25/02/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning everyone, I'm

Sarah Smith and and this

is the Sunday Politics...

Bringing you up to speed on all

the political comings and goings

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up in today's programme:

Having knocked Cabinet heads

together Theresa May

prepares - finally -

to lay out her vision for Brexit.

But can she keep her

whole party on side?

We'll be speaking to

a former Tory leader.

Waiting in the wings is this man.

But can Jeremy Corbyn unite

the opposing forces in his own party

and convince the electorate he'd do

a better job of Brexit?

The forthcoming local elections

in England ought to give us

a clue about the fortunes

of the two main parties.

We'll be previewing these

crucial council contests.

In London, the Government blames

the Mayor, the Mayor

Coming up here -

Claim and counter claim

about what was agreed at the talks.

The latest twist -

an apparent side deal to put legacy

issues out to consultation.

We'll hear live from

the Victims' Commissioner.

All that coming up in the programme.

And as usual, we've got three

Westminster insiders who will take

us behind the headlines and tell us

what's really going on.

Today I'm joined by Iain Dale,

Kate McCann and Steve Richards.

Next month, Theresa May

will begin formal negotiations

with her European counterparts

on what the future EU-UK

relationship should look like.

This week, she will lay

out her vision of life after Brexit

and she'll declare that our "best

days really do lie ahead of us".

EU leaders beg to differ though,

and have already taken

some pre-emptive swipes.

But, while the talk is likely

to get tough in Brussels,

the key battles could be

played out closer to home.

It's known as the Brexit war

committee, but the smiles suggested

an outbreak of peace among

the Cabinet's big beasts.

For now, at least.

They'd arrived at Chequers,

the Prime Minister's country

retreat, on Thursday afternoon,

to try and agree a common position

for the next round of Brexit talks.

Eight hours later, ministers

were apparently still smiling,

having agreed on something called

ambitious managed divergences

and future trade with the EU.

One of those present

said the Prime Minister

had played a blinder,

but will it be enough to hold

the whole party together?

Earlier in the week,

a letter from the pro-Brexit

European reform group found its way

into the newspapers,

politely reminding the Prime

Minister that when we leave,

nothing but full regulatory autonomy

will be good enough.

But it's Remain-minded Tories

who could throw a real

spanner in the works.

Conservative MP Anna Soubry

announced on Thursday she had...

"Tabled a new amendment to the trade

bill to force the government to form

a customs union with the EU".

27 other EU countries also

need to be won over.

Brexit Secretary David Davis

was in Vienna on Tuesday,

colourfully describing what Brexit

will not look like.

They fear that Brexit will lead

to an Anglo-Saxon race

to the bottom, with Britain plunged

into a Mad Max style world borrowed

from dystopian fiction.

These fears about a race

to the bottom are based on nothing.

But the EU are not convinced.

European Council President Donald

Tusk arguing that the UK

was still trying to

cherry pick its future

relationship with the EU.

I'm afraid that the UK position

today is based on pure illusion.

Until now, Jeremy Corbyn

has played his Brexit

cards close to his chest.

He may begin to reveal his hand

in a major speech tomorrow and this

week he unusually raised Brexit

at Prime Minister's Questions.

This government isn't on the road

to Brexit, Mr Speaker,

it's on the road to nowhere.

Can I congratulate the right

honourable gentleman,

because normally he stands up

every week and asks me

to sign a blank cheque.

And I know he likes cheques, but,

really, that is terribly...

That was a reference to reports

that the Labour leader had held

meetings with the former

Czechoslovakian spy in the 1980s.

Mr Corbyn hit back at those reports

with a social media video,

in which he said rather cryptically,

"Change is coming to

the newspaper industry".

Publishing these ridiculous smears

that have been refuted by Czech

officials shows just how worried

the media bosses are at the prospect

of a Labour government.

They are right to be.

Tory MP Ben Bradley had to apologise

to Mr Corbyn over a tweet

about the allegations, saying...

But it wasn't all Brexit

and brush passes.

The Prime Minister began

the week announcing a review

into higher education.

We now have one of the most

expensive systems of university

tuition in the world.

Theresa May wants to demonstrate

her government isn't

simply defined by Brexit,

but navigating the complications

of leaving the EU is

an all consuming task.

If she can avoid it

consuming her career, that

could be her greatest achievement.

Steve, Kate and Iain

were watching that with me.

Let's chew over what has been

happening this week. People saying

that meeting at Chequers, the Prime

Minister played a blinder and got

the Cabinet to agree. Outside the

Cabinet, it looks like she is

assaulted on all sides by

pro-Brexit, pro had Brexit Tory MPs,

the EU, it's not as easy as all

that?

It is never going to be easy

for a Prime Minister who hasn't got

a Parliamentary majority. She is

very resilient. Whenever she's

knocked down, she bounces back

again. I think she has had quite a

reasonable week this week, starting

off on the front foot and tuition

fees and ending the week with the

meeting at Chequers. I think a lot

of commentators thought it was going

to be a disaster, that they would

agree on the way board. The proof in

the pudding will be on what she says

in the speech on Friday. We have

Jeremy Corbyn mandates and

effectively she has to up with

probably quite a lot more detail

than she has done in the past. I

think they have the basis for that

now.

Kate, we've talked a lot on

this programme about the arguments

within the Cabinet but now it looks

like the focus is now on the wider

Conservative Party. You have

probably remain MPs like Anna Soubry

saying they want to stay in the

customs union, a letter from pro

except MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg

saying they want full regulatory

divergence. Which group is likely to

win the day?

I think what is most

interesting this week will be Jeremy

Corbyn's speech on Monday. That

comes before Theresa May's speech on

Friday. That will help tip those two

sites, as it were, and we will see

what will happen with the customs

union. Jeremy Corbyn is likely to

say he would like to stay in a

customs union that is likely to make

the Tory MPs on the Tories I'd like

Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, who

want to back and push for a customs

union feel like they have more

control over that. Whether it is

likely not promote we are yet to

see. If Labour is shifting its

customs union position that much,

that gives Tory MPs a lot more

strength in the House of Commons

because the government has already

pushed back a vote on the customs

union because they are worried about

what is going happen.

Those pro

remain Tories on the Labour Party

believe they have the Parliamentary

arithmetic to force a defeat on the

government over the customs union,

are they right about that?

