28/01/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's

moving and shaking in

the world of politics.

Can the Conservative Party speak

with one voice on Brexit?

As Tory splits spill out

in to the open once again this week,

can the Prime Minister

reassert her authority

over a divided party?

We'll be speaking to the former

Conservative Cabinet

Minister, Theresa Villiers -

hitherto a loyal voice,

but who says she's now worried

about Brexit being diluted.

Is Jeremy Corbyn heading for a fight

with Labour councillors?

As local government chiefs accuse

the party's ruling body of trying

to intervene in local decisions,

we'll be speaking to one

of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies.

And coming up here:

After Friday's highs and lows

on the business front,

how resilient is Northern Ireland

to global strategies

and economic downturns?

And how big a role can our

local politicians play?

All that coming up in the programme.

And to help me to make sense

of all the big stories today, I'm

joined by Camilla Tominey,

Rafael Behr and Rachel Shabi.

I'm sure they certainly

won't all speak with one voice.

The newspaper headlines

make pretty grim reading

for the Government this morning.

'Tories in Turmoil',

'Brexit betrayal',

'PM told to raise her game'.

Tory Brexit divisions erupted

in public once again this week.

So, is the Government's

biggest priority now

becoming its biggest headache?

Morning, Home Secretary. They

divided cabinet?

A new cabinet since

that modest reshuffle but still the

same old Brexit split. Foreign

Secretary Boris Johnson, who spent

so much time on that infamous boss

promising extra money for the NHS,

went off Brive at the meeting on

Tuesday, pushing the government to

honour that much maligned pledge.

Do

you want to be the health secretary?

Philip Hammond was in Brussels from

where he sent a swift review.

Mr

Johnson is the foreign secretary. I

gave the Health Secretary an extra

£6 billion at the recent budget.

And

labour leader Jeremy Corbyn piled in

at Prime Minister 's questions.

Does

the Prime Minister agree with the

Foreign Secretary that the national

Health Service needs an extra £5

billion?

I think the right

honourable gentleman, as I recall

was here for the autumn budget which

was given by the Chancellor of the

Exchequer, where he announced he

would be putting £6 billion more

into the National Health Service.

Meanwhile, Jacob Rees-Mogg took on

the Brexit Secretary David Davis

over the transition deal.

We are

only actually out at the end of the

transition. That is a big shift in

government policy and a big move

away from the vault.

I do not accept

your description.

your description.

Next day, Theresa

May travelled to the World Economic

Forum in Davos to heal a different

divide, this time her special

relationship with Donald Trump.

relationship with Donald Trump. Her

Chancellor described in modest

change in Britain's relationship

with the EU. Now he was being

rebuked by furious colleagues as

well as his boss. David Davies

insists the Cabinet are united. They

want a good deal.

There is no

difference between the Chancellor

and myself and indeed the Prime

Minister, in terms of the fact we

both want a Brexit that serves the

British economy and the British

people.

The EU will set out their

bargaining position for a phase two

of the Brexit negotiations tomorrow.

But can we find an agreed British

response.

So to discuss the implications of

all of the week's events I've got my

expert panel. Welcome. Camilla,

these are quite remarkable headlines

this morning about the party being

in turmoil over Theresa May's

leadership and the direction of

Brexit policy. Let's start with

Brexit. How deep are the divide?

I

think they are very deep. The tide

has turned a bit in the last week.

Normally when you are covering these

issues in the lobby, there is

underlying hysteria. I think there

are quite a lot of people on both

sides scratching their heads,

looking at some of the editorials we

saw in the week about the Tory

party, particularly when referring

to Theresa May as a Wizard of Oz

character. A lot in the Tory party

can't disagree with that. They

regard her as a caretaker Prime

Minister. A lot of them have been

giving her the benefit of the doubt

particularly on Brexit because she

has been consistent about what

Brexit means. That did not mean

leaving the single market and the

Customs Union. -- that it must mean.

To have Boris Johnson and Philip

Hammond freelancing on the sidelines

makes her look weak and unable to

keep the Cabinet together. That

gives the general impression to the

country that they aren't quite in

charge of things and that she

particularly isn't across her brief.

