serious disflus the

establishment, the political world, the Melissa Reidia if we don't obey

the will of the people. What do you make of the reports in the Sunday

papers, it was only ten days ago, two weeks' ago Mr Hammond was going

to be the caretaker leader, that is a story that didn't seem to last

48-hour, but what do you make of the remain MPs on both sides of the

House, plus peers, are going to try to derail this repeal act, that the

Government needs to push EU law on to the UK statute book. I I think

they will use it to at certain key points to attempt to defeat the

Government, not over the whole thing, this summer reminds me so

much of the summer of 92 who the Maastricht Treaty coming into a

fragile John Major Government, and people then were plotting, in the

opposite direction, Eurosceptics to try and stop that. He won with a

huge percentage of the vote. Tiny majority, 23, bigger than she would

have died for that. A shock victory. The The summer was full of talk and

plotting, some which came to fruition in the sessions after and

some will come into fruition from this autumn on ward where you will

see alliances across the Commons manned the Lords, there will be

moments of high Parliamentary drama, I think. Sounds like a long hot

autumn. An a long hot autumn, and winter.

Winter too? I thought it was all global warming. This will add to the

temperature! Now, Jeremy Corbyn may not

have won the election, but by confounding almost everyone's

expectations he is unassailable as Labour leader for

the foreseeable future. So what does that mean for his MPs,

most of whom - just a year ago - Labour's new chairman and key

cupping Ally said last week the party may be too broad church. He

also seemed to endorse the idea of deselecting labour MPs critical of

the leadership by saying if you get deselected there must be a reason.

But he has since wrote back from his comments in another interview. Chris

Williamson, the newly appointed labour frontbencher said some of his

colleagues in the Parliamentary party think they have a God-given

right to rule. He also said that if MPs don't support the leadership's

programme, local constituency parties should find someone else who

will. And in the seat of liveable waiver treats this week, left wing

supporters of Jeremy Corbyn won several positions on the committee.

One said she must get on board quite quickly now, and also publicly

apologise for not supporting Mr Corbyn in the past. Some Labour MPs

rushed to Luciano Berger's defends. Elsewhere, a list of 49 Labour MPs

was published, and they said these usual suspects should join the

Liberals. The list included prominent former frontbencher is

like Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna and tidying -- Heidi Alexander.

And this is what the Shadow Education Secretary

and Jeremy Corbyn ally, Angela Rayner, had to say earlier.

Anyone that talks of deselecting any of my colleagues,

frankly they need to think about actually, who are

Who are making the problems for our communities at the moment?

Who have made those disastrous policies that are hurting the people

It doesn't help them if we're fighting each other.

We're joined now from Sheffield by former

Labour Cabinet Minister, Caroline Flint.

Welcome to the programme. Labour frontbencher Chris Williamson has

said, where Labour MPs don't support the leadership's programme it's

incumbent on local members to find someone else who will. What do you

make of that? I think it's very sad that talk of deselection is the line

people are taking. We had an election where 262 Labour MPs, very

different ones, have all won a mandate from their electorate and

our job is, as Angela Rayner said this morning, is to focus on a

government that is in disarray and how we can learn from the general

election to broaden our appeal but also develop our policy is ready in

time for the next election whenever that is called so I think all talk

of deselection is misplaced and doesn't help Labour. But do you feel

a purge of what is often referred to as the moderates in your party is

now inevitable? No, because we have been here before in the 1980s when

talk of deselection was suggested, it didn't happen in the way people

thought it would, and I do believe, hearing how Ian Lee very, and I have

worked with him in the 2010, 2015 government and I have worked with

Chris Williamson, Ian has already refined what he said, and what he's

clearly was this deselection talk and the way to go ahead on it is not

the right way forward. We to focus on looking outwards to understand

that we have across the party hard-working Labour MPs with maybe

different views across the Labour political spectrum, and I would have

to say that Luciana is one of the most hard-working MPs in Parliament

and homework on mental health is outstanding. That may be true, let's

look at Luciana Berger's constituency. One of the committee

members on her committee says she now has to get on board quite

quickly. And even publicly apologise for past disloyalty. The direction

of travel is clear, isn't it? That is one person on a committee in one

constituency... Where there is a majority for that point of view now.