Certainly

in theory they are right. There are

enough Conservative MPs and if the

opposition vote for this, the

government faces a defeat with

profound consequences. We will not

know probably until the moment when

the vote takes place. It will be a

moment of one of these great

Parliamentary dramas, where there

will be huge pressure on Tory MPs

not to go along with this and say,

you are in alliance with Jeremy

Corbyn and so on. We won't know

until the vote but in theory they

have the numbers. It would be a game

changer if this amendment was

carried.

This is fascinating. It

means the power has gone to the

house of parliament and has left

number ten and the Cabinet, Hilary

Benn described this as a backbencher

's parliament because the government

doesn't have a majority. Is that

where the authority lies now?

In

some ideas. I'm not sure if I agree

about the Parliamentary arithmetic

because some will die with the

Conservatives, and we will hear from

one later, Frank Field. There are a

group of them. I wonder about the

numbers on the Tory benches, there

is a hard-core group of about ten or

a dozen that you think might well

support Anna Soubry's amendment but

I don't really see it going much

beyond that. But you are right, it

will be on a bit of a knife edge. If

it came to the government were

defeated on this, then we are in

uncharted waters, because the

government could actually make it a

vote of confidence. It would be very

unusual to do one on an amendment to

a bill but it is possible, or they

could call a vote of confidence that

would put Anna Soubry and all the

others in

others in a bit a tricky position.

If they did vote against the

government on a vote of confidence,

they would have to be deselected.

We

will talk about that throughout the

programme.

Listening to all that is the former

Conservative leader,

and leading Brexit campaigner,

Iain Duncan Smith.

Welcome to the programme. Do you

accept there is a significant chance

the government could be defeated on

a customs union in the House of

Commons question when you don't have

a majority there is a chance to be

defeated on anything.

I love the way

the media looks at this cost would

take a pace back, it's a government

that won the election and didn't get

an overall majority so it means

almost anything anyone is upset

about could cause a problem for the

government, fact of life. Brexit is

just one, it's a very big issue but

one of those, there has been other

issues and there will be on the

issue is following through.

It

matters to you whether we are in a

customs union with the EU?

Lots of

things deeply matter to me, beyond

Brexit. But yes. I think the key

thing is not what I believe but the

Prime Minister has been pretty clear

about this from the word go, way

before the election, during the

election importantly and even

subsequently she has made it very

clear we are taking back control,

leaving the customs union, single

market, and at the same time making

sure we get outside of the remit of

the court of justice. She has been

clear about this.

Let's pick a bit of that. In her

Lancaster House speech she said she

wanted us to have a customs

agreement with the EU, not a customs

union but customs agreement. This

controversial amendment Anna Soubry

another Superdome says they want an

agreement that enables the UK to be

able to participate in a customs

union with the EU, is there space

for that?

It depends what the detail

is. The government set it out quite

rightly on having a proper free

trade arrang ement. You can describe

a free-trade arrangement in all

different ways but a free-trade

arrangement is about us having a

clear ability to sell-out goods into

the European Union them to sell us

without artificial trade barriers

that will require arrangements that

out customs arrangements. The big

them to sell us without artificial

trade barriers and that will require

arrangements that out customs

arrangements. The behind having a

customs union and being outside a

free-trade arrangement is we are 90%

of the graces in the global economy

in the next two years, we will be

free to do that. If we are in a

customs union, you to make trade

arrangements with America,

Australia, India, where ever we want

to, where 90% of the growth is in

the global economy in the next two

years, we will be free to do that.

If we are in a customs union, you

agree do that and therefore we would

have to what the European Union to

what the European certainly be

outvoted endlessly. This is about

where does the power light and we

would almost certainly be outvoted

endlessly. This is about where does

the with the rest of the world in a

moment but exactly what you

describe, the free-trade arrangement

with no tariffs with the EU

and the

freedom to make those deals, that is

what the EU called cherry picking?

What they really called cherry

picking is this arrangement we are

talking about now, a customs union.

They have been pretty clear about

this. They said it is not

acceptable. Let's look at it from

the European Union to make those

agreements?

I want to get into the

detail on free-trade deals with the

rest of the world in a moment but

exactly what you describe, the

free-trade arrangement with no

tariffs with the EU and the freedom

to make those deals, that is what

the EU called cherry picking?

What

they really called cherry picking is

this arrangement we are talking

about now, a customs union. They

have been pretty clear about this.

They said it is not acceptable.

Let's look at it from the European

Union's standpoint. We constantly

look at what the UK once. You use is

certainly not going to agree going

into a customs union where we will

then have over any future agreement,

so we will outvote all 27 because we

that would depend on the agreement.

...

That would depend on the

agreement. The EU wants would have

enormous power against them, they an

agreement, we would have enormous

power against them, they won't agree

because it is not in their interests

to do I think what is more in

arrangement. There are lots of

countries that are already breaking

ranks with the commission about

this, Italy, Sweden, Holland said we

have to have a free-trade

arrangement.

They are not on that

yet, they are still on the

implementation phase. When it comes

to free trade, I am very, very

certain that they will want to make

an arrangement with us because it is

in their interests, arguably more

than us. , they want a free-trade

arrangement. There are lots of

countries that are already breaking

ranks with the commission about

this, Italy, Sweden, Holland said we

have to have a free-trade

arrangement. They are not on that

yet, they are still on the

implementation phase. When it comes

to free-trade, I am very, very

certain that they will want to make

an arrangement with us because it is

in their interests, arguably more

than us let's move on to trade with

the rest of the world. Why do so

absolutely convinced that the

ability to do with Australia, China,

the ones the EU has at the,

different from the ones the EU has

at increasing our trade with these

countries from inside the EU? Their

biggest

are so terribly important?

Why can't we be increasing our trade

with these countries from inside the

EU?

Their biggest free-trade we are

naturally, the UK, more than any

other country in the European

country, arguably more than most in

the world, a free-trade for free

trade the WTO has a ready said they

love the idea of us coming back as a

full voting member because we will

argue for free trade. By, global

free trade and services, which stop

because the European Union has not

wanted to push the site at all.

Do

so much more trade with China than

us from within the EU?

That is to do

with what Germany says they want to

do and go and do it Germany do so

much more trade with China than us

from within the EU? That is to do

with what Germany says they want to

do and go and do it.

