22/05/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Leave campaigners say Turkey is on course to join


the European Union and, if we remain in the EU,


that will mean more criminals here and greater pressure


The Prime Minister says it's nonsense.


We'll have the latest on this developing row.


This woman claims to be the voice of business -


and that most businesses in the UK want to remain in the EU.


But is the business case that clear cut?


We speak to the Director General of the CBI.


When it comes to gauging public opinion on the referendum,


which is better: telephone polls or online polls?


Even the pollsters are having trouble answering that one.


And I tell you what, if I don't know,


having done all this opinion polling for lark for 21 years,


As the battle lines are drawn around opposition,


more Stormont manoeuvrings this week over the Justice Ministry.


which school principals say they now face.


wrath citizens are eligible to vote in the EU referendum. Which way did


they tilt? And with me - as always -


a political panel of the best and the brightest in the business,


hopefully they do know which way to jump: Tom Newton Dunn,


Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting


throughout the programme. Turkey has taken centre-stage


in the referendum debate today. Vote Leave are launching


a new poster campaign warning that Turkey is on course to join the EU,


leaving the UK vulnerable to criminals, mass migration and


more pressure on public services. The Prime Minister was asked


about the claims on the Robert Peston programme on


ITV. Every country has a veto,


and let's be clear, as Boris himself said, Turkey


joining the EU is not remotely on the cards. At the current rate of


progress, this would be decades, literally decades,


before this even had a prospect of happening, and even at that stage,


we would be able to say no. Well, that was David


Cameron this morning. But here's what he had to say


in a speech in Istanbul in 2010. But here's what he had to say


in a speech in Ankara in 2010. It makes me angry that your progress


towards EU membership can be frustrated. My view is clear. I


believe it is wrong to say that Turkey can guard the camp, but not


be allowed to sit in the tent. So why will remain your strongest


possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top


table of European diplomacy. The Prime Minister six years ago after


becoming Prime Minister. Is it a proper issue for this


referendum or is it a red herring? It is an issue and quite frankly,


the Leave campaign will be delighted that we are now talking about


Turkey, because every time you talk about Turkey, you conjure up the


image of more migration, uncontrolled immigration from a


poorer countries so it is a Leave win. I am not sure that the Prime


Minister is right to engage in this one. But he has been called about


this from someone whose judgment he also calls into question. But is a


strange thing, his own Armed Forces Minister. The Prime Minister is


right to say we have a veto, every EU member has a veto in new members,


but if the Prime Minister is in favour of Turkey joining, which is


said he was in Ankara, then the veto does not matter? Absolutely. What a


great clip that was the Prime Minister in 2010, when he set out


Ray clearly what his position is. He supports Turkey joining the EU in


whatever time frame that may be. It does not do for the Prime Minister


to say we have a veto. The question is, will you use that veto? If he is


saying we would use our veto against Turkey, that is big news and can we


hear it? It would be a big U-turn. It could be moot, couldn't it? There


is no prospect of Turkey joining in the future, is there? The telling


thing about this conversation as we are focusing on our veto and the


veto possessed by all existing EU members and not focusing on Turkey


itself. Is that country as keen on joining as was a decade ago? The


change and internal politics in Turkey suggests they are less keen


on membership or less keen on doing the things necessary to successfully


apply for EU mentorship than they were a while ago. I think for


reasons on the Turkish side and on the European side, it will not


happen until I am a very old man. But it is entirely legitimate for


Leave to play up this issue and every day we talk about migration is


a day we're not spending talking about the economy and I think that


is their only route to victory four weeks' time. There are plenty of


forces in Germany and France, two countries about to have elections


next year, who are not going to agree to Turkey joining any time


soon. And if you were to be fair to the prime and Vista, you would say


he made that speech in 2010 in Ankara, me and a whole load of


political hacks were in the room when he said it... Were you there? I


was there. At one stage he says he was passionate about Turkish


president. He was very keen to suck up to President Erdogan at the time


because he wanted more trade. That was pre-migration crisis. That has


changed everything not just in British politics but for Angela


Merkel and Francois Hollande. It may be acceptable for the Prime Minister


to do a 180 degrees U-turn on this issue. We will see as the day


develops. So, the head of the NHS in England,


Simon Stevens, says the health service would be worse off


if we decide to leave the EU. Two of his predecessors have also


written a joint article in the Sunday Times


saying that they think, for the NHS at least,


staying in the EU is Mr Stevens was on the Andrew


Marr Show this morning. When Mark Carney says that the risk


of a slowdown in economic growth, possibly a recession,


if we end up exiting the EU, if Mark Carney is right,


then that is a severe concern for the National Health Service,


because it would be very dangerous if at precisely the moment the NHS


is going to need extra funding, actually the economy goes


into a tailspin and that funding Leave campaigners, unsurprisingly,


take a different view - they argue that remaining in the EU


will place further strain on the NHS due to continued free movement


of people and the accession What is the relationship


between our membership The Department of Health estimates


that the cost to the NHS in England from visitors and non-permanent


residents who come from the European economic area,


that is the EU plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway,


is around ?340 million a year. To put that in context,


the total annual expenditure in England's NHS was


?113 billion in 2014-15. There are around 3 million people


from other EU countries resident in the UK and all are entitled


to use NHS services. All those would be entitled to stay


in the UK, even if we were to leave the EU, due to the rights under


the Vienna Convention. In 2015, around 257,000 EU


nationals migrated to the UK. But whether that number would come


down if we vote to leave depends on the deal the UK strikes


with the EU following an exit. NHS England says the total number


of staff coming from EU countries was just over 53,000,


or 4.6% of the total NHS workforce. A total of 9% of NHS England's


hospital doctors, 6% of its nurses and health visitors,


come from other EU countries, however, all would be entitled


to stay in the event of a vote to leave, and without knowing


what any future deal might be, it is impossible to know


if there would be any impact A one-time pro-European


Foreign Secretary, he is now campaigning for the UK to leave


the European Union. Good morning, David Owen. Let me


come straight to the remarks by the man currently running the NHS in


England, Simon Stevens. He said it would be better for the NHS if we


remain in the EU. What is your response? Let's be quite clear.