I don't think there is, and the truth is... They took nine seat. Her

constituency is all of the members in that constituency and what I

would say, and I don't know this individual, look at the track record

of Luciana and what she has done. Jeremy, in the 20 years I have been

an MP under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, voted against the

Labour whip on numerous occasions, he has been very upfront and honest

about this, do you know in those 20 years I never heard anybody say

about Jeremy or anybody else who didn't vote with the Labour whip

that they should face deselection or apologise. I think that represents

the broad church of the Labour Party and we should look at what brings us

together rather than differences on policy point of view and we should

be looking outwards and dealing with that and working on it. You have

said that three times but it has not happened and it may be that the

people around Mr Corbyn, they think moderates like you, your day is

over. You lost the 2015 election badly, you allowed Jeremy Corbyn to

stand as leader, you failed to stop him twice, you thought he would make

a mess of the June election and he didn't. Can you blame his supporters

for wanting a career out of people who took these positions? I think

there are some people who supported and still support Jeremy who feel

that way but I don't believe they represent the people who supported

Jeremy, and I don't believe Jeremy thinks this is in the best interests

of the party. Only a few weeks ago John McDonnell praised my work on

tax transparency. Since my election I have bumped into Jeremy and we

have had a chat about what happened in the election and Jeremy

recognises that we were up against an arrogant Tory party and has said

to me he does understand this and said to the broader Parliamentary

Labour Party... If I could just finish... What has he said about

deselection? For example he said to me that he recognised that we have

won in numerous places in outstanding circumstances but he's

also said to me that he recognises that we need to broaden our reach

and understand why we were working-class voters. That says to

me that that is a leader who is up for and open to looking at the

reasons why we were successful and the reasons we weren't and he wasn't

closing down conversation on that. I take him on his word on that. He has

not said that publicly. What we need from a leader is to challenge our

party about where to go next and he has said that, Diane Abbott has said

at a conference I was at a few weeks ago that we need now to look at our

manifesto and look more clearly issues around tax and spend policies

because obviously clearly now we have more time to look at those

issues and also we may be facing a very different election when the

time comes. That's what I want from the leadership team, talk about how

we improve our message and reach, and by doing that get away from what

song, a minority I have to say, are saying about deselection.

Corbynistas like Paul Mason think moderates like you were to blame for

the defeat. He said moderates were always attacking Mr Corbyn, that is

quite popular view in the Jeremy Corbyn wing. I think that is Paul

Mason's view and he is fundamentally wrong. When we look at the results

of the last election, we can see a continuing from 2015 where Labour is

losing support among older voters and what we see is in this election

in 2017 Labour has... I think we are at our highest point amongst the

middle-class voters compared to where we were in 1979 but the Tories

are highest among working-class voters since 1979 as well. Those

working-class voters weren't voting for a more left alternative to

Labour and sadly they were voting Tory and we have to address that

because our party is this broad church and representing

working-class people is at the heart of what the Labour Party is about

and that's a discussion we need to have. That is the depth of

discussion we need to get into. That would put's with a fighting chance

of taking on a Tory party that is in disarray. Caroline Flint, thank you

for joining us. This week it was announced

that the Grenfell Tower inquiry would hold its first public hearings

in September, as it prepares to begin to examine

what caused the tragedy. But some have warned

that the situation now needs to be de-politicised,

or it will damage In a moment we'll hear from the MP

for Kensington and Chelsea where the Grenfell Tower

fire took place. But first Emma Vardy looks at how

political arguments have played a significant part in the aftermath

of this terrible event. When you come here and you actually

see it, your immediate thoughts are about the people,

not about the politics. What happened up there is just

so difficult to comprehend. But in the days after this tragedy,

there was such outrage at governments and authorities,

it became a political storm that those

in power struggled to respond to. We want justice, we want

justice, we want justice... People vented their anger outside

Kensington town Hall. A visit to the Grenfell site

by Theresa May saw her forced At Prime Minister's Questions,

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn linked What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower

has exposed is a disastrous And speaking at Glastonbury,

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Those families, those individuals,