The key question at the heart of

this is which of these Cabinet

ministers are reflecting the Prime

Minister pots opinion on this --'s

opinion on this. Does she agree with

Philip Hammond, or is she looking

for a more significant divergence?

This is absolutely critical. We talk

about Brexit divisions. We are used

to thinking about the division being

about Remainers and levers. That is

not the division we are talking

about. There is a group of people in

government who have now focused on

the practical technical difficulty

of what is required to get Britain

safely out of the European Union.

And they for the most part, and I

will include the Prime Minister,

have understood it is a long

incremental process. You want an

arrangement that looks pretty much

like the status quo. If there is

going to be divergence from EU

rules, it will be incremental. We

get the impression the Prime

Minister has signed off on that

approach because she is a cautious

person. The problem is the

Chancellor said it out loud. He had

the temerity to say it. This is the

plan. You have the other group of

people, the harder, more ideological

Brexiteers are not in government,

who don't have to focus on the

practical reality, look at that and

think, that doesn't sound like

emancipation and freedom, that

sounds a bit boring. When you listen

to what some of the critics of the

Prime Minister from the hard Brexit

position are saying, it is not

obvious what they are asking her to

do. What they want from her is a

sense of clarity, a sense of whether

or not she can have the confidence

to stand up and say, the Chancellor

is right. They are testing courtesy

of she can do that and she won't do

that because she doesn't want the

huge tsunami of betrayal from the

right.

It is also impossible

Bridgeford Theresa May to try and

cross. How can she reconcile these

different views of what Brexit is

going to look like at the point

where we have to start laying out

what Britain's approach will be?

That is the problem. The divisions

are seemingly irreconcilable in the

party. That is their own problem. It

has become a national problem

because they are doing it while in

government. They have a over us

while they are falling apart. That

is completely irresponsible. In

terms of where we are going to end

up, we all know. We saw from phase

one of EU that actually everything

was conceded to the soft Brexit

model was conceded two in what was

agreed to during the parameters of

phase one. It seems like, do we

really have to go through this all

again, this pretend, this bickering,

this biting, when we know in the end

we are going to end up with a

situation that is a soft Brexit

because this is where the major

constituency is in Westminster and

the country.

We have a couple of

guest to make disagree with that. We

will return to you guys later.

Well, the Cabinet Minister David

Lidington was talking

to Andrew Marr this morning,

and was asked about the backlash

on the Government's Brexit strategy

from Jacob Rees-Mogg and other

Conservative MPs.

Jacob, like everybody else, needs to

see how negotiations go. We are

about to start negotiations. I'm not

going into detail about that

process. Secondly, the very fact

that we will have left the European

Union is a big deal indeed. The bill

in front of Parliament extinguishes

the power of the European Court and

supranational EU law over the UK.

I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet Minister, Theresa Villiers.

She has written a piece in today's

Sunday Telegraph telling

of her growing concern that

Brexit is being diluted.

Thank you for coming on. What do you

mean by Brexit been diluted?

I have

consistently argued the case for

compromise and I recognise it is

necessary. What I was saying in my

article this morning was that if you

go too far with compromise,

eventually you get to the point

where we wouldn't generally be

leaving the European Union, we

wouldn't be respecting the result of

the referendum.

You are concerned

that is the direction they're

heading in?

I am concerned. We must

retain the right to divergence Romeu

laws. One of the key points of

leaving the European Union is to

ensure that we make our own laws in

our own parliaments and not be

subject to laws made by people we

don't elect and can't remove.

What

has made you concerned that is the

direction in which we are heading?

Is it Chancellor talking about

modest changes or something

happening behind the scenes?

It is a

combination of things. I think in

part the government faces a

difficult challenge convincing

people on the Leave side of the

debate. So many times in the past

there have been Prime Ministers

who've gone to Brussels and said, it

will be fine, we would bring you

back a deal, and at the last minute

there has been, territory has been

given away. We have made

compromises. I accept the need for

that. There is only so far you can

go before ultimately you find

yourself in a position where you are

deleting Brexit so much that it

isn't leaving the European Union in

a real sense.