Being a member

of the EU has being a member of the

EU be outside the that so why do we

have to be outside you get rid of

artificial tarry

that is not

parallel argument. By getting trade

arrangements you get rid of

artificial and delays at the borders

that allows you to increase your

trade. We want from where we are.

But at the same time, incoming stuff

is just as important. The people who

will benefit most from a free-trade

arrangement of the poorest in

society because the cost of food,

footwear and clothing will almost

certainly our trade from where we

are. But at the same time, incoming

stuff is just as important.

You might as much larger and more

important market. The skill is not

that important. The key thing is, do

you value a marketplace, is it worth

doing business with? Financial

services is an important are great

-- an important area you want to

strike agreements with. The UK's

dominant in financial services and

you cannot get a free-trade

agreement within the single market

at the moment. You cannot sell

insurance in Germany without having

a company in Germany to sell it.

They have never wanted to do

financial service is free trade. We

will be in a much better state

globally. You have seen the increase

in New Zealand's trade when they

went for free-trade and got rid of

their trade barriers.

A dramatic

increase in no global position. The

tragedy led to this and they reckon

a free-trade deal with America we

did 0.02% to the UK's GDP.

I have a

bone to pick with the BBC. There has

been a brilliant economic report are

independent, which has been given

very little coverage which is taken

apart the model that the Treasury

and the government put together. For

example, dealing with this. The

reason why you arrive at this, it

depends on what you assume to be the

actual savings on the border. The

government has only assumed a 4%

saving on getting rid of tariff

barriers. Almost every economist in

the world agrees it is nearer to 20%

saving.

This study has been covered

on the BBC it was on the Daily

Politics on Friday. It assumes zero

tariffs on absolutely everything. It

is an extremely optimistic forecast.

It assumes a 10% tariff at the end

of the day, it assumes tariffs

falling to an average of 10%, not

zero. If they went to zero it would

improve it even more. I have read

this report backwards.

One of the

officers says that while there will

be benefits from free-trade deals,

over time it would be likely we

would mostly eliminate manufacturing

in UK by the things that would be

worth it and it should not us.

That

was one of the original suggestions,

much earlier.

But he was one of the

authors of this report.

He was but

he has accepted this is not going to

be the case within this report.

They're assuming that the border

changes will mean less of a tariff

on the borders at average. That is

what happens in most other

free-trade arrangements. The point

I'm making is it has a massive

benefit to the UK for us to do this.

That is why going for a free-trade

agreement with the European Union is

the right way to go. We forget what

Europe itself once.

Labour is in a

complete mess about this. We will

talk to this about -- we will talk

to them about that.

They were in

favour of leaving the customs union

and the single market and Barry

Gardner said it was making a vassal

state if you stayed in the customs

union. We will ask Labour themselves

about that. Theresa May has made it

clear where out of the single market

and Customs union and I say to my

colleagues who want to change some

of this, just be very careful on

this one, because being invited into

a Labour Party tactical game which

will end up in real damage the

United Kingdom.

Iain Duncan Smith,

thank you very much for talking to

us.

So much for the Conservatives,

but what about Labour?

In 24 hours' time,

Jeremy Corbyn will give

a keynote speech on Brexit.

All the signs are that he will back

the UK staying permanently

in a customs union with the EU.

But over 80 senior Labour figures

have today urged Mr Corbyn to go

further and support staying

in the single market as well.

But how would that go down

with the millions of Labour

voters who backed Brexit?

Here's what the Shadow Brexit

Secretary, Keir Starmer,

said this morning.

Well, we have long championed

being in a customs union with the EU

and the benefits of that.

Obviously, it is the only way,

realistically, to get

tariff free access.

It is really important

for our manufacturing base

and nobody can answer the question

how you keep your commitment to no

hard border in Northern Ireland

without a customs union.

We have always said

that the benefits of the single

market must be there in the final

agreement and that is a really

important commitment

because in the end, however

you arrive at that, in whatever

the instrument or agreement it is,

the benefits have got to be there.

Labour is agreed on that end state.

There is obviously an argument

about how we get there.

To discuss this I'm joined by two

Labour MPs who fall on opposing

sides of the Brexit argument.

Frank Field campaigned to leave

the EU and Stella Creasy

is a supporter of the pro-European

group Open Britain.

Thank you both for coming on the

programme. Stella Creasy, you have

signed this letter to Jeremy Corbyn

to be asking not only to stay in the

customs union but also the single

market. If you're in both of them, I

really delivering on the referendum

Brexit result?

There are lots of

different combinations that still

see is leaving the European Union

but do what Labour people across

this country, and that is why there

is support across the country and

the party for this letter, which is

to protect the jobs and incomes. We

know that Brexit, any of the models,

I am horrified to your Iain Duncan

Smith dismissing the idea that

manufacturing may be at stake or the

numbers don't matter. It is a

massive hit on our economy. It is a

massive hit took peace in Northern

Ireland if we leave the customs

union. These are called labour

values and that is what we are

standing up for.

You're asking to

stay in the single market. The

problem with that is you thought an

election last year under a manifesto

which said that free movement will

end.

You cannot do both. I am in the

migration committee on the Council

of Europe. Lots of people are

willing to talk about how we make

freedom of movement work. They

recognise politicians have not got

it right across the continent. If we

are not fighting to stay in the

single market we cannot have that

conversation about what the reformed

freedom of movement might look like.

I think freedom of movement is an

important right for people in this

country. I do not want to have to

see the kids in Walthamstow

Birkenhead that their ability to

work for a company that has a base

outside the UK will be hampered by

decisions we've made. That puts them

in an austerity Britain and I do not

want to do that.

Frank Field, does

this sound like a Brexit you could

sell to any leave photo?

No, and you

know perfectly well we cannot sell

it. I am looking forward to what

Jeremy Corbyn says tomorrow because

you have hyped it up. On every vote

we have had Onuora before he came --

before he became leader, Jeremy

Corbyn and I were deeply suspicious

of this organisation which is

corrupt, it has never got its

accounts audited, it is bankrupt.

Whatever he says tomorrow he will

not be arguing to stay in the EU, he

will be arguing for the customs

union?

Please, let me finish. It is

deeply corrupt. It is bankrupt. It

has destabilised Europe with all

this pretence about it has brought

peace. Look what we have done to the

area around Russia. Given there are

number of states within Europe who

depend on our contribution, we

should be voting for a clear

decorate -- a clear declaration, we

want a free-trade area, and we have

money. What are you going to choose.