79 so far and there will be more, were murdered by political decisions

that were taken over recent decades. I can't remember a major national

tragedy that has been politicised I think using terms like murder

is completely reckless The key thing is that we try

to ascertain the facts this tragedy occurred to ensure

it can never be repeated. And as soon as you introduce emotive

phrases or emotive accusations or emotive allegations of that

nature, then the discourse The whole debate around the tragedy

becomes politicised and it makes it Some argue the political language

that was used was wrong and helped to ramp up the vitriol

in an unhelpful way, but for others, it was

entirely justified. That's what an opposition party

is for, it's to challenge the Government and to ask the right

questions and I think people round here would say thank goodness,

there's somebody in politics Pilgrim Tucker had helped

Grenfell Tower residents campaign for building improvements

in previous years, and returned I've been to meetings before

the fire and I've been to meetings since the fire,

attended by ordinary residents with no involvement in politics

and they are saying very political things about land in London

and property ownership in London, Had we campaigned harder,

would we have prevented this? Fire safety campaigners say

they were trying to draw attention to certain issues long before

what happened at Grenfell Tower, and say it's no one political party

but the whole system has failed. It's easy to say, "You've got

an inquiry, let's wait for that." We already know two

very clear things. Had the people there been

protected by sprinklers, People don't die in homes

protected by sprinklers. The second thing is the outrage

that the building regulations had They should be done

year in, year out. Generally people in house

fires die in ones, twos or threes, which doesn't make

a political statement. So the political parties

haven't really needed They weren't prepared for 70 or more

people to die at once The public inquiry, which will

address some of those issues, has already faced calls

for its newly appointed And that was a view

echoed by the Labour MP You would call on him,

would you, to stand down? I don't think there will be any

credibility and some people are saying they won't cooperate

with it so it's not going to work. I will look into this matter

to the very best of my ability... I think the attacks on the chair

have to cease, I think the attacks It actually makes it harder to get

to the facts and get to the truth and that's the most

important thing now. Some said it was unavoidable

that this tragedy became political, but will the politics help get

to the truth? I'm joined now by the Labour

MP for Kensington - who we heard at the end of that film

- Emma Dent Coad. Now this judge, leading the Grenfell

inquiry, have you met him? I haven't met him, no. So what evidence do you

have that he doesn't in your words understand human beings? Well, I am

reflecting what people are telling me out there, that they as soon as

his name was announced everybody looked up his credentials, they

found a particular case he had been involved in, the very issue that

people are most worried about, post Grenfell is they will be moved out

of the borough somewhere else. This issue about social cleansing. It was

insensitive to have chosen somebody with that on his record. Whether he

made that decision according to the rules. It is one judgment in a long

career, he may be able to defend what he did. You have said he

doesn't understand human beings but you have told us you have never met

him? It is nothing to do with meeting him. It is the system where

people have to be friends in order to work together, judged by the

evidence, judge by what people have done that, judge by merit and

whether or not you can be friendly. What has he done wrong in his

career? It is symbolic the issue he made a decision about, it is

symbolic for everybody. I am reflecting the community who are

been betrayed. You don't think in your often view you don't take the

view he doesn't understand human beings. Personally I do. I do

actually but I am reflecting what people are saying, the people who

elected me, who have been badly betrayed by the authority, they are

seeing it that way, they have been betrayed and now they see you know,

they worst fear is this will be used top socially cleanse north

Kensington. What is the evidence for that? About social cleansing? No,

this will be used to do so. Whether or not there is ever, there is no

trust in somebody who has been part of that process. He has been chosen

by the Lord Chief Justice, not as the Prime Minister as some have

said. He has a long ex perness of commercial contracts and disaster,

both of which will be vital. It is a lot to do with overlapping

commercial contract, he is a specialist in that area, what bit

doesn't make his qualified and and doesn't he reflect the independence

of the judiciary? Well, we certainly need somebody who can do the detail.

This is a human disaster as much as anything else. We need somebody who,

we saw in the meeting there, there is a lot of anger and people aren't

trusting. . That would be true, we all understand the anger, of course,

but that would be true whoever was chosen. Are you really after... Do

you want someone to head up this inquiry that will give you a show

trial rather than an independent inquiry. It is exactly the opposite.

. Woe won't give us a show trial, is he? If there is no trust, people

won't co-operate with him. A lot of people will need to co-operate with

him. Some of the groups are not involved, they are protest groups

who are not representing the victims, or the survivors, we have

very little evidence that those who directly affected by this are saying

they are not going to co-operate. Well, everybody who lives round

there is a victim to some extent, they have all been affected, myself

as well, I live three blocksia from it and a lot of the groups are very

much involved in that community, not only the people who lived there who

survived, but some of the campaign groups have been campaigning for

years about social housing in area. What sort of person to you think

should head up the inquiry is this If it has to be Martin, we need an

advisory panel with representatives from different groups who can at

least advise and feed in information, at least if we have no

choice, we need at least that. But rather than him, what sort of

person? I am not sure, are you saying he should remain but he needs

to be assisted by a panel or he should be replaced? If we have no

choice, then we should have an advisory panel to back it up.

Something that people trust in. At the moment they don't trust the

process, which is understandable, and his name was announced the same

day as the Hillsborough disaster, the criminal investigation and so

on, that after 28 year, this is what people, how people see it. They

want, they don't trust the process s it won't work proppism it is not

just what I think, it is what people who are directly involved thing.

John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor says people who died at Grenfell

were murdered by political decision do you agree? That is a strong way

of putting it. I know a lot of people feel like that. There is

massive failure of political decision, I have seen that

happening. But murder? That is an active verb. It means you intended

to kill. So for Mr McDonnell to be right, these were political

decisions taken intended to kill. I don't share his view on that

particular issue, there has been a failure of care, for many, many

years and a failure of investment for many year, as I have seen

myself. But part of the problem has been investment. They had nine

million spent on this block I was looking at it today, the other tower

blocks round it have not been clad. Of course if they had gone on fire,

the disaster would not have been on the same scale. Nine million helped

to produce this. In indeed. The process of how that building was

refurbished. It says it is to make it look better, half a mile down the

road, the tower blocks have been clad, they were clad in mineral

wool. I spent a day at a seminar by chance understanding, it is

non-combustible. Who made that decision to use rain cladding rather

than mineral wool. You were on the the board of who took that decision.