When you hear Philip

Hammond say they will only be modest

changes to our relationship with the

EU, you think he is reflecting

government policy? Downing Street

tried to refute what he was saying.

Only actually said was, you can't

call leaving the single market and

Customs union a modest change. You

are anxious, are you, that right at

the top they are worried about

keeping fairly close alignment with

the EU?

The Prime Minister set out a

bold vision for Brexit in her

Lancaster House speech. My article

is about appealing to the government

to stick to that vision and

implemented so that once we leave

the European Union we are back in

control of our laws, money and

borders.

The Prime Minister has set

this out in Lancaster House and in

Florence. Why do you think she would

be backsliding? Makes you think

anything has changed?

I don't think

she wants to backslide. I think what

is happening is that she is under

huge sustained pressure from a range

of quarters to reverse the result of

the referendum. So in part, but I am

trying to do is to re-emphasise the

positive case for Brexit. And we

emphasise that whilst there are

those who want to soften things up

and frustrate the implementation of

the referendum, others are

enthusiastic about implementing that

vision in the Lancaster House

speech.

Were those people who want

to frustrate her? You must be

worried they are right inside the

Cabinet for you to write a newspaper

article about this. You must be

worried if his right at the top of

government?

I don't believe that. I

think the Cabinet is united in

wanting to do this.

wanting to do this.

After the

different views we had this week?

This is an issue that has divided

the country. The key battle now is

what is going to be the end state we

ask for in the negotiations? We must

ask for an end state based on the

Lancaster House speech, which means

retaining control, making our own

laws in our own Parliament. That is

how we have -- we become genuinely

an independent country again and

respect the result of the

referendum.

Do you think the

Chancellor was contravening stated

policy when he talked about modest

changes. --? Was he out of line?

I

wouldn't make too much of that one

comment. That has not wanted my

concerns. What I want to do is

ensure the case for a real Brexit is

made. I fully acknowledge the

technical scale of the exercise of

withdrawing from the European Union.

It is very complicated. That is one

of the reasons why I have had a --

advocated and supported compromise.

There is only so far you can go

without -- with compromise without

finding yourself selling out on the

people who voted to leave.

The next

phase will be about the

implementation period before we get

to the final future relationship

with the EU. We learned a little bit

more about the government approached

and that this week. David Davis made

it sound as if there will be no

changes to free movement of people

whatsoever during the two-year

transition phase. Does that concern

you? That seems to be a change in

policy.

For me, the important issue

is what happens at the end of the

transition period.

You are relaxed

about two years of transition which

looks most identical to staying in

the EU?

I accept that looks like

what is current to happen. I think

there is a case for a transition

period. I think my worry now is if

we go into the transition period

without the clearest possible

understanding of what the

arrangements are when we leave, so I

believe that we must have as much

detail as possible in relation to

our agreement with the European

Union, that we reach before the

transition period starts. If we go

into it not knowing the end state,

that would worry me.

When it comes to the end state, what

are the things you couldn't sign up

to? What's being described as easy

movement of people in and out of the

UK, would that lead to a point it

was a Brexit deal you couldn't agree

to?

The key issues are the end state

must allow the UK to run its own

trade policy and make its own

decisions on rules and regulations.

So no involvement from the European

Court of Justice?

The Government has

agreed a time limited role for that.

I don't see it as a problem but any

enlargement of that role I would see

as worrying.

Do you think there's

any possibility you could end up

voting against this in Parliament?

I'm not going to make predictions on

how I will vote on a deal that

hasn't been agreed yet. I want to

make sure we work together to try to

bridge divisions, to come up with an

agreement with the European Union

which gives us a new partnership

with them, which hopefully a

majority can be comfortable

whichever way they vote in June 2000

16.

Thank you.

Joining me now from

Newcastle is the Brexit

Minister Lord Callanan.

Can you offer any reassurance to

Theresa Villiers and any other

members of your party who are

worried about this that government

is not going soft on Brexit?