I think we should take the gloves

off in these negotiations and look

at the real power structure. They

need our money, and for reasons

which Stella Creasy has put forward,

we need access to a free-market

arrangement.

What is your problem

with Jeremy Corbyn saying that the

Labour policy will be too clearly

stay in a customs union?

Two things.

One, it goes against what we said at

the election. It goes against all

the scare tactics during the

campaign, all the major figures were

saying, you know, if you vote here,

you're leaving the customs union,

you're leaving the free market.

There was no question about what the

referendum was deciding. And the

politics of this is, are we going to

be run by a London agenda? I know

Stella Creasy has got other issues

that she reaches out across the

country, but this is essentially a

London agenda against Labour voters,

particularly in the North.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

You have got the mayor of Liverpool

who signed this letter, the leader

of Newcastle Council.

You and I

would in the lobby fighting together

against this government's welfare

cuts.

£12 billion cuts.

That is

nothing to do with this. It

absolutely is. Even the bare minimal

model we are talking about would be

ahead on our economy and the

communities we represent. How can we

vote Forestieri the? How can you do

that to the voters, the People who

work in the Vauxhall plants in the

Wirral who are frightened they are

about to lose their jobs. How can

you do that to the People in

Northern Ireland?

Let me answer you,

please. We have been through the

courts. There is no problem about

the Good Friday Agreement being

challenged by this at all. We have

got time, I am happy to discuss it.

I think there are problems with the

Good Friday Agreement and a customs

union.

No, it will remain. If we

have time, I would love to discuss

that with you. About austerity, can

I answer that? We are net

contributor. We will have money to

be brought back. While some people

have signed the order leaders even

there, when you look at the

parliamentary arithmetic, Mrs May

almost hollowed out our vote in the

seats were only kept by a handful of

votes. These are seats which voted

very clearly to leave. That is the

act of faith. I know there are

problems about how do you give the

electorate the sovereignty to decide

an issue and then bring it back into

a representative parliamentary

system, but the vote was cleared to

leave. The bill is about leaving and

whether we support that or not and

if we do not support that, I think

Labour voters will draw their own

messages in the North.

Please do not

drive Boris's bars for the People of

those communities. You're saying

that somehow we will get money back.

All the evidence shows is that any

money you get back will be dwarfed

by what we will lose. You're talking

about £1 billion coming back.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

You can talk across me all you like,

the numbers are there in the

government's on analysis. That is

what we have to front up to the

communities we represent.

Are you

going to write on the People's

decision to leave?

You're coming out

with all these things, we will stay

in a customs union, we will stay in

a single market, the decision was

quite clear to leave. In the north,

Labour voters voted very, very

clearly. You going to rat on them or

not? Never mind about buses and all

the rest of it.

It does matter. Let her answer. It

is about the evidence that we now

have. Democracy did not stop the day

after the referendum.

People have a

right to see the detail.

Of course

they do. Do you accept that the

government figures show clearly that

if we stay in the European economic

arrangement, which is out of the EU,

we are still going to take a 16 pelt

-- a £16 billion hit on our economy?

That worse anything you get back.

This letter is not just signed from

people across the country but people

across the trade union movement

because they because they know the

hard Brexit the government is

pushing for and why it matters

Jeremy Corbyn is fighting for the

customs union and single market

membership.

It means jobs and wages.

What we should be fighting forest

sector agreements with the European

Union. We want a free-trade area.

They have always opposed the

activities of the city. There is no

need to worry about the city. There

is a need to worry about

manufacturing and we will make

special arrangements with them. The

issue is clear, do we disguise the

fact by pretending we're going to

have a customs union or some other

arrangement which counters what the

clear declaration of northern Labour

voters actually said?

They have

changed their side. A third of

Labour voters did vote for leave.

You risk them abandoning the party.

This is not about rerunning the

referendum. It is about what kind of

deal do we get and is it in the best

interests of Britain. I believe

voters across this country have the

right to know what is likely to

happen.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Of course they have a right.

A right

to every bit of information going.

The key thing, we have had a

referendum and we rarely use

referendums for this reason, they

are difficult to implement. The

referendum decision was clear and

particularly clear in the North from

Labour voters. I want to keep faith

with them. I voted to come out. I

know it is harder for people who

voted to stay in. Are we going to

dress up a retreat, Agassi?

Then

there is a complicated decision for

you to make. We've been talking

about the amendment put forward by

Anna Soubry and others, an amendment

to the trade bill that will be voted

on in a few time. There is a

potential to defeat the government

is Jeremy Corbyn comes out in favour

of a customs union and whips his MPs

to vote that way. If you had the

opportunity to win a vote against

the government and bring down

Theresa May, would you vote with her

to keep her in office or against?

That is not the choice and you know

that. That will be the choice on the

day. We will have a decision, do we

continue to implement the referendum

decision. I shall be voting for

that.

Even if that is voting to prop

up the government?

It is not about

propping up the government it is

about implementing a decision of the

People. The government has a

majority on this. The idea that Anna

Soubry is going to lead all these

people into the labour lobbies is

just fairy tales. But we will see on

the night. The government will win

comfortably and double figures on

this issue.

Frank Field, Stella

Creasy, we will have to leave it

there. Thank you very much.

The local elections in May will see

many seats in the big metropolitan

councils in England up for grabs,

and the Conservatives may need

to brace for a difficult night.

A YouGov poll predicts

Labour could seize several

Conservative councils in London,

including one the Tories

have never lost before.

Emma Vardy looks ahead.

Not since the swinging '60s has

anyone done better in local

elections than Labour

could be about to.

A recent YouGov poll is predicting

Labour will sweep London

with the best results for any

party since 1968.

One of the most enduring Tory

strongholds is here.

To this day, Westminster,

with its largely affluent

population of voters,

has never had a Labour-run

authority, but if the poll is to be

believed, that could now change.

This council has been

Conservative-controlled ever

since the borough was created

in the 1960s.

But if the swing was big enough

to turn this council red,

that would top off a very good

night for Labour.

The Conservatives are at position

where they could potentially

be left with just one,

maybe two councils in all of London.

I think that would be a bad night

for the Conservatives,

but it is possible.

They are having to fight to hang

on almost everywhere

they still have representation.

But away from London,

it could be a different story.