The council had no say about the specification, we didn't have any

involvement at all. It didn't come before you, because it has tenants

on it too. The TMO does, The advisory committee to the TMO. There

is the TMO. I was not there at the time. As far as I understand a sub

group decided or reviewed the specifications of that. The housing

and property committee is part of the council. Obviously you a say,

but whether or not, we don't have any say at all over specification, I

want to say somebody because I have been accused of... That because my

predecessor said I should take responsibility, a clueing colleague

of mine got beaten up for that, there is no foundation for that

allegation. I thank you for clearing that up. Thank you for joining us

too. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20

minutes, The Week Ahead. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. After all the talk of

deals and deadlines, negotiations at Stormont have

ended without agreement. So what next for the

devolved institutions? We'll hear from a former Secretary

of State who was involved in getting power-sharing up and running

ten years ago. Plus, with the Department of Finance

left holding the purse strings, how long before uncertainty starts

to impact on our economic growth? We'll hear from an economist

and from the past president of the Construction Employers'

Federation. And with their thoughts

on all of that, my guests of the day MLAs should be looking forward

to the start of their summer break, but after months of talking

and several missed deadlines, any chance of them returning

to the Assembly chamber But the parties have been in this

situation before and managed to negotiate a way through it -

so will the summer break help or hinder the process

of getting a deal? I'm joined by the former Secretary

of State, Lord Hain, who was involved in the negotiations

that led to the re-establishment No-one seems to be quite sure where

we are with this at the moment. There seem to be more

questions than answers. Everybody is in the same place and

that's the problem. My position would be to support my successor as

so set -- Secretary of State and the government of Northern Ireland, but

the truth is there has been a shocking dereliction of

responsibility by both governments, British and Irish, there is nobody

at the helm, nobody is taking any initiatives to drive this board,

there is a sense of drift and the Secretary of State last week said it

would all be sorted by the end of the week, he has been making those

noises for months and it never was and nobody last week believed it

would be. There has to be a sense of change and Northern Ireland deserves

better than this. You and I spoke last week just before the deadline

happened and you were a tad more diplomatic and what you had to say.

This is strong language from you today, suggesting the government has

failed, James Brokenshire has failed. Do you think it goes up to

the steps of Number 10? Michelle O'Neill says a monumental failure on

behalf of Theresa May, do you share that view? I'm not backing any

party's view but telling it as I see it, and my successor, Paul Murphy,

and I both warned in the House of Lords six months ago that unless

there was a summit of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, a high event

to sort this out, we could get into trouble and it gives me no pleasure

to say that has happened. I do not believe the whole problem in

Northern Ireland has been properly gripped, either in London or Dublin

four years, and especially over the past year and we have got into this

terrible impasse and it's very serious, the last time the Assembly

was suspended it took five years to get it up and running again and now

we are over six months and drifting further into the autumn and winter,

who knows when? And this is a critical time for Northern Ireland,

not because of the Troubles but because Brexit, whereas Wales is

making its input, Scotland and England is having it say directly in

negotiations, in Wales and Scotland's case through the

government, in London's case to the mayor yet the voice of Northern

Ireland through its politicians is silent and that is a terrible

dereliction of responsibility. You say there needs to be a high-level

summit, are you saying the situation cannot be resolved satisfactorily

without the personal engagement of the Prime Minister and Taoiseach?