We are

not going soft, there's been no

backsliding on the Prime Minister's

Lancaster house speech. We will be

regaining control of our laws, money

and borders. We will be establishing

an independent trade policy as she

set out in her speech.

set out in her speech.

Theresa

Villiers is completely wrong when

she says she's worried Brexit is

being diluted, is she?

Yes, she is

wrong. It's not being diluted, the

Prime Minister is in charge of the

negotiations and we will be

negotiating with our European

partners in good faith, our friends

and allies, but the objectives

remain as she set out.

So it was the

Chancellor who was wrong when he

said there would only be modest

changes in our relationship?

No, the

Chancellor has said he is of the

vision the Prime Minister has set

out.

out. We will be negotiating with our

European partners to bring about

frictionless trading arrangements

but the important part of the

negotiations is that we have to

regain control of our ability to set

our own rules and undulations.

Though there may be some areas where

if there are integrated supply lines

we might want to reflect current EU

regulations but the important thing

is we decide those matters for

ourselves.

David Davis presumably

speaks for government when he is

describing the transition phase, and

he says during this implementation

period people will of course be able

to travel between the UK and the EU

to live and work. That sounds like

free movement is continuing as

before but we were told it would end

as soon as we left the EU in 2019.

We would introduce a registration

scheme so we knew he was coming to

the country.

You could do that right

now. This registration idea, this is

not something that comes about

because we have left the EU, we

could have introduced that years ago

if we wanted to. Several European

countries asked the UK citizens to

register.

Let's see what the

negotiations produced, but what we

want to do is reflect current rules

and regulations as closely as

possible so that at the end of the

implementation period, and it's

important that is strictly

time-limited, we agree with the EU

on that, at the end of that state we

will introduce a new immigration

policy and take control of our

rules, regulations and borders. It

sounds

sounds a lot like a red line that

has gone very pale pink.

We are about to have the

negotiations. We will sit down in

good faith with our European

partners, talk about how the

implementation period will work and

what the end state will be.

But we

don't have to wait to find out what

the UK Government position is

because David Davis set it out this

week and pretty much described free

movement continuing as it is.

As I

said, we are having the

negotiations, we are about to start

them, let's not give away our

positions before we do that. We want

to reach an agreement as soon as

possible so we get certainty that

business knows where we are going at

the end of the period and we move

towards the new state at the end of

a strictly time-limited

implementation period.

So would it

be helpful if the Prime Minister

were to make another speech, where

she set out clearly what the

Government's position is on the

future direction of travel on the

transition period and future end

state so that instead of listening

to Cabinet ministers with diverging

views on this, we knew from the

Prime Minister what the Government's

policy was?

The policy remains what

she set out in detail in the

Lancaster house speech followed up

by the Florence speech where she

outlined the new end state we want

to end up with and the procedures

for getting there. She set it out in

great detail, that was very clear

but we need to have under --

negotiation at the end of the day.

These are difficult, complicated and

tricky areas but we remain focused

on the end state which is we will be

leaving the single market and the

customs union, having independent

trade policy and deciding our own

rules and regulations.

The EU

Withdrawal Bill will come to the

Lords this week to your house, are

we going to see government

compromise?

We will be listening to

the debate. We showed that we were

prepared to reflect and think about

contributions made, and if people

have suggestions that we agree with

that we will improve the legislation

and of course we will do that. The

House of Lords has a very important

role and we will carry that out

effectively and we will listen to

what the debate says.

So you are

open to government amendments

changing the EU Withdrawal Bill? On

issues like Henry VIII powers or

something like that?

We have already

compromised on those areas in the

House of Commons so we will listen

to what the debate brings. Peers

take their role of scrutinising EU

legislation closely and we will

reflect on that and introduce

changes if we think they are

warranted.

Thanks for talking to us

this morning.

And you can find more Brexit

analysis and explanation on the

BBC website.

This week Labour's

ruling body, the National

Executive Committee, or NEC,

stepped in to a bitter row

about a controversial housing

project in the London

borough of Haringey.