Birmingham City Council has been

controlled by Labour since 2012.

They hold around two-thirds

of the seats here, but there

is anger over a bin dispute that

lasted for months and left tons

of rubbish on the streets

uncollected, and resentment over

budget cuts that are

affecting local services.

It does not matter who is in because

there is nothing between them,

that is the problem,

because Birmingham is basically

screwed by central government,

who have reduced all of our grants.

There has been a lot of problems

with the bin collections.

Yes, there have.

Oh, yes.

The Labour run council

got the blame for that?

Yes, I would say so.

The more it dragged

on, certainly, yes.

This will be the first all-out

election for Birmingham City Council

since boundary changes,

so there are 101 seats

here all up for grabs.

It is a place Labour should do well,

but could the party be

punished over those bins?

Back in the summer, of course,

we had the bin strike.

It was not the city's

greatest moment in time.

When I became leader of the council,

I pledged we would resolve that

dispute, which we have now done.

We, the Labour Party

here in Birmingham, are committed

to maintaining weekly bin

collections going forward

for the next four years,

a commitment I've yet to hear

from either of the

other two parties.

Here in Birmingham, the council tax

has gone up over 20% in seven years,

but services have gone down,

and people are seeing rubbish

left on their streets,

and they feel it is time

for a change.

There are plenty of other

places who survive

on fortnightly bin collections.

With council budgets

being constrained, is that

not a sensible option?

In Birmingham, we are absolutely

clear that weekly bin

collections need to remain.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats

and the Greens remain much

stronger in local government

than they are in Parliament,

and in May, they will be

fighting to increase

their local authority presence.

While Ukip are likely to continue

to struggle to reverse

the party's decline.

But if the story of the night

is the biggest Labour

success since the '60s,

any high-profile defeats in Tory

strongholds could start to make some

Conservative MPs worry

about their constituencies ahead

of the next general election.

Steve, Kate and Iain

are still with me.

Let's pick up on the local

elections. Kate, should Theresa May

be deeply worried about this, what

she expected a bad night and what

might the consequences be?

No doubt

she will be worried but my favourite

thing is Everything is underlined by

the fact people care more about

things than other things that is

what politics comes down to, at the

end of the day. I think Theresa May

will be worried. -- it comes down

bins. It is a battle ground for

those parties. Places like Haringey,

if you see what has happened to

Labour in those areas, and how

powerful momentum and the left have

become in local politics, you see

how much it matters to Labour. I

think the Tories will be worried,

particularly about London. As the BT

said, Labour expect to do quite well

and that is not going to look very

good. Brandon Lewis, the new

chairman of the party, said last

week we expect big losses in London.

He is setting that already. I think

the Tory party is worried. In areas

like Birmingham and other areas

around the country, Brexit is likely

to be important and I think that's

why it comes back to labour being

modelled on Brexit. People vote with

their feet. If the Tories can win

back some seats like burning in

other places, it might not be a

massive all-out loss lost them on

the night.

Expectation management

already being Manoj

already being Manoj -- being

managed. Actual voters telling us

what they think. Did they have

consequences that Parliamentary

politics?

They could do this time.

It reminds me, Steve will remember

this, 1990 when the Tories did

disastrously in local elections.

Kenneth Baker went out on the

streets and exempted we kept once

loved. I don't think that will

happen this time. Kate is right,

Brandon Lewis, the Tory party

chairman has already started to

manage expectations. He generally

believe they are in for a drubbing,

particularly in London. These will

last up for grabs in 2014 when Ukip

are doing well. In the last year,

Ukip's vote has virtually

disappeared. So all three other

parties, their votes have gone up in

by-elections. It depends where that

vote goes, Wilbur Liberal Democrats

be able to hold onto the seats they

won in that year? -- Wilbur Liberal

Democrats be able to hold onto the

six? I think it will be a drumming

but I think it will be patchy. Andy

Street has been reasonably popular

in the West Midlands. If they do

in the West Midlands. If they do

that they will have a 1990 situation

and that is all they will talk

that they will have a 1990 situation

about.

Even if they lose

Westminster?

Probably.

How important

is it for Labour to do

Westminster?

Probably.

How important

seem to be be -- do they need to be

seem to be be -- do they need to be

seen making advances, to keep up

with the idea they are on the Tory's

heels?

I think it is important for

that whatever happens I don't think

heels?

I think it is important for

it will have a huge impact on the

heels?

I think it is important for

national picture because I think it

will confirm the dynamics as they

already are, in other words Jeremy

already are, in other words Jeremy

Corbyn has been in a strong position

since the general election and that

will be confirmed. Theresa May has

since the general election and that

been in a fragile position

since the general election and that

general election and that will be

confirmed. But by that point Brexit

general election and that will be

will be reaching or coming close to

one of its several climactic son I

think that will shape the national

one of its several climactic son I

picture. The local elections will be

really important for local

government, who inherit the

nightmarish budget. It won't change

government, who inherit the

the national picture very much.

Iain

said Ukip's vote has been falling

and they have had their troubles

recently as well. Important to see

where their vote goes

recently as well. Important to see

we are moving back to

recently as well. Important to see

politics maybe?

I think it does

nationally but locally it's a

different picture

nationally but locally it's a

vote tends to go on all kinds of

directions. It doesn't necessarily

go where you think it will. So

directions. It doesn't necessarily

Liberal Democrats and the Greens

directions. It doesn't necessarily

quite well at local elections,

whereas nationally they don't do

whereas nationally they don't do

very well at all. I think

whereas nationally they don't do

you do see people who would vote for

whereas nationally they don't do

any other party going for any other

any other party going for any other

party and not necessarily the Tories

any other party going for any other

and Labour. I think it comes down to

how much this comes down to Brexit.

Do people care more about Brexit or

how much this comes down to Brexit.

bins question mark in areas like

how much this comes down to Brexit.

London, I think Brexit and bigger

national issues will have a bearing.

London, I think Brexit and bigger

Brexit one way or another will help

with your bins?

London has become a

Labour city. Huge capital city with

Labour city. Huge capital city with

millions and millions has become a

Labour stronghold. That is

millions and millions has become a

significant for all kinds of

reasons. It has also become as

strong as it used to be in Scotland.

Even in 2010 in the general

election, London voted Labour by a

Even in 2010 in the general

wide margin. That is quite a

Even in 2010 in the general

significant development.