Simon Stevens is the manager of the NHS, which is currently ?3 billion


in debt. This man has presided now for a sufficient time to judge his


management skills. In almost every part of the National Health Service,


there is an acute crisis. He spent ten years in America, with an


American health care company, effectively arguing for the TTIP,


this treaty between America and the European Union, which could be


introduced, and an assessment makes it very clear that TTIP will be very


damaging to the National Health Service, if it is drafted in the way


that it is. Simon Stevens should stick to his Lee which is to manage


the health service more effectively. He is an individual, he has a view


on the European Union which is fine, but his basic job is to look after


the NHS, and at the moment he is making a very considerable mess of.


It is not just Simon Stevens, two of his predecessors say staying in the


EU is the preferable option. Identifying, if there is any danger


to the NHS, it is in staying in, with all the elements of the NHS


which are now involved with the EU. -- I don't think. For the first 20


years of our membership, with the common market, we had no involvement


with the NHS at all. Now the NHS procurement policy, the NHS


competition policy is all impact in, because we have started to Mark ties


the NHS in 2002 under Labour. It continued under the coalition with


the Liberal Democrats of this present Conservative government, and


it has continued under this Conservative government. If you


treat health like water or electricity or gas, as a utility,


and you treat them all as customers, then you will be under market


pressures, and the problem with the NHS is we lost what it was, it


fortunately still is in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but


in England it is a marker ties to health service modelling itself on


the United States of America. If you wanted to make changes, you would be


wiser to stick to Germany or France, not go the United States model. Let


me put a point to you. Michael Gove, part of the Leave campaign, he says


the NHS could be overwhelmed by continued migration if we stay in


the EU. He predicts an extra 5 million plus by 2030. These


predictions suggest that Turkey, Macedonia and Albania all join the


EU by 2020. That is not on the cards, is it? Let's be clear about


your programme so far and analyse what has been said already. It is


not the Prime Minister what he said in Istanbul, the Prime Minister nine


weeks ago signed up to the European Council meeting on the 18th of


March, and he said, to re-energise the accession process for Turkey to


join the EU, and to make preparatory work for the opening of other


chapters will continue at an accelerating pace. This is a Prime


Minister who is getting used to saying one thing one time, another


thing another. Nine weeks ago, we were committed to increasing the


speed of entry for Turkey into the European Union. I am passionate


about keeping Turkey inside Nato, and with one foot in the EU and with


one foot in the Middle East. Why? Because Turkey is essentially


important country, as a member of Nato in dealing with Isil, Syria,


Iraq and many other problems around the world. But you will not make it


by bringing them prematurely into the European Union. What we should


be doing is encouraging them to come into the single market which has


non-EU countries associated, but without this issue of freedom of


movement of Labour. You are Foreign Secretary... Let me ask this


question. You must surely know, that Turkey's chances of joining the EU


in the foreseeable future are remote. Isn't that the reality? No,


I think what was said by your commentator earlier in the


programmers that has been a change of foreign policy. If the Prime


Minister commits nine weeks ago to speeding up Turkey's membership, and


then does not deliver on it, what will be the consequences? Turkey


will feel they have been lied to or rejected by the Europeans and they


will, in my view, come out of Nato with very profound consequences. At


the moment, let's treat Turkey with respect, let's try and ensure they


make the necessary changes on human rights and in many other areas.


There are a lot of worrying aspects about Turkish policy, but mention


above the European Union in my view is not the issue. It is how to make


them more committed to Europe. Don't avoid this question. If we are in


the European Union, we are committed to freedom of movement of Labour in


every aspect of EU membership. That is a problem. David Owen, thank you,


we will have to leave it there. The Confederation Of British


Industry calls itself the "voice of business",


claiming to speak on behalf of 190,000 businesses,


employing up to 7 million people. And according to the CBI,


British businesses overwhelmingly back the idea of remaining


in the EU. What's more, they've been


encouraging their members to talk to staff about the referendum


to give them "the choice to hear what impact a Brexit


would have on company growth, their jobs and their


local community". As you can imagine, Leave


campaigners are not amused. The chair of the Vote Leave business


council, John Longworth, a former director-general


of the British Chambers Of Commerce, said the call was an


"anti-democratic abuse of power He added: "It's highly regrettable


to see big corporate bosses plotting to gang up on their staff,


and lecture them on how to vote." Well, we're joined


now by the director general of the CBI,


Carolyn Fairbairn. Welcome to the programme. Good


morning. If big business told its workers how to vote in a general


election, there would be broad, so why are you encouraging your members


to warn their workers about the dangers of Brexit? That is not what


we have said. We have said that people working today in economy want


to hear from their employers about what it means on either side of the


debate. That is not what you said, you said what impact Brexit would


have on growth, jobs and the local community. Positive for negative.


You did not say that? It is clear this is not about warning anybody.


This is about the questions that people are now asking about what it


means for them. We were clean about that. Most of your members, you


claim, are in favour of staying in the European Union. The message


going out to the workforce will be overwhelmingly about remaining in


the EU. The main thing is that people who are going to vote on June


23 have as good an understanding as they possibly can about what it


means for their jobs, families and communities. That was the key


message, nothing about telling people how to vote. We learned this


week that one of your members, Circle, was planning uproar EU


campaign with the Prime Minister, even before the renegotiations were


finished. With the CBI or any of your members have similar


discussions with the government? To my knowledge, no. The conversations


that businesses, universities, all parts of our society have with


government go on every day. Were you planning the pro-union-mac campaign


with the government even before the renegotiations? No. But Circle was?