It's led to deep divisions

between the NEC and councillors

across the country, with the Labour

leader of Newcastle City Council

calling it a "declaration of war".

With Jeremy Corbyn supporters

consolidating their grip

on the ruling body of the party,

Emma Vardy's been looking

at the new battle lines being drawn.

You might not think to look at it

but this council estate in north

London is being seen as a battle

ground for the very soul of the

Labour Party. Labour run Haringey

plans to redevelop the estate in

partnership with a private company

but the pro-Corbyn pressure group

momentum has led a campaign opposing

it.

You do not gift people's houses

to a private developer and say you

can demolish these...

When Labour's

ruling body, the NEC, intervened

telling Haringey to force the

project, some Labour supporters were

outraged.

We have now got the

National executive committee

effectively telling a Labour council

what to do and I'm thinking where

does this end?

This, some believe,

is what they see as the hard left of

the party using the row as an excuse

to get rid of more moderate Labour

council is ahead of next year 's

elections. Around a third of the

Haringey Labour group of either been

deselected or they have stood down.

How is this being seen by other

Labour council is looking on?

There's 100 names on an open letter

to the NEC today saying stay out of

local council business, and one of

them, the Labour leader of Corby

Borough Council who can be found up

there, called it a disgrace.

I

signed the letter because I wanted

to demonstrate solidarity with a

colleague, also to send a message to

the NEC that we believe it is

inappropriate to intervene in the

way they did. Labour and local

government are the people governing

here in this country, we are not in

Government nationally, we are in

Government locally and we are doing

a good job locally. We are

protecting our people.

Do you think

the NEC will listen?

I would hope

so.

The intervention that led to

this row came for the first time

since Momentum leader was elected as

one of its members.

The NEC has

expressed a view, it has not

mandated, not stormed in and taken

over, and I think for every person

you can find who is upset I can find

tenants who are delighted.

Jeremy

Corbyn's support base on the NEC has

been strengthened after recent

elections so could this lead to

sweeping changes on party policy in

the future?

Where you can see

greater radicalism is on areas of

economic policy, following Carillion

Labour has been clear they want an

end to outsourcing completely if

they are elected, that they would

like to take contracts back

in-house, and at a local of all the

tensions exist as well.

What is the

risk with upsetting councils?

Is it

causes local divisions and they want

parties to be focused on governing.

It also threatens to cause tensions

between MPs. A lot of MPs see Labour

councillors as proud bastions of the

party and see them as a barrier to

those who they think are taking too

much of a faction or ideological

approach.

What would your message

beta Jeremy Corbyn?

That the Labour

Party are very fortunate to have a

large cohort of very experienced and

talented councillors up and down the

country. We know what we are doing,

a us to get on with that.

Local

councils aside, in Parliament Jeremy

Corbyn has won the

Corbyn has won the support of many

Labour MPs who now believe he should

lead them into the next election,

but could it be the relationship

with the wider party in local

government that becomes the one that

is more difficult to manage?

Emma Vardy reporting.

Jon Trickett is a member

of the Shadow Cabinet, and also sits

on Labour's National Executive

Committee.

He joins me now from Yorkshire.

We have got the leader of Newcastle

City Council, the Labour leader,

saying this is a declaration of war,

the NEC getting involved in the

local government decision.

The first

thing to say is Labour is in

Government throughout this country

in local councils, we are very proud

of our record in local government

but the NEC took a decision the

other day, it was unanimous by the

way, nobody voted against it, and

Nick was in the room. He made a

strong case for the autonomy of

councils and in general that is what

we think too. In fact we want to

bring more powers back to local

council...

You cannot reconcile

giving more power to councils with

the idea there is a top-down diktats

on what decisions councils must

take.

Let me just finish the point

because what the NEC did was to ask

for a pause. We did it politely but

we said before that should happen,

let's have a conversation between

Haringey and the NEC and that

conversation is now taking place or

Wilby. I think this is an

exaggerated row and when people look

at the facts, we have asked for a

pause is not necessarily a change in

policy, though we think the policy

was wrong and we want a conversation

with Haringey.