Has it got that far? Yes, unquestionably, it should have

happened earlier and it should happen now. It's no good hoping to

get an agreement within days when everyone knows that is moonshine, no

good saying it may happen in such timbre. September will come and go

and there will be no agreement because there is no sense of anybody

driving this and I blame those at the top, especially of the British

government, the Prime Minister especially and the Taoiseach, the

card the government of Britain and Ireland from the Good Friday process

on Word have both taken responsibility for this issue and

Northern Ireland deserves a lot better than a Prime Minister or

Taoiseach who have taken their eye off the ball and a Secretary of

State and others who may be paddling furiously under the water but there

is no sense of any drive and no sense of any consequences for

Northern Ireland's politicians of not doing their jobs. It's

interesting that you should use this language, markedly different from

the language used by the Shadow Secretary of State, Owen Smith, and

Jeremy Corbyn has not been criticising Theresa May on this

particular issue, failing to deal with the impasse in Northern

Ireland, so are you alone voice and are you implicitly criticising the

leadership of your own party? Not at all. Owen Smith and Jeremy Corbyn

are taking their traditional stance of trying to be as supportive as

possible in Parliament. But supporting a strategy that you have

told me cannot work. As a former Secretary of State, I think I'm in a

different position, I'm not involved in the parliamentary front line

situation as I was, and I can tell it straight as I see it and it's not

just to me, it's my predecessor Paul Murphy, who said much the same,

columnists like Alex Kane who you have on the programme, who was

saying much the same and he was a former Ulster unionist director of

communications. What would you do now if you were James Brokenshire

are? He talked about profound and serious implications if the deadline

was not met, it wasn't met and none of us are wiser as to what those

implications are. What would you do if you were back here as Secretary

of State? Would you cut MLAs' salaries or threatened to introduce

water charges? I would have the Prime Minister at my side as I did

under Tony Blair and the Irish Foreign Minister did with Bertie R

Hearn, those two word gripping this on a daily basis over years so I

would be in a different position but I did take editions, and it's not

for me to do -- to say to the current Secretary of State what he

should do, but I took the view that unless there was progress of a

systematic kind which eventually succeeded, I would take away MLA

expenses which meant their staff would have to be given notice and

also the party funding, the parties together with their expenses and

direct party funding at Stormont, they are getting millions of pounds

and yet they are the only group of Northern Ireland workers who are not

going to work and earning their salaries. So far there is a lot of

character... That has to be on the agenda. We have a lot of carrot and

no stick, you are saying James Brokenshire need to think seriously

about an inventory of sanctions if he is going to cajole politicians to

coming to an agreement, or he will set more deadlines and we will drive

a coach through them as well. Clearly deadlines mean nothing and

that means you have no credibility as a government if you set deadlines

that are not met. That was the position I took on the consequences

of no deal, I also introduced water charges and a ban on academic

selection and when those proved unpopular I said to the politicians,

OK, if you don't like them, you take responsibility, negotiate a deal

with the others and get on with the jobs you are supposed to do but the

buck should stop at Number 10 and in Dublin and they have not taken

charge, that is were the main problem lies. Briefly, Lord came, as

things stand, do you think we are inevitably looking at the

reintroduction of direct rule? I do, I cannot see where else we are going

and that would be a tragedy. I thought I was the last direct rule

Secretary of State in 2007, it would be an absolute tragedy and a

dangerous time for Northern Ireland with the broader question the

elephant in the room, Brexit having enormous consequences for Northern

Ireland. Very interesting to hear your thoughts, thank you for joining

us from Wales. Let's hear from my guests of

the day, Alex Kane and Anna Mercer. Not pulling any punches. He is not,

although when Peter was Secretary of State, Sinn Fein and the DUP had

just eclipsed the UUP and SDLP, they wanted to do a deal, they both had

something to prove and that has gone, neither has anything to prove

and he's right about direct rule, these parties want to govern but not

together. How do you see it? There is a lack of experience

across-the-board, we have two new leaders, our Secretary of State is

pretty new in the job, previous crises we may have had bigger

figures, Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson and Paisley, who had that

experience of trying to push things went it didn't seem like anyone was

moving. At the moment we want to create a winner and a loser and we

need a win for everyone. What about the notion that Prime Minister and

Taoiseach need to be personally engaged or there is no chance of

momentum? I don't see where else the leadership will come from.

Westminster goes into recess on the 20th of July, we have heard there

will not be budget legislation before then, do we go to another

election? What will change, I'm not sure, and Sinn Fein and the DUP are

seeing strong results on both sides so why should they move? Interesting

Sinn Fein has not called for another election. They know it will bring

them back with the same figures and they don't need a summit, Theresa

May and the Taoiseach have no particular interest, just lock them

in a room and say you have three months and if you don't do a deal,

everything is closed. Well, while we are without

an Assembly and an Executive, government departments must

still continue to provide public services and spend

their money accordingly. But how long can we continue

without either local or hands-on direct rule ministers

and what impact is it In a moment we'll hear

from the economist Paul MacFlynn and Rhona Quinn, who's a former

president of the Construction But first here's our business

correspondent, Julian O'Neill. Stormont collapsed without having

set a budget for this year, leaving senior civil servants in control of

the departmental spending but the cash flow is constrained in the

circumstances, the civil servants got only 75% of the block grant

allocation to begin with and by the end of this month it will move to

95%. In theory this leaves a ?500 million shortfall but a budget and

access to all the block grant is very likely in the autumn. If there

is no political agreement allowing Stormont to do it, Westminster will

add, a bit like how it sorted out rates bills earlier this year.

Meantime, Blix services are largely ticking over the James Brokenshire

is likely to step in soon and make some spending decisions. A sum of

around ?120 million needs to be freed up and allocated to

departments with health and education likely beneficiaries. It

will be a bit like the Secretary of State doing the kind of monitoring

round which usually happens around the Executive table.

Joining me now are Rhona Quinn and Paul MacFlynn.