We need to

leave it there just now, coming

significant development.

We need to

to you later in the programme.

Still to come...

We speak to Former Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about returning to Parliament

after major surgery for cancer.

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland.

Claims of a side-deal over legacy

inquests have caused the latest

ill-tempered fall-out

between the two big

parties at Stormont.

It raises new questions about just

what went on during the recent

failed negotiations.

The Victims Commissioner,

Judith Thompson, is with me

to share her thoughts on how

the interests of victims might best

be served in future.

And here to reflect on another week

of revelation and counter-revelation

are Professor Pete Shirlow

and Chris Donnelly.

It's been a week

of claim and counter claim

over draft agreements

and political deal making.

Blink and you'd have missed

the latest twist or turn.

Here's Gareth Gordon

with a reminder of it all -

in just 60 seconds.

The agreement is leading a Secretary

of State talks about the positives.

And we believe about progress on the

substantial issues being made.

Sinn Fein the DUP met the Prime

Minister in London.

Whether intentionally or not,

Theresa May is facilitating the DUP

blocking advancement and resolution

on these core issues.

I could not be clearer in relation

to the Irish language act, if you

look at the so-called draft

agreement.

We had agreed the Statute of

Limitations. The consultation was

going to be put out the money was

going to be released.

No such proposal was put to me, and

I am not aware of any agreement

breach between Sinn Fein in the UK

Government to hand over money for

legacy.

The DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson

and Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly debating

legacy on The View on Thursday

night, and that encounter has

re-shaped the conversation

in the past couple of days.

On Friday Arlene Foster said the DUP

was not aware of a deal

between Sinn Fein and the government

on Troubles' inquests

"in the absence of an overall

agreement" - as she put it.

The NIO issued a statement

saying all its discussions

were in the context of how it

would respond to an overall deal.

Meantime, Sinn Fein's Michelle

O'Neill spoke to the Victims'

Commissioner on Friday

to update her on legacy matters -

and Judith Thompson joins me now.

Welcome to you, thank you for

joining us. Were you convinced that

telephone conversation you had with

Michelle O'Neill that progress was

made on releasing funds for legacy

inquests irrespective of whether or

not progress was made in the wider

negotiations process?

What I understood from my

conversations, I had asked for

meetings with party leaders and

government, but Sinn Fein came back

to me and offered this debriefing

which happened on Friday. What I was

told was that three things were

agreed between Sinn Fein of the

British government. It was not

absolutely clear how far other

parties were in on that, and that is

something I will ask the British

government. The first of those three

things was to release the

documentation which we now exists,

the draft legislation for three

legacy bodies which will deal with

1700 odd deaths that have not been

investigated. That will deal with

the opportunity for people to get

their narratives heard when they're

worried about what will happen, that

will deal with information

retrieval. Those things come I

understand talking to all the party

leaders, were broadly agreed before

we even got to the talks. The

Secretary of State told my for in

October, told me this year, that

they would go ahead with those with

or without an assembly. It would not

be surprising if that went ahead.

The second point, which is in the

3-point agreement but Michelle

O'Neill spoke about, was that there

would be funding for legacy

inquests. That is something which

the Chief Justice took responsible

for two years ago. There are

something like 45 backlog inquests.

He needs funding to do it. It is not

part of the Stormont house

agreement. It is a part of the

justice system, which is

underfunded, and the Chief justice

has been forthright that that needs

to happen. That could happen outside

of the context of other things. The

DUP's view was they wanted

historical investigations as well.

If we have consultation on

historical investigations, at some

point you would expect them to be

agreeable to legacy inquests going

ahead. That second point is not way

off beam but it would seem to have

been contingent on the movement of

the historical investigations unit.

The third thing on the list of

points was that there should not

be... As part of the consultation,

they should not be an additional

discussion on amnesties. This was

never part of Stormont house, it is

something which has entered the

debate recently. Following a defence

committee report. I have spoken, and

my for has spoken to all of our five

party leaders, under the two

governments. And none of them told

us that they were in favour of an

amnesty, because it is clear that

whether to be one -- were there to

be one, it would mean none of our

party leaders felt it would be

particularly helpful or popular in

Northern Ireland. Whilst victims and

survivors want different things

broadly, there was not a welcome for

an amnesty.

It was very clear on Thursday night

that there was a sharp exchange of

views between Jeffrey Donaldson and

Gerry Kelly. Much has been made of

that. Jeffrey Donaldson was very

clear. He does not want to see

movement on those legacy inquests

without movement elsewhere. What

people want to know from you is do

you believe that an overarching deal

between the DUP and Sinn Fein is

necessary on the wider legacy issues

for this process to move forward? Or

should it be able to move forward on

its own merits?

I think it is desirable but not

necessary.

Ideal is desirable?

Ideal is desirable but not

necessary. The launch of the legacy

consultation, it is Westminster

legislation, it would always be the

Secretary of State who launches it.

The Secretary of State has been

saying for months that they will do

it. Regardless of whether it will

implement your. It is just as

funding matter. It could be done in

the absence of an agreement,

however, going through a

consultation process on legislation

whilst you have a lot of background

noise and political disagreement is

going to get in the way of

understanding, it is going to get in

the way of proper engagement with

that consultation, and therefore

what would be really desirable would

be for us to see something, not just

agreed between Sinn Fein of the

British government, but something

all of our British politicians could

say within the margins, we all want

to see this consultation go-ahead.

Because it is quite balanced

package. Clearly Unionists are

unhappy with the unilateral of the

£10 million for the legacy inquests.

Arlene Foster has claimed that,

Jeffrey Donaldson, others have

explained that in the past. But

there are other elements in the

overarching package which could

balance that up and are more to the

taste of Unionists.

Within those historical

investigations, they are not

unbalanced. It would redress the

issue that the DUP have, which is

that they feel that most of the 45

legacy inquests tends to be of state

actions. That will be redress its --

redressed. 1700 deaths, it would be

balanced. That would redress that

problem.

Is it not the case that the

responsibility rests with the

Secretary of State and the British

government to movable package

together to the benefit of everyone,

to take it outside the political

negotiation which doesn't seem to be

going anywhere fast at the moment,

and think about the interests of all

of the victims of 40 years of the

troubles? Would you like to see that

happen?

I would like to see it go to a

consultation which is not marred or

undermined by political fighting

over something which, fundamentally,

these parties are not 1 million

miles apart on.