No. Everything the CBI has done is a result of the things we have done


and a half of our members. Circle has contracts with the government


worth several million pounds. The taxpayer pays for that. Its boss was


offering to help the Prime Minister do what he could to help keep


Britain in the EU. It was a behind closed doors stitch up between big


government and big business, wasn't it? The important thing is to


understand what businesses across the country of all sizes are seeing.


You're focusing on one company. What we are seeing is that the majority


of businesses want to stay in the European Union. I understand that. I


am asking you if the way this company has handled this... It


smells of a stitch up? I do not think this is a stitch up. It is


about voices of business being heard on issues of jobs, growth and the


future prosperity of our country. People can make their decisions on


polling day about a whole variety of factors, but businesses who are


trading with the European Union everyday, having their voices


clearly heard. The voice of this company was certainly clearly heard.


He saw the Prime Minister, Mr Soames. This is what he did in the


follow-up letter. He spoke about backing the prime and is to's


campaign to keep us in the EU. This is even though the renegotiations


were not finished. He went on to lobby for business. He said... He


wants more business at the same time. It really does add to the


sense that this is big business feathering its own nest. That is not


what is going on. There are conversations all the time. Why he


wise to do that, to lobby for more business at the same time as


lobbying to stay in the EU? I think there are conversations happening


all the time. Is that conversation appropriate? Those are questions for


other people. The CBI represents mainly businesses across the UK and


Europe picking on one. The important thing is the voices of the many are


heard in this. Are they heard? You give the impression you like the EU


because it is a one-stop club for big business. There are 30,000


lobbyists in Brussels, most of them are doing for the interests of your


kind of members, the business. Ordinary folk do not get a look in?


I do not think that is true. We have had 20 business surveys since the


beginning of the year, for all different sizes of business, and it


is not unanimous, but they are all seeing broadly the same thing. We


have had the creative industries Forum coming out with the survey.


93%, because they are big exporters. This is not just big business. It is


all sizes of business. Let's look at how the EU is good for your members


but not necessarily the rest of us. The European Court of Justice has


forced Her Majesty is Customs and revenue to hand back almost ?8


billion in tax paid by big British companies, overruling tax laws made


by our government and our Parliament. That is good for big


business but not public services? There are areas where we share


sovereignty, in order to have a level playing field across Europe


for businesses overall. We are not always going to like all of the


rules. It is a question of whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The


benefits to your members are clear, they are paying a billion less in


tax. The independent office of budget responsibility expected HMRC


to pay another 8 billion back by the end of the decade. This is about


lowering tax regimes and not allowing HMRC to get the proper tax.


That is not fear to ordinary people? To be clear, the CBI can businesses


overall do not support aggressive tax avoidance. We support the moves


that have been taken at the OECD level to sort this out. This is not


something we support. Your members will be 16 billion better off.


British schools, hospitals, public services, will be 16 billion worse


off. If the HMRC goes down in all these cases, we could be 40 billion


worse off. Good for big business, but not local hospitals? I do not


know the exact details of those numbers, but I would say that the


moves to improve tax policy are absolutely supported by members. The


CBI has been wrong about Britain in the EU in the past. Why should we


listen to you now? This is becoming a distraction. You are right that


when the euro was debated at the end of the 1980s, in principle, the CBI


had a principle of support with caveats. You supported the principle


of the European exchange mechanism. That ended in recession. Many people


lost their homes and jobs. You then became enthusiastic about UK


membership of the monetary union, the euro. I ask again, if you were


wrong then, why should we listen to you now? Two important points, if


you had continued to scroll down, you would seem that there were


caveats, conditions that had to be met. Conditions around harmonisation


of inflation and the economy. They were never met. By 2000 the CBI had


moved its position to neutral. The discussion we are having now is


about something very different. It is about the experience that we as


an economy have had the European Union for 43 years. We have thrived.


We have gone from being the sick man of Europe to being the strong man.


His Mrs are doing well. The benefit from being in a single market. The


euro was about something which people were imagining in the future,


a different debate. Let's come to the current debate. We saw your


stance on the euro then. You know think we would be better off if we


remain. That is the clear fight -- the clear-cut view of the CBI. You


commissioned an organisation to assess the impact of leaving the EU.


That is the result of the survey. If we remain, they think the economy


will grow by 41% by 2030. Even if we were to come out, the economy would


still grow by 39%, even if we did not have any free trade against, it


would grow by 36%. It is hardly game changing either way? We have


deliberately taken optimistic, balance and areas of the future.


You're right, economies recover and adapt. You have not shown the


short-term impact of several years of uncertainty. What we believe, and


many others believe as well, is there could be significant


short-term impacts, no sunlit uplands. You can get to 39%. Your


own study shows are economy would be almost 40% bigger by 2030, even if


we were to leave. That is if we do a trade deal with the US, if we are


able to form new relationships with the EU. These are optimistic


assumptions. Take the non-optimistic on, the World Trade Organisation. We


just trade on existing rules. It is 36%, it is still a massive rise. Of


course we would continue to grow. No one has ever said we would not


continue to grow. But will we be more prosperous? We would be 36%


more prosperous. In the short-term, by 2020, we estimate there would be


a million fewer jobs and 4-5% hate to GDP. Do we want to do that to


school leavers? We've just come out of recession. You accept that the


difference is not massive? It is entirely possible the economy would


adapt. But only with significant short-term impact, and particularly


an impact on the next generation of school leavers. The CBI claims that


each household benefits to the tune of six -- ?3000 a year. Observers


have condemned that as a dishonest figure. Do you stand by it? We do.


It was a literature sturdy of existing studies. We wanted to put


together a figure that was easy to understand. -- literature study.