Paul, it looks like we won't have a budget until the autumn,

although James Brokenshire looks set to step in and distribute that ?120

million in end-of-year monitoring, but who makes the decisions on how

In the absence of an executive, it will have to be a minister of some

kind and unfortunately the only minister at present is the Secretary

of State. He can do that in conjunction with parties but it is

his decent vision and the ?120 million is significant but

notwithstanding the election result, the block grant for Northern Ireland

was outlined in the April budget, it is flat until 2020 and with

inflation that means large cuts, so decisions around where that money

will be spent will become difficult and too makes those decisions will

be even worse. The rule of thumb is if there is an existing project

under way, civil servants can continue to feed the money into that

that of a new strategy is to be put in place for a decision taken about

a major capital projects, that requires a minister and if we don't

have direct rule ministers were locally elected ministers, those

projects will go into abeyance. Even projects that have been given

initial ministerial direction, if they run into trouble that require

policy decisions, there has to be some ministerial responsibility.

Civil servants will not take those decisions and that goes to somewhere

in London or in Whitehall discussions, who knows how long the

delay could be? Rhona, what are the implications for your company and

the people you represented at the absence of that decision-making

capability? First of all Peter Hain is right, this is a serious

situation and any uncertainty for business is not good regardless what

secretary you are in. Our difficulties are a lack of

decision-making on projects due to the lack of ministerial approval. In

our industry there are in-built delays to the planning and

procurement processes so this will add further delays so the lack of

spent on infrastructure is not good for our industry or the wider

economy because it prevents inward investment, attracting tourism, so

overall it is not good for the economy. What is your message to

politicians who do not seem capable of coming together and reaching

agreement? I would like to think our politicians are working for the good

of the economy. First we need a functioning administration up and

going but we needed in the context of a fair and inclusive society, I

would also like to say the infrastructure of spent should be

spread evenly across the province, the West should not be forgotten

about. Paul, I wonder what to think the implications might be for an

extra money the DUP got out the Conservative Party to keep in

government? ?1.5 billion, is it possible that money will not be able

to be spent while we continue in this limbo? That's a political deal

outside ordinary government accounts so what's the deal between the DUP

and the Conservatives how that will be spent. There are maybe a

structure that we see it spent in the absence of an executive from the

UK Government's point of view, they gave the least amount of money they

could, the Treasury always does, so the idea of having local politicians

is they make decisions for the benefit of Northern Ireland, if the

Treasury makes decisions, they will make decisions that benefit the

Treasury and that means keeping as much as they can. But it requires

politicians at some level, whether direct rule ministers were locally

elected, someone has to take responsibility for divvying up that

money. The Secretary of State already intervened with respect of

regional rates, he indicated what his budget would look like and if

that comes in the autumn in the absence of an executive but whether

direct rule ministers are appointed is a relevant, where decisions are

taken is what matters and they are either being taken in Stormont or

Westminster and there doesn't seem to be an option in between. Are we

in the worst possible situation, neither devolution nor direct rule,

does that provide uncertainty for RE, may? Absolutely, we are in a

perfect storm, not only facing a lack of administration but all the

uncertainty around Brexit so it is a serious situation, OK, direct rule

is maybe something we have to do if it is the only option but I would

like to think that as a temporary measure because we need local

politicians making local decisions about how we spend our money, if we

have a London-based politicians deciding about a much-needed school

in County Tyrone, it would be harder for him to make that case than a

local politician so it is critical we have local people making these

decisions. Not just Tyrone, the West is a big place but old politics is

local. A final note about the York Street Interchange project, do you

know how that stands? We know there has been initial ministerial

direction for it but they can run into difficulties which require a

policy decision and that that is a priority in Westminster, all well

and good but if not it will model on for years. Interesting to hear your

perspectives. Now, let's pause and have a look

back at the week in 60 seconds After months of talks

no deal was reached It has been hugely damaging in

respect of public confidence in the institutions and we need to build up

that confidence. This constitutes an monumental failure on behalf of

Theresa May. And the other parties forecast

problems ahead for Northern Ireland. People across Northern Ireland are

facing weeks of further political paralysis. And a general loss of

trust and respect for politicians in Northern Ireland.

With the talks process unsuccessful, the focus shifted

I intend to bring forward legislation that will provide for

the publication of all donations and loans received by Northern Ireland

parties after July 2017. The Alliance Party are unhappy

the figures won't be backdated. Failure to address that issue

properly can only enhance suspicion and cynicism.

Enda and Rory pair up at the Irish Open.

Let's have a final word with Alex and Anna.