You are having a

conversation between the NEC and

Haringey. If Haringey Council

refused to change their minds about

this, they will then be subject to a

diktats from the NEC, will they not?

I'm not going to go into a

speculative conversation with you

but let's remember the background to

this. This is effectively a huge

deal outsourcing huge amounts of

resources and assets in Haringey. It

is very controversial and remember

this, the NEC received a letter from

22 Labour councillors on Haringey

Council asking for a pause. We

reacted to that request from within

Haringey itself and all of this

takes in the background of problems

at Grenfell and also with the

collapse of Carillion, both of which

I think our matters we need to be

thinking about when we are thinking

in local councils about outsourcing

additional provision. I am

optimistic we will find an amicable

way forward.

It gets to a

fundamental policy aspect of the

Labour Party as to who makes

decisions and surely you say some

Labour councils were concerned about

this, the majority of Labour members

on the council were in favour of it.

The ruling body of the Labour Party

is obliged by the Constitution to

take a view where there is clearly a

dispute within one of our

constitutional elements. And there

was an absolutely clear position

that there was a dispute. We were

asked to intervene. We took a view

and asked the council to think about

it again and agreed to mediation. I

don't think this is unreasonable.

The Constitution of the party

requires the NEC from time to time

to make sure that the constitutional

elements operate within the

policies, programmes and principles

of the Labour Party. I think it is a

storm in a teacup.

It is about the

controversial issue of outsourcing.

That is something you are speaking

out about this week, saying the

Labour government would reverse

outsourcing, setting out clear rules

for companies you would give

contracts to, including the idea

that the boss should not be paid

more than 20 times more than the

lowest paid worker. It would be

quite difficult to find construction

companies to build, say, HS2 if

you're going to stick to those

rules?

Well, there are all kinds of

different contracts which are

outsourced. Some of them can be done

by the public sector, others can't.

We will be thinking about those

services which are outsourced. The

facts are if you work for the

Council or the government, the top

ratio to the average pay is 20 to

one. In the private sector it is 156

to one. That means in a year's work

by a chief executive, the average

worker has to work 156 years, almost

for working like -- lifetimes. We

don't think that is how taxpayers

want the money spent.

When you say

you won't give government contracts

to companies who don't have this 20

to one pay ratio you are talking all

government contracts?

We have said

we want to move towards a ratio of

20 to one. I don't think people

watching will have any compunction

to say that is not unreasonable. If

you are a boss you should definitely

earn more than the average pay. But

156 times? I don't think that is

reasonable.

Depends how quickly you

would move towards this. If you got

into government and took over the

management of say HS2, and there are

£7 billion worth of contracts, most

are companies which don't fit your

criteria, would you be cancelling

those contracts are maintaining

contracts with companies that don't

fit your pay rules?

Contracts which

are already left, you cannot easily

break those contracts, nor should

you want to. It would be illegal. If

the contract was operating in a way

which was contrary to the contract,

clearly we would want to look at

bringing that back in-house. It is

horses for horses -- courses.

horses for horses -- courses.

So you

would continue with the contracts

the government signed for the

construction of HS2 even though

these companies don't meet your

criteria?

In the case of HS2,

remember, it went to Carillion, and

20 Carillion after government knew

they were in trouble.

There are ten

more companies involved in this.

But

Carillion are in trouble. The truth

is the government gave them billions

of pounds, I think it was £1.4

billion, to a company which was

clearly going belly up. It is

completely wrong.

Jon Trickett, thank you. I will talk

to the panel about what we have

heard on the programme so far. In

Trieste -- interesting ideas from

Jon Trickett. It would be harder to

impose their rules about outsourcing

and private companies, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. The Carillion thing

as come at an interesting time. It

has exposed in bold the kind of

suspicion we have had for some time,

which is that these PFIs are really

just a vehicle for private companies

to take public funding and not

deliver on the services that they

were supposed to do. It ends up

costing us more. It is in line with

a shift in public mood we have seen.