Estimates like that are difficult to do. There was a range good around


it. To be clear, standards of living have doubled. That is since the UK


joined the European Union. They have gone from ?20,000 household income


to about ?40,000. We are seeing a proportion of that has been a result


of membership of the European Union, and independent studies would


support that. You did no original research for this at all. We never


claimed to. I have explained that to our viewers. You simply did a survey


of research papers. But when you look, you cherry picked the research


papers that had pro-union-mac inclusions. That is not true. I have


got the ones that you did not use, you omitted the IUD, you omitted the


National Institute for economic and social research. Even omitted the US


Trade Commission survey of what it meant, or to get this ?3000 figure.


You know tell me it is not accurate. That is not true. The evaluation we


did of the different surveys, we omitted as many on one side as the


other. There is a 20 page paper on this which anyone can go and read.


It sets out the methodology accurately. You seem to be biased


against those that did not come to the conclusion you want. Channel 4's


respected fact checked included, the figure is not based on any real


evidence. The chairman of the Treasury Select Committee described


it as a scandalous misuse of data and intellectually miss honest. We


went to him and we set out the facts. I do not think he had read


the paper. It is not intended to be anything other than an assessment of


consensus views over the last ten years. You did not include other


papers. The important thing is to be focusing on what this would mean for


the decision for the country. You're telling people that households would


be ?3000 a year worse off if we were to leave? That is not what we are


saying. Are you saying that we are ?3000 better off by remaining? As a


result of having joined, about 15% of the increase in living standards


over the time since joining is a result of being part of the European


Union. That is a reasonable thing to have said. Is the CBI still keen on


principle to join the euro? Absolutely not.


Would you welcome a further expansion of the EU to include the


five countries already in the queue? I think it has to depend on the


conditions at the time. The thing that is clear is we have a sovereign


choice over those additional countries. Turkey is a huge market,


it could be good for British business, would you welcome it? We


have not had that discussion with our members. We would have a


discussion at that time and have a point of view at that time. The CBI


welcomed both the Nice Treaty and Lisbon Treaty. Would you welcome a


further transfer of powers if we voted to remain? No. I think one


thing which is clear is we pool sovereignty when it is in the


benefits of our economy and we don't wear it is not. I would say one


thing, in terms of the opt out from the working Time directive, a very


important part of our special arrangement, if you like, of the


European Union, the CBI was fully part of and helped to negotiate.


Thank you. Depending on which polls you look


at, Britain is either scoffing at the idea of leaving the EU


or it's marching swiftly One telephone poll this week gave


Remain an eight point lead. An online poll, meanwhile,


gave it to Leave by four points. The problem is that both


those polls were done Our society and our electorate


is made up of unique individuals, every one of them different and yet


they share many attributes: gender, age, race, religion,


economic background, education, political views,


and social attitudes. Pollsters, therefore,


can only ever try to tell us terms of a specific question,


but it's only ever going to be a snapshot of wildly


interpretable data. That snapshot is simply a moment


in time, and is always, inevitably, slightly inaccurate


to varying degrees, and what makes


political polling even harder is it is like trying to


hit a moving target from a moving platform


in the And you would think in this EU


referendum the simplicity of the question would help,


should we leave It makes the whole thing


much more complicated. The problem is a slew of polls


giving very different signals. Given the problems


pollsters had getting the general election right, and some


of them didn't, this matters. Some have it neck and neck,


some Remain ahead, others ahead It is a minefield in


terms of working out When I apply different technical


methods to my raw data, I can move the Remain or Leave lead


in both directions. I tell you what, if I do not


know having done this opinion polling lark for 21 years,


I am not sure who does. Some of this is down to how


the polls are done, how they get a truly


representative sample of society in the first place,


either by phone or online panels. Which is best is a bone


of contention that in recent days has even


spilt onto social media, The problem is it has become


harder and harder to get Online samples are by their nature


self-selecting so have biases Phone samples used to be


considered far more representative, but in recent years,


the response rates to phone polls have dropped so low it is hard


now to consider them to be So both modes have an element


of self-selection. Can I ask you a few questions about


about yourself? Would you say you are likely to vote


or will definitely vote? Fewer of us use landlines


or want to be cold called, thus more calls then ever before


have to be made just to get But you do avoid those who,


with online polling, And phone contact through


persistence is better at eventually reaching those who are


harder to get hold of. Would it be all right


if we call you back later? There is a growing narrative


amongst some pollsters that phone polling


is probably the more accurate, which,


given recent phone polling We look at samples and try to check


them to see we have the right number of people who vote,


do we believe that all the people


in our sample who tell us they're going to vote actually


will, are we missing people who really just do not care


about the referendum referendum and aren't going to vote,


are we missing the great unwashed who do


not have degrees? All those things,


when we make adjustments for all of those things, Remain is


still ahead. We would have to be very,


very wrong indeed for Remain, at the moment, on the


polling so far, not to win this Online pollsters, who use panels


of signed up people, are perhaps not surprisingly


pointing to weaknesses So much so that the online pollsters


YouGov have conducted some phone polling


about phone polling. What we found from that comparison,


both to the national picture and to our online polls,


was that telephone polls were underestimating the people


who are not university educated, and that is


hugely important in the EU referendum because we know


that is one of the great social cleavages, in other words,


one of the great things that divides So phone polls are missing


potential Leave voters. Online are accused


of overstating them, there are two other that vital:


are are you going to vote? Turnout will be


crucial on June 23rd. The higher it is the more it favours


Remain, and what happens when the mass of "don't


knows" make up their mind? With more questions and mixed


answers, and four weeks to go,


most pollsters might reasonably fear


the result of a poll that asked us all,


"Do pollsters really have a It's just gone 11.35,


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


in Scotland who leave us now It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics


in Northern Ireland. The countdown is on to D-Day -


that's the day the D'hondt method of sharing out the Ministerial posts


will take place at Stormont. The Justice Ministry


is still at the heart of negotiations - even though


the DUP and Sinn Fein say there's no doubt they will be in a position


to form a full We'll hear from


Professor Peter Shirlow and Allison Morris from


the Irish News on how Plus, education was one of the big


issues on the doorsteps in the run up to the election -


and the threat of budget cuts, teacher redundancies and bigger


class sizes looms large for the new Minister who'll


take charge this week. Deirdre Gillespie from St Mary's


in Magherafelt and Ralph Magee from Andrews Memorial


Primary School in Comber - So the week to come is set


to be as fascinating After the drama of the SDLP's


move into opposition and the Alliance Party not quite yet


definitively following them out the door, we're


still looking forward to the big reveal of who will


take the Justice post. Here, a bit earlier than normal


on the programme, is the drama of the week gone past in 60 seconds -


with Stephen Walker. In the justice ministry is being


discussed at the minute. It wasn't just the weather that was


changeable, the face of Government took a different turn. Further


deputy and first-Minister, it was keep Cam and carry on. We have both


campaign to be in Government. Others did not campaign in the same way.