Alex, we have been hearing about the legal challenge mounted by a Green

Party member here questioning the legality of the deal between the

Tories and the DUP in that it allegedly breaches the Good Friday

Agreement. I'm not sure it does breach the terms, I don't think the

deal has compromised the neutrality of the British government. That is

what Ciaran McClean once a court to decide. I think it will go nowhere,

parties make deals in these circumstances, the Tories had to

make a deal, you cannot turn around and say ignore the will of

Parliament and two big parties. Ciaran McClean's case is that it

preaches the rigorous impartiality required by the Good Friday

Agreement. And the British and Irish governments are supposed to be

custodians of the Good Friday Agreement. I think Alex has a point,

it may be the perception that is more damaging than the legal out

workings, I'm not a lawyer but I think with the challenges we have

seen an Brexit, politicians is a land apart. I think what will be

difficult is as we go forward, what happens to this money, how is it

allocated without an executive and with only the DUP with Lady Sylvia

Hermon in Westminster and no nationalist representatives, how can

we ensure the British government remain that neutral arbiter? That is

a big Now just under a year ago,

Theresa May was making her way back from Buckingham Palace having been

asked by the Queen To say it's been a tumultuous twelve

months would be an understatement - here's a reminder of

the highs and lows. I have just been to Buckingham

Palace, where Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to form

a new Government and I accepted. If you're just managing,

I want to address you directly. I know you're working

around-the-clock, I know you're doing your best,

and I know that sometimes When future generations

look back at this time, they will judge us not only

by the decision that we made, but by I have just chaired a meeting

of the Cabinet, where we agreed that the Government should call

a general election to The Conservative Party

has won the most seats and probably the most votes,

then it will be incumbent on us to ensure we have that period

of stability and that is exactly So 12 months in the life of Theresa

May, and the rest of us too. I am exhausted. I don't know what she

feels like! How weak or strong is her position and this constant

reporting, more on the Sunday paper today about groups of Tory MPs

manoeuvring to bring her down in the autumn, before the autumn after the

autumn, name a month between now and the end of the year. Is that, that

has to be corrosive as well. Absolutely. Every week there will be

another story. The reality is the stronger Jeremy Corbyn and the

Labour Party look the stronger her position is because it is what are

the alternative, Theresa May or... It is depending on the polls where

it is Theresa May herself who is helping to cause that boost for

Jeremy Corbyn, if she is the toxic part of the Tory party brand, and if

they get rid of her the Tories would spring back up and the Labour Party

would go down or is it best for her to soak it, literally draw out the

toxins and then, I don't know, two money, six months a year, she stands

down and next leader takes the over, next generation or David Davis and

they start again, start afresh, and she takes all the badness, the

toxins with her this is thing, there must be a hell of a lot of detailed

polls right now find that out. I don't know the answer. Can she

relaunch herself? No, she will make a big speech on Tuesday, ex tracts

are being briefed into tomorrow's papers, I have seen them. . What is

the subject matter? Me. Not me, her. There has been enough movement from

BBC... It is going to be her, it will be the relaunch. I have a

purpose, still here and allow me to stay, but the problem is, Julia is

right, there is a feeling among Tory MPs it would be ideal for her to

last at least two years, suck in the bad bit, and to have a referendum or

not, and the miscalculations and bring in a new person, untarnished.

The problem over that is events dear boy as someone once said. Brexit may

go well, it may not. Talks may produce something or she may get

stuck down a hole. She is the sticking plaster over the two side

of the Tory party. She is there, because they want her to be there

and that Palacester is stilled holding, if that seismic divide goes

any further, the plaster breaks she will go down the hole with it. David

Davis said she doesn't want a leadership election, the papers are

full of briefings from what are claimed to be from his people saying

she faces abject misery, that it is time she will have to go sooner

rather than later, they clearly haven't got the memo from DD as he

is called. Publicly they have, to declare loyalty until the moment

when they feel the time has come to be disloyal. The problem she has got

is that context determines 95% of how a leader is perceived. She can

make a brilliant speech this week about how she plans to be bold but

the context is that lost majority in the election, a hung parliament with

Brexit looming. It makes it hard to be bold, hung Parliaments are not

bold. You will have to manoeuvre all the time and it be exhausting and

transparent in the scheming, a like with the arrangement with the DUP,

some of the vote it is a have happened and it will be utterly

draining, now Julia is is right. The key question for the Tories will be

if they get someone else in, does that transform their prospects?