When you put them in a television

studio and speak to them about this,

you could be forgiven for thinking

that there is an enormous gulf

between them. But when you start

looking at the detail of what they

are saying and you start stripping

back some of the wild claims and

more extravagant comments that are

made, in fact does not appeal to be

a great deal separating them.

I would agree, and that is why it is

important that a disagreement about

how things were agreed does not get

in the way of a package which is to

the benefit of people in Kings Mills

as much as in Bali Murphy. This

affects all of our people across

Northern Ireland regardless of

community background. The DUP are

conscious of that. They have many

ex-members of the security forces

who are looking for investigations

and inquests. Those things offer

them as well. If I could also say,

there are two other things happening

here. The pension for the severely

disabled, we were told that would be

a devolved matter once we have a

Assembly. Without legislation from

Westminster, those 500 people who

were severely injured are sitting

and waiting, and that is utterly

unacceptable. We also need to

address the matter of unit which

will do an acknowledgement, which

needs to be looked at. And we have

policy, and we do not need

legislation, for a mental health

service, but we do not have a

budget. In the absence of ministers

and the government, that is a

problem.

I know you are to meet all of the

main parties and also the Secretary

of State in the near future. Do you

believe that this process can put

out a consultation sooner rather

than later? As Sinn Fein says should

happen, the DUP has the view that

that ought not to happen in the

absence of a bigger deal. Do you

think the process to be moved

forward by Karen Bradley in the next

couple of weeks?

I do. There are people marching in

Belfast for the truth, people who've

waited for decades for inquests and

investigations. And the same people

exist in every constituency. It is

really important we deal with this

stuff, and an argument between the

parties in a political context must

not get in the way of things which

they properly or an agreement in.

Jeffrey Donaldson was very clear the

other night. He has no problem with

the consultation on the legacy

mechanisms going forward. If they

deal with the issue of balance, I do

not see why they would have a major

issue over inquests, which should be

funded and cannot be funded. In

Northern Ireland, none of our

political parties leaders feel

Statute of Limitations be helpful

anyway.

That is not necessarily the case

across the water.

But here in Northern Ireland, where

it matters most.

Very interesting to hear your

thoughts, Judith Thompson, thank you

for coming in.

Let's see what my guests

of the day make of that.

I'm joined by Pete Shirlow

and Chris Donnelly.

Chris, yet again it looks as if

victims are cotton the middle of

political crossfire?

It is. Yesterday, there was a

memorial parade in the city centre

of Belfast for two men killed by the

IRA. There is a parade by primarily

victims of British forces calling

for the truth. This is happening

regularly. It is important to hear

the comments from the Victims

Commissioner, and plea that the

British government now has the

opposition -- opportunity to move

forward on the consultation.

Simultaneously, the legacy inquests

funding could be released. The

opposition to that is coming from

the DUP. Arlene Foster used the term

astonishing to suggest that would be

her reaction if the wind moves in

that direction. The collars with the

Secretary of State at the moment.

Pete, some people assume there is an

enormous gulf between the DUP and

Sinn Fein on this. The Victims

Commissioner suggesting that in her

view that gulf is not necessarily as

wide as many people... And maybe the

politicians themselves believe.

We have got an excellent Victims

Commissioner, someone who is

forensic and incredibly fair. Nobody

would have any problems with that

analysis, very important in such a

contentious and difficult issue.

What is important is the whole

process in which, you hear the

background noise and the anger, that

is what we here in the TV studios.

But in society more broadly, over

the last 20 years ago have come to

start to recognise and discuss these

issues much more intimately, much

more fairly, and much more justly.

We have got to this stage, and I

think the agreement did show

political maturity, we have this

process, we know some families

really want it to go down the

justice route. Families simply want

to know what happened and it's to go

further, that they have some

recognition from those who harmed

their loved ones. And the final

strategy is that we look at what

will happen, who is responsible,

what harmed this caused to our

society. That to me was incredibly

aggressive in dealing with these

complexities. We know that is there

and will continue to be there, as

the work of all of us will continue

to drive that process forward.

Chris, a lot of people say the

political process has been held up

by a failure to agree on the

poisonous issue of legacy. If you

turn it on its head, and if there is

the agreement that Judith Thompson

has just suggested may in fact

exist, it is possible, is it? Do you

agree, this thing could be drawn by

moving forward on all the different

aspects of legacy. That may help the

political discourse.

There might be consensus outside of

the DUP that those legacy issues

could be moved forward and separated

from the political process. The

problem remains, the DUP at the

leadership level are saying now,

they would be very unhappy with

that. They are going to come back to

the Secretary of State, people will

be watching very closely to see if

the British government is willing to

do that.

We will speak to you later in the

programme.

The Republic took another step

towards an abortion referendum this

week with the Cabinet agreeing that

voters should be asked

to repeal the 8th amendment

to the constitution and allow

the legislature to deal

in future with the issue

of pregnancy termination.

The 8th amendment gives an equal

right to life to the mother

and to the unborn child.

Our Dublin Correspondent,

Shane Harrison, begins his report

with a very personal story.

Tara Flynn is an actress and

comedian. She is about to do

something very, very rare for an

Irishwoman. Talk on camera about a

very, very private matter. Her

decision to terminate a crisis

pregnancy after a failure of

contraception when, duelling a very

difficult period in her life, at a

time when she could not cope.

I just knew it, my body knew before

my brain did, but I needed an

abortion and I knew nothing about

them, because we did not talk about

them at all in Ireland.

Tara says most people who know her

story have been very kind and

understanding. But not all of them.

I have been called a murder, and I

know that I am not. That is all that

matters. That is how I sleep at

night, I 100% do not believe that,

because I do not equate a foetus

with a living and breathing person.

And when I speak to other people

less extreme viewed people, they

will often say, when I say, do you

think I am a murder, they say no! I

say, do you think I should be in

prison, they do not believe that,

they feel discomfort, but they have

not got the space to think about it.

Abortion is something people in the

Republic are going to have to think

a lot about in the coming weeks and

months. With a referendum to repeal

the eighth Amendment to the

Constitution provisionally scheduled

for the end of May. The 1983

Amendment gives equal rights to life

to the mother and to the unborn. But

it has not stopped. Tens of

thousands of Irish women travelling

abroad to end their pregnancy. The

latest official government figures

show nine per day leaving for the

UK, and for per day importing pills

from the Internet to induce a

termination

termination without a prescription.