The SDLP decided that was not good enough. We will go into opposition


to form a constructive opposition to remain party executive. Remember


Arlene's 5-point plan during the election, Alliance have five demands


of their own in the negotiations for the justice post. There was list was


rejected. At the moment it would appear that I'm not interested and


that proposition. They say they are confident they can go ahead without


as. If they do not take justice, who will? I will as a compliment that


they did not ask me. -- did not dare ask me.


So let's discuss the drama of the past seven days -


and the options for how things might play out


over the coming week, with Allison Morris and Pete Shirlow.


Welcome to you both. There is an opposition but Jim Allister has


known that for some time. Do you think this was the right thing for


the Ulster Unionist and the SDLP to do? Clearly what did also does is


allow policies to develop, allows criticism of policies that are put


out by Sinn Fein to be articulated. It allows those parties to create


policies. The fundamental problems was a lecturer Lee. They were not


going to go anywhere with junior partners. It allows them to regroup


and allows them to think about the credentials. It allows a proper


critique of Government, that is another step to normalisation. There


is another view and we have heard some commentators articulate that


this is the road to nowhere, the road to political irrelevance. We


are hearing that from the two vertical parties. I think Peter is


right. It was opposition or die for the SDLP. I think for them to


survive in the long running opposition was the best route to go


down. Even one lone person and opposition can put pressure on the


parties. Very few places of two pieces of legislation was passed


before. Do you think it has a hand in the negotiations with its 5-point


shopping list and apparently no room to manoeuvre? I think not, I think


it's the opposite. What we did was, do you want us or not? They set out


some kind of idea of what they wanted in return was clearly quite


robust and basically saying, are we contingent to being in Government?


The answer came back no and we know what our position is, we're not a


patsy and we're not going to follow you and do what you want to do.


Walking away seems logical. Well, let's hear what the Sinn Fein


president Gerry Adams had to say to reporters


on Friday afternoon. Our political correspondent


Stephen Walker asked Mr Adams if his party would accept


a DUP Justice Minister. Well, we had the Executive elected


on Wednesday. If we do not go into another election, we have a series


of options to mixture of the Executive is elected. Arlene Foster


says she want have Sinn Fein justice minister. Is that the basis for a


partnership in Government? Well, look, let's not underestimate the


challenges that Irish republicans have working with the Democratic


Unionist Party. Let's not underestimate that. Is the


Government that we have in place the one that we would choose? No, it is


not. Clearly we are united Ireland is and we went to see United system.


We are resolute in pursuing that. We want to build peace and build


partnership and build equality and to end division. We work with the


DUP, notwithstanding the faculties. They would say the same thing about


us. We are a progressive party, a party which believes absolutely


inequality and unity of citizens. I'm not going to rise to these


suggestions or put downs. We have a job of work to do, we are elected to


do that and that is what we're going to do. Is the DUP Justice Minister


better than another election? If there's going to be another


election, we will fight that election on the positive platform.


Would you go for a DUP does Minster before an election? In other words,


if that is the choice? Well, let's say this, if there is an election,


Sinn Fein will fight that election. Our focus at the moment is to get a


fool executive and just as minute collected on Wednesday. How


difficult is it for Sinn Fein to have the DUP ruling out a Republican


in the justice post? The DUP has been very clear in saying this time


they want accept a Sinn Fein justice minister. Gerry Adams did not rule


out having a DUP justice minister. He just said, we will see. That


looks like one of the likely prospects. An independent take up


the post. They have put out feelers to try and take the post. Of all


those people decline, that would be the possibility of a DVD justice


minister. For Republicans, policing is one of the... It is quite


controversial. One of the options would be, it hasn't been discussed a


lot but it would be Arlene Foster ticking on the job of justice


minister alongside first-Minister, which you could do and she could


appoint a shin pain junior minister. That is a possibility -- Sinn Fein.


When you hear that commentary and when they walked out of Stormont


house and they had confidence that there would be a justice minister,


there is something in the back pocket. I think it's one thing this


collection shows us is that people want these two to be a partnership


together. People are voting for a Sinn Fein DUP are to lead


Government. Even people who do not vote, say they want them to be the


Government. There is no alternative to that. Clearly this is something


that is going to show us a very different strand of politics between


now and the next election. We don't want to have another election. Sinn


Fein did not have a good election. I don't think they would want to go


back and have another election. Stephen Walker was busy for us


on Friday, he also spoke to the senior DUP MLA,


Simon Hamilton, and put it to him that if a Justice Minister couldn't


be agreed, then we're facing I don't believe it will get to that.


We are very confident we will have a solution, we have asked the business


committee to convene the Assembly for next Wednesday. That is going to


take place. We heard the Deputy First Ministers say they will have


an executive in place. It will get down to its business on Thursday


next week and get on with what the people want, try to move Northern


Ireland forward. Penny except a Sinn Fein justice minister? We have made


our vision clear. We are examining a range of options but we believe it


should be satisfactory to everyone as well. It will allow us to have a


justice minister in place and we will command confidence and allowed


the wider executive to be formed and get down to its work over the next


years. Is Claire Sugden is serious candidate for justice minister? I


think she is a very good Assembly minister and I think she has the


skills and ability to be a minister. We have been speaking to her in the


last couple of days and had a very good discussion with her yesterday.