While that is not clear, I agree she will probably cling on, but there

will be no glorious summer for her again, the pre-election context was

fantastic for her, it is really dark now, and tough. The key thing is

what you said, who would have thunk it. You have said the Tories are

frightened to call to provoke us another election because they fear,

they think Jeremy Corbyn will win. Who would have thought we would get

into that position? In the same argument who would have thought

Theresa May been so popular. Who would have thought Jeremy Corbyn

would get where he is now? That shows there is still hope for not

maybe, maybe not Theresa May, I think that she has holed below the

water line, what goes up can also come down, but in Theresa May's

defence, and I don't think she will last very long, and I think she has

been exposed, during the election campaign for just not having enough

of depth, of the fight, but to be fair she must have a backbone of

steel, a lesser man or holed below the water line, what goes up can

also come down, but in Theresa May's defence, and I don't think she will

last very long, and I think she has been exposed, during the election

campaign for just not having enough of depth, of the fight, but to be

fair she must have a backbone of steel, a lesser man or woman holed

below the water line, what goes up can also come down, but in Theresa

May's defence, and I don't think she will last very long, and I think she

has been exposed, during the election campaign for just not

having enough of depth, of the fight, but to be fair she must have

a backbone of steel, a lesser man or woman who have gone, "I'm off now."

To take the flak she is get, she is steely as they come. It is almost a

form of penance she is doing, having brought her party to this less than

glorious position, she's having to try and kind of restore things a

bit, knowing in her heart of hearts and perhaps not as deep at that,

that she will not be the beneficiary. Absolutely not. That is

what she said to the 1922 Committee that Monday after the general

election, I got us into this mess, I am going to get us out of it. Talks

to MPs this week, it is interesting, there is pretty hard feeling

settling that the new person should come from the 2010 intake, skip a

generation. The Boris, the Teresa, the Hammonds. Bye Amber Rudd? She

has a tiny minority -- majority. There was one minister in your foyer

an hour ago. Did we have a foyer? I think about 30 of them, all of them

believe it or not fancy their chance, and for any of those to

expose themselves and to lay out their agenda they will need

two-years to make these sort of Sport Reliefs Let us turn to Labour.

Well, earlier we talked to Caroline Flint about the threat

Here's what Shadow Minister and Corbyn ally, Chris Williamson,

MPs need to reflect the political programme that is overwhelmingly

supported by Labour members and Labour supporters,

and if people aren't prepared to do that,

then it will be up to members in their local constituencies

How big a change is Labour going to undergo? To what extent will Labour

now be recast in the mould of Mr Corbyn and his wing of the party?

Well in policy terms it already has been largely recast into the Corbyn

McDonnell view, although with lots of examples of them being pretty

expedient, Trident being an example. Where they went into the election

backing retention, even though personally they are totally

committed to nuclear disarmament. He might be able to move to that

position? They might but that example of expend yen sip leads me

to this. . I suspect Corbyn and McDonnell will be thinking we are

close to power do we really want 18 months of Civil War, which is what

deelection battles would become, and terrible publicity, and an imflowing

a party on the verge possibly of an election win. -- implosion. My guess

is they won't and they will go out of their way to try and stop it.

John McDonnell said many times divide a party lose elections, I

don't think they will want this. There are power battles in party, we

have been talking about it in the Tory party, and there will be

moments of heightened tension between the Labour MPs and their

memberships but I don't think that this is going to happen. If Steve is

right we should be looking for signs of them looking for signs of them

hosing things down. Although, I don't think they need to do this.

The moderate wing of the party, they are not standing up to Jeremy Corbyn

any more, they are trying to get a few Select Committee Chairmanships

and survive and hope something happens. The extraordinary thing is,

given that no-one expected Jeremy Corbyn, no-one tried to deselect him

and no-one accused him of disloyalty. We are in Soviet style

show trial, you know, repent territory. We haven't had a show

trial yet. Matter of time. Apart from Brexit. The Labour Party are

united until it comes to votes on the House of Commons on what to do

about Europe. So, Brexit goes well, that 49 will wither away a bit and

start getting... If Brexit goes badly. Vince Cable saying we need a

mud referendum, huge temptation then among Labour MPs to recalibrate and

a oar gue for staying in and that would split the partyty down the

middle. You heard Owen Paterson say 85% of people voted for parties that

wanted Brexit, meaning Labour and Conservative. It is true that Jeremy

Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are more Eurosceptic than people realise.

They want another election quickly, because they don't know how, this

maybe as good as it gets. None of us know, so get an election quick

because we think we might win it. That means that they could well play

game, why would they just bolster the store Tories if a big defeat on

Brexit could provoke an election. I am guessing they will play games, if

there is chance of undermining the Government perhaps fatally to get

this early election which would be massively in their interest, theyry

ahead in the poll, I think that will do it. They have displayed

expediency on Europe in the past, possibly arguing for it why having

doubts about it in the referendum, for Remain, sorely. So yes, I think

there will be, as I said earlier, in this Parliament there will be going

to be moments where it looks as if the Government could be defeat and I

think they will move towards defeating the Government. Any

remainor should be more worried about the economics of a Corbyn left

On that point we better leave it there.

I'll be back here on BBC One at the same time next week

And Jo Co's back tomorrow with the Daily Politics on BBC Two

at the earlier time of 11am - that's because of Wimbledon.

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