Pro-life groups, who disputed the

abortion pill numbers, will be

campaigning to save the eighth

Amendment, saying that there are two

sets of human rights at stake, that

of the mother and of the unborn.

I think we have heard the word

reality being used a lot in the

debate recently called up one

reality is being ignored, and that

is the reality that abortion kills a

baby and hurts and women. And we

have a very low abortion rate here

in Ireland. The number of Irishwoman

having abortions has fallen, and

that whole big -- fall began before

abortion pills became available.

Less women are having abortions

precisely because Irish society

became more tolerant and

compassionate and with better

support.

When people go to the polls, they

will be given to understand if they

vote to repeal they will also be

voting to allow unrestricted access

to abortion for the first 12 weeks

of pregnancy.

Fundamentally for me what this means

is not trusting politicians, it

means trusting women and their

doctors, and trusting women in the

first 12 weeks of their pregnancy to

decide what is best for them,

whether or not they want to continue

that pregnancy, and beyond 12 weeks

trusting doctors to allow it on

medical grounds.

If the people vote for a repeal the

is no guarantee the 12 weeks the

portal would be passed. And other

comments might add to the confusion.

He has said he is in favour of

repeal, but he is not happy with the

12 week was afterwards. And that

think that is where there will be

problems for government. He has

given political cover to some other

anti-abortion politicians, and I

think that will make things quite

tricky for Leo Varadkar.

It is still early days, but one

logician who wants to save the

eighth Amendment says she will have

to respect the results, and if need

be, vote for 12 weeks, the cost in

the Republic, unlike the UK, it is

people not the parliament that is

sovereign.

I am pro-life, but I also believe I

do not have the right to tell a

woman or another person what to do.

But that is my own decision.

Everybody should get out and vote.

As a legislator, I am saying I will

work for the will of the people with

what ever the result is.

In the meantime, activists on both

sides of the argument are preparing

for future battles. For those

supporting repeal, it is about

facing up to reality and no longer

colluding in a lie at a time when

Ireland exports its abortion problem

and imports its solutions.

The question is, would you for

someone to remain pregnant against

their will? And if you would, how

would you enforce that, how does

that look, do you detain me, do you

shackle my hands, do you do

pregnancy test at the airport? It

does not work, you cannot legislate

for it, let's acknowledge it

happens, it has always happened, it

will always happen, and let's keep

people safe.

But for the pro-life side, the

Republic is at a crossroads facing

fundamental questions.

Do we want to be a society which

loves and protects both mother and

baby, recognising both

vulnerabilities, or do we want to be

a society that decides when there is

a problem, we will kill the child?

This is the grave of 15-year-old and

Lovett, who died alone, four months

after the eighth Amendment was

passed. Edinburgh to a son who also

died. She passed away on a cold

January morning in a grotto behind

the Catholic Church in Co Longford.

The referendum will be the latest

chapter in how voters in the

Republic, with its past of mother

and baby homes with unmarked graves,

face up to the problems posed by

crisis pregnancies.

Shane Harrison reporting.

And let's have a final

word with Pete Shirlow

and Chris Donnelly.

Chris, Nigel Dodds has been saying

he does not see devolution coming

back in the short-term. Tony Blair

talking about Brexit and the Good

Friday Agreement. Where are we in

the next couple of weeks?

The fallout will continue from the

breakdown in the talks. But the

draft agreement, it is really going

to be as good as it gets. I can only

imagine that any deal is going to

look very close to that. If the

British government is able to move

independently on their own to move

towards implementing elements of

that, it might actually help us get

to that point sooner rather than

later.

Pete?

This is the point for civic

leadership, we have to stand up and

talk across the sectarian divide,

the traditional divide, talk about

tolerance and respect. When people

spoke about the Good Friday

Agreement, being over, that is

nonsense. The Good Friday and

Belfast agreement was a people's

process. We had a move to being a

much better society than we were.

The civic leadership comes to the

fore and makes it clear that that is

the type of tolerant and fair

society we want.

Is there a public appetite for that

changed debate, perhaps?

Perhaps what needed to happen was

the agreement being leaked, people

will perhaps get to look at the

details of that and come to terms

with it. In that sense, whenever

talks are convened, as they will

need to be in the future, that might

be the basis upon which they will be

able to agree.

We will leave it there, gentlemen.

That's it.

Back to Sarah in London.

Welcome back.

Now, he was the Northern Ireland

Secretary at a crucial time

in UK-Ireland relations.

But late last year,

James Brokenshire realised

he had a health problem,

when he began coughing up blood

whilst on a break with his family.

Tests revealed a cancerous lesion

on his lung and at the start

of the year he announced his

resignation from the Cabinet

to undergo major surgery.

His operation was a success and,

a few short weeks after being

discharged from hospital,

he has returned to Parliament

and I'm delighted to say

he's also joined us now.

Welcome to the programme.

Thank you very much, good to be

back.

How are you feeling?

Remarkably well, very strong. First

week back in Parliament, which was

quite emotional, people coming up

and giving you hugs. It's

interesting how something like this,

from across the comparative party, a

unifying issue, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

Nicky Morgan, coming and welcoming

you back. And Labour MPs, SNP MPs

and the Lib Dems, real warmth. It is

a rarity, as we know at times, where

some of the political bait is very

intense, to have that very warm

reception. So I was very moved.

You

look very vigorous, it is only about

six weeks?

About six weeks. The care

and support I received from the NHS

was absolutely outstanding. I just

could not fault the hospital

treatment that I received. I suppose

being disciplined about getting

back, getting myself fit, forcing

myself to do lots of exercise, do

lots of walks, having Cassiem my

children, strong family support

behind me as well, it has just been

amazing. The number of people that

are written in, e-mailed, wishing me

and, whether they support my own

party or not, just wanting me to do

well. So yes, positive. The

prognosis is good. I think I was

lucky that I was able to pick it up

early enough. But it has I think

underlying to me a number of issues

about lung cancer, as I had a small

cancerous Schumer, where there is

some stigma Ramis. Around 15% of

cases of lung cancer have no link to

smoking. I think people try and form

some judgments, that is someone's

fault. People shouldn't do that at

all about cancer. It is about early

intervention, picking it up early,