We are having a discussion and we will continue and we will continue


to consider it between the parties at Stormont. Would you be happy to


see her as justice minister? I have had the pleasure of working with her


over the last few years and she has been very good Assembly met Merck


and keeping ministers like me to account -- Assembly member. She is


somebody who I think to do a job in the Executive. What about Stephen


Agnew? We had a conversation with him yesterday. The Alliance party


made requests and they wanted to see these things in the programme for


Government and wanted to see implemented to dig up the blaze in


the Executive. Some would be difficult for the DUP to agree to.


We are having a discussion including discussing with other parties and


Sinn Fein as well. There is a big irony, isn't there? The DUP quite


happy for Sinn Fein to educate children and looking after unwell


people but not justice? A lot of people wonder what partnership


Government is about if you do not trust the other party enough? I


think it is they had always assumed if the justice minister had been


appointed it would have been somebody from Sinn Fein with the


taint of a Republican past. For the DUP and voters that was a step too


far. There is obviously something in the back pocket. I don't think going


to have another election. Claire Sugden is a very capable Assembly


member. She got elected as an independent. Does she want to be


bolstering up the two parties? Could she do the job's is it realistic was


my everyone can do the job. As an independent? Of course she can. If


they ask to do it and you does it, simple as that. It is not


problematic. The processors allow that to happen. Procedures allow


that happen. At the end of the day, these two are the main parties. They


should form a Government together and find a way to solve these


problems as best they can. That is what the electorate have said.


You're the two main parties, get on and make it a normalised to go


system. That is how we move forward. Thank you for now.


Thank you both for now - and if all goes to plan as the DUP


and Sinn Fein see it, then some new faces will be sitting


around the Executive table, some of them heading


To begin at the top, the awkwardly titled... Becomes simply the


Executive office. There is no change at the Department of Finance. The


Department of Health remains just that, as does the Department of


Justice. The Department for Education keeps its name, although


it takes over a range of children's services, currently dispersed among


other departments. After that, it is all change. The new Department of


agricultural Department, combines agriculture. The rest of the GOP is


taken up by the Department of infrastructure, along with the


Department of regional development. A new Department of the economy,


eats up the old Department of trade and investment. The new Department


for communities sees the Department of culture, arts and leisure


amalgamate with the Department of social development.


Hope you followed that - and, of course, one of the big


stories of the next week is likely to be who the new Education Minister


is in the new Executive, because he or she will be walking


into a situation where there are unprecedented fears over school


With me in the studio now are Deirdre Gillespie,


the Principal of St Mary's Grammar School in Magherafelt,


and Ralph Magee, the Principal of Andrews Memorial Primary


In the weeks leading up to the election we heard serious


concerns about the increasing costs that schools are facing


and the effect on class sizes and subjects being offered.


There's been a lot of talk about opposition since the election -


but presumably you just want to get an Education Minister


Absolutely. Schools are facing unprecedented financial pressure at


present. Schools in my sector have deficits ranging from 100,000 to


500,000 over a period of three years. The situation at the moment


is unsustainable. That has almost come out of nowhere? Absolutely. I


left school around Easter with, I thought, a surplus of 1000 and came


back with a deficit of ?190,000. This is, on the back of successive


cuts over the years were schools have put in cost saving measures and


we had nowhere else to go. I have cut my teaching workforce over the


last four years by 10%. If I have to balance might looks, that would mean


more cuts in staff, which would result in bigger class sizes, less


subject choice and not being able to deliver on key policies. Is it the


same situation in the primary sector? In terms of the outworking


deficits, yes, it is. It is a slightly different look when the


impact is looked at in terms of primary because we're not talking


about subject choices, we are talking about having a teacher in


the classroom. The scary side to this is we are looking at schools


across the board in all sectors, sustainable schools over as the


tv-mac oversubscribed schools, popular schools, who now face a


situation of having to cut cord teacher star. You will have children


with no teachers. That result in huge class sizes. Key stage one, we


have to ask permission from the Department to go above 30, that is


going to disappear. It is frightening prospect. Deidre, we had


the Donaldson report on health, which topped about the need for bald


but good decision-making where services should be minting or not


maintained depending on value for money. It was going to be on


politicians to grasp the nettle and make tough choices. They may be


unpopular. Is this same scenario beginning to emerge in education?


There are two issues that any minister needs to grasp quickly,


that is the allocation of funding directly to schools. Currently, 41%


of the school budget goes to administration. It leaves only 59%


directly to schools. That is in contrast to the jurisdictions in the


UK, 90% goes to the front line. There is an urgent need to look at


the allocation of funding to schools, to ensure our young people


have the facilities that would lead to high quality education. Might it


mean we need to seriously sit down and look at school closures? There


was a report couple of years ago that said we have 1200 schools. We


need about 700. Absolutely. These are the hard decisions they will


have to make. Last year of education committee put together a draft paper


on -based planning. They said they were 56 surplus places in primary


school we have six forms that do not comply to 100 or more, which would


equate to a value for money. There is a serious need to look at the


school estate. Is that what the new education Minister needs to tackle


when he or she sits down behind a desk next Friday, the possibility of


closing schools across Northern Ireland? Well, as we have both said,


and the facts speak for themselves. The current situation is


unsustainable. You have a huge number of schools in Northern


Ireland, which will be thrown into financial crisis. Nobody wants to be


responsible for that, that's the reality. We know we have too many


schools, we also have too many sectors. We have too much.


Administration Those are really hard things to talk about in a divided


society. They have to be talked about because increasingly we are


talking in terms of public service, education is one of them. We are not


talking about learning and the excitement, we're talking about


money. We are talking about making cuts. In a nutshell, if the nettle


is not grasped and the Minister and people working for the minister did


not deal with this issue, what happens? Well, you ultimately have a


board of governors who are handing in financial plans that will not be


approved by the education authority, and they will ultimately, if the


governor says no, we cannot do any more, they are going to say over the


next number of weeks or are seeing now, the board or education


authority will have to run them for them. They will not be able to do


that because they will have to cut people. Primary, we will have no


teachers. That is something that is going to happen. It is an


apocalyptic scenario. If you follow logically and what needs to be done


is not done, it's a disaster? Absolutely. The people who are going


to suffer in all of this our young people. We're not going to be able


to provide the quality of education that we do. They will be a


generation of lost opportunity. Let's bring Pete and Alison in.


Pete, you are an educationist. You followed this closely. How would you


deal with the apparent contradictions that I presenting?


First of all, what Deidre said is wrong. You should be -- you should


not be having bad management. That should be corrected by the Assembly


wrong, because it is happening? You expect the majority of the pound to


go to what you are facilitating. More physical control? The other


issue is the education system. RB ever going to get rid of -- are we


ever going to get rid... Why are we producing people to become teachers,


we have three different sites in Northern Ireland. That costs a lot


of money. One of the knock on is that to be University of Ulster have


led to redundancies and students have come out and protest it. This


is a mess. This is a mess. It is a challenge about the past, how do we


get rid of the education system. If we went to allow a good health


service, an investment in the society, we want to need to make


hard decisions in the education sector. That will save money and


protect the long-term future. You will have to swallow some bitter


pills now. We need to do that to have a normalised functioning budget


for the society. But the challenges for the politicians but, Alison,


very often in Northern Ireland politicians are not enthusiastic


about taking those difficult decisions. In the last


administration, the Sinn Fein education minister, had he shut down


a rule school in a Protestant area,... Ill expect we're going to


have a DUP Minister. Should they shut down an Irish language school,


they are going to be accused of being sectarian. It is very


difficult to take those decisions without being accused of feeding


into some sort of sectarian diatribe. What Pete said about


education, we do not speak about that any more. I think we have just


given up. Let's go back to the principles, do you think there could


be good in terms of delivering the change that needs to happen? We will


have some kind of formalised opposition? Do think that would help


the debate around these difficult decisions? Are supposed to give the


party in opposition the freedom to object and to voice their opinions


and concerns. And to call the Minister to account? Absolutely. The


bottom line is, I hate to repeat the word unsustainable, but it is


unsustainable. We cannot have a system running like this. Perhaps


this budget, this finance issue, has brought things to a head. We


definitely have to start discussing. Deidre, opposition a good thing?


Absolutely. They will hold Government to account and there will


be a voice, hopefully, for education. Just a final thought,


we've been talking about parties fighting over education. It could


become Wednesday the all running away from education board portfolio.


There are problems and minefields. Clearly, a Government will be set


up. These two parties have too realised the competition against


them is not there. The DP looking over the shoulder, Sinn Fein looking


over their shoulder, they have to stop doing that. -- DUP. That is it


from all of it is therefore the public


as well as serving a useful purpose To you both, thank you very much


indeed. And with that, it is


back to you, Andrew. Treasury warnings on Brexit,


is Labour on course for 2020, and are there enough women


in the referendum campaign? And joining me and my panel


of so-called experts, is the former Deputy Leader


of the Labour Party Harriet Harman. Wellcome, it is nice to see you


again. The Treasury has already told us how bad the economy will be in


2030, but nobody really knows. This is about, in their view, the


immediate impact on interest rates, mortgages, jobs, house prices,


before the autumn is out. This I would suggest is politically more


significant? Yes, and it is absolutely the Remain campaign's


biggest howitzer which is why they are firing it now. This is the last


time they can deploy the full mast ranks of the government's resources


into the campaign. Most people disagree passionately in this


campaign about whether over the long-term the British economy will


prosper or not outside the EU. Pretty much everybody, I think apart


from Boris Johnson has admits it there might be some short-term


problems. It is the same with retail. We have heard from the Prime


Minister today. And mortgages, smacking people as hard as they can


in their pockets. Even Boris Johnson said there would be a fall because


he hopes it will go up. People may be nervous that when they get onto


that tick it does not stop falling. It will be a difficult one for the


Leave campaign? Guess, and I am picking up a lot of concern in the


various Brexit camps. They look as if they have conceded the argument


on the economy. Of course, they emphatically argue the opposite


direction is that we can do even better out, but there is a lot of


concern among those who want to leave, that those who are


representing them in these campaigns, are not putting the


argument strongly enough and are almost backing of it which is why we


are hearing arguments about Turkey and immigration and other things. I


think Leave has to come out really strongly and rebut what the Treasury


is saying point by point, whether it is on food prices, and there is a


compelling argument that the Common Agricultural Policy example


massively distorts prices. Food may not be more expensive when we come


out so we need to rebut it line by line. -- they need to rebut it. The


polling suggests if you are worried about the economy you will more


likely to vote Remain, if you are more worried about public services,


you will be more likely to vote Leave. This will create a sense of


economic uncertainty? Yes, and it will be interesting if they make a


GDP prediction. We are talking about food prices and employment but will


they predict a technical recession in GDP which I imagine will happen


if we vote to leave. The Bank of England has admitted that is a


possibility. I can think of people who are very high up in British


public life who are downplaying their view about how bad the GDP


crisis will be in the short-term. I agree with Isobel, it is strange to


concede the short-term economic argument. You cannot say here is the


reality of a short-term recession. In return, there is the prospect of


a longer-term economic benefit which realises in 2030. Labour does not


normally think very much of Tory forecasts. Will you accept this? We


are very concerned about jobs and prices and we are very concerned


about the cavalier sense that it might be a bit of a problem in the


short-term but it will be fine in the long-term, two reasons.


Obviously, the Treasury forecasts will be very well worth picking


through and looking through and will be very persuasive. As far as the


short-term is concerned, we are trying to find our way out of a


global financial crisis, and the idea that it would not cause major


uncertainty and instability to leave an economic union that we have been


part of four decades, it is a no-brainer even before tomorrow. You


think the short-term is a problem if we vote to leave? It will be a


problem about jobs, a problem about prices. Why on earth would we want


to try and distance ourselves from this biggest trading block of 500


million people. Why would we want to struggle for keeping our head above


water in the longer term when we are in the EU as we are? I think it is


cavalier from people who are not worried about prices and to feel


happy that their jobs are fine, let's make this bid for freedom. I


think it is reckless. Reckless? I think there is an accession among


the Remain camp and it is interesting that Harriet brings this


up, constantly bringing up trade associations. We can trade without


trade deals. We talk about the Remain camp focuses highly on the


importance of the trade deals have, but we are a service economy run


airily, and those trade deals do not cover the service sector. We can


trade but if you look without trade deals, that means paying tariffs,


for example. If you look at the food in our supermarkets which comes in


from Europe, they can put tariffs on that to make it cost more, and why


wouldn't they, if we opt out of that free trade area? They would not put


tariffs on food coming into Britain. We might do that, but they would not


do that. We would take off the tariffs from the food that comes


from America, Australia and New Zealand. We are in an established


range of trading which has been going on for decades and has seen


food prices going down. That is a big issue if you are on a low


income. Why would we take that risk? The former chief executives of


supermarkets, and they have not got any skin in the game because they


are former chief executives, they have said because of these


established arrangements, prices are likely to go up. We will hear more


of that this week with the Treasury report which is coming out tomorrow


morning. Talking about the economy, let's hear a word from John


McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor about Labour in the economy. This is


what he had to say yesterday. Our whole society could do so much


better than we are at the moment. What we have attempted over the last


eight months is to lay out the framework by which Labour can


win the next election, and then set about the fundamental


business of transforming capitalism. We should aim at nothing


less than that. So, socialism in one parliament,


that must excite you? He is talking about a new economic policy which


will talk about fairness and investment and he says we will be on


a listening exercise as they put the flesh on the bones. He is talking


about remaking capitalism, not reforming it, not liberalising it,


remaking capitalism. Is that realistic? I think there is a bit of


remaking to be done, for example, remaking the responsibilities of big


businesses to repay their taxes, do we think it is all sorted? It is


certainly not. Every government tells me they will put more


apprentices and you look carefully and they don't really. This


government, a lot of the apprentices are not what the Germans or


Austrians would regard as apprentices. Chasing that tax seems


to be in a never-ending chase as you try and close the loopholes. Because


it has not necessarily been done so far, and all credit to Margaret


Hodge and the Public Accounts Committee in exposing all of this,


does not mean it cannot be done. We could have lots more investment if


people paid their tax and we could have much more prosperity in the


economy, but he is recognising we have to convince people that they


can trust us on the economy. Are you happy with the direction he is


taking you? I think the principles he is setting out is right. We got


the wrong answer in the general election last time and we got to be


the opposition rather than the government, and we have to get a


different answer next time and that means convincing the public. It is


about setting up a framework that also making sure we are listening to


what the public's concerns are about us, not what we want to hear but


what they are saying. You don't think there are enough women


involved in the referendum campaign? Would it not be fair to say that it


is really the Remain side which has the female problem. The Leave site


has Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, pretty Patel, Penny Mordaunt and so on. It


is your side which is lacking the women -- pretty Patel. There is


hardly anything between either side. Really? Could you do a list like


that? One of the things we are saying is actually, being in the EU


has helped back-up women at work. It is paradoxical, and it might seem


unlikely, but the EU has been a strong friend to women at work and


these directives which governments always do not like, either Labour or


the Tories don't like the idea of directives from Europe, but they


have been backing up part-time workers... I understand that but I


am looking at the fact that you have said there are not enough female


voices in the campaign. Do you agree with that? I would agree with you.


The Leave women are pretty loud. Where is Theresa May? She is the


single biggest female voice and she is almost mute. The idea that the


Leave side is in some post feminist political nirvana is for the


absolute birds. And I think of the Leave side I think of Boris Johnson


and Nigel Farage and I cannot bear to think about it. I just gave you a


list. And Iain Duncan Smith. Five prominent women campaigners. Are you


saying they are a post feminist haven? No, I don't think they would


know what that is. I am trying to work out if your side has more of a


problem, but let's move on. You say the EU is a beacon of gender


equality. I would like you to look at this. These are all the top jobs


in the European Union. Something probably strikes you about that.


Where is the gender equality in the EU in the top seven jobs? That is


why it is an irony that actually, the directives and European court


judgments have backed up women at work. Except in the EU itself? But


if you look at the Treaty of Rome, which was very much ahead of its


time, saying you have to pay women equally and treat women equally...


It is do as I say, not as I do. It looks like a boys' club up there.


And the other thing that strikes me about this row of men. Who are these


people? Could you recognise all those people? Could you even


recognise one of them? I do know who they are and I don't like the fact


they are all men... That tells you about the EU and our sovereignty.


No, it does not. The directives from Europe have backed up women at work,


part-timers, low-paid women, women having babies. If our own government


would have done it, more better. Why haven't they read the directives? I


don't know who they are. That speaks for itself. They are the people you


think should be running us and you don't know who they are! I am


talking about the facts of the impact for women at work about us


being in the EU and our rights on maternity and equal pay. The


directives have helped us even when our own government have not. They do


not seem to have got the message. You have picked them at random! No,


they are not! Bayard the top seven jobs in the EU. Ranks to all our


guests, good to see Harry it back. -- thanks to all our guests, good to


see Harry it back. Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday


Politics, unless it is the Whitsun bank holiday.


Download Subtitles