There is overwhelming support for

nationalisation across sectors, from

utilities to railways and actually

across politics. Conservative voters

favour nationalisation. It is no

wonder that we have this level of

discontent when we see something

like Carillion happen. Yes, it might

be difficult in the short term to

return some of those contracts into

public hands. But it is going to be

cheaper and more efficient and

better for everyone in the long

term, that much is clear.

Camilla,

do you think it is even possible to

impose these kinds of rules, the 20

to one pay ratio, four any company

with a government contract?

No. And

as Andrew Gilligan's piece in the

Sunday Times showed, a lot of these

ideological premises have no basis

in law whatsoever. Momentum has

suggested to Capp pay at £60,000.

What effect would that have on head

teachers in Haringey? The people in

What effect would that have on head

Haringey did not vote for a

Momentum, they voted for Labour.

Haringey is a broad church. It takes

in top on one hand and Highgate on

Haringey is a broad church. It takes

the other. Our Momentum's policies

representative of the constituency

as a whole? No. It is deeply

worrying people are being deselected

by people with fanatical views. John

Landis man is hugely controversial

figure. He claims to be a Bastian of

socialism and socialist policies,

yet at the same time we have

discovered, and the Sunday Express

have had a lot of in-depth analysis

of his own finances, he recently

loaned £5,000 to his son's property

company, which in turn is charged

with franchising McDonald's outlets.

John Landsman is not here to defend

himself. Move on from that point.

Let me bring in Raphael first.

Haringey is emblematic of a wider

thing happening in the Labour Party.

You have got the NEC that met this

week, the first time since you had

more Momentum members elected.

Interesting to watch if it changes

the decisions they make. How

worrying will it be people to see

them getting involved in something

as local as the decisions in

Haringey?

Momentum is a complex

institution. It is not an

ideological phalanx or something

captured by the hard left. What is

very interesting about this is that

this is a tension within the left

and labour that predates Jeremy

Corbyn and Momentum. You have a

tension between people who would

start with a fixed idea of what it

means invincible to be on the left,

and people who take a slightly more

pragmatic view to get elected.

Broadly within the Labour Party at

the moment Jeremy Corbyn as won the

ideological argument. People have

been marginalised. The problem is

when you had the election last year

and labour did better than a lot of

people thought, including a lot

better than Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell thought, something

switched and Labour thought, we can

do this, we can get into government.

Suddenly the pragmatic tendency

started to appear within the Corbyn

movement. The tension is not between

anti-Corbyn and pro Corbyn. It is

about how you sneak up power, not

alienate too many people. Can you

actually win, beat Theresa May and

get into government? That tension is

happening inside the head of Jeremy

Corbyn and John McDonnell. It is

happening inside the head of Jon

Trickett. We have to leave that now.

It's coming up to 11.40 -

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

the Leader of the Opposition

and the leader of the free world

have been giving their advice

to the Prime Minister

on how to conduct Brexit.

We'll be discussing all

that a little later on.

First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland.

In less than 24 hours

at the tail end of last week,

Northern Ireland suffered the slings

and arrows of

big business decisions.

It was good news for

jobs on the one hand

and potentially bad news

on the other.

I'll be talking to union

and manufacturing leaders

about those jobs, both lost

and saved, and asking if we should

be concerned about the security

of power supply here?

And joining me with their take

on the ups and downs of

the past week, we say welcome back

to Patricia Mac Bride and Alex Kane.

So, in the next few months almost

250 jobs are set to go

in East Antrim with the closure

of Kilroot Power Station,

but in East Belfast thousands

of workers in Bombardier

got the news that crippling

tariffs won't be imposed

on the planes they help to make.

The lifting of that huge threat

was widely welcomed,

but it also led to fiery political

exchanges on social media

on Friday night as to who should be

credited with the success.

Stephen Kelly, the chief executive

of Manufacturing NI,

is in our Foyle studio.

Davy Thompson of the Unite union

is with me in the studio.

I'll be speaking to them

in a moment, but first,

here's our business and economics

editor, John Campbell,

with a catch-up on the Bombardier

news which broke on Friday night.

The outcome of this case has come as

a huge shock to most observers, not

least the British and Canadian

governments who expected Bombardier

to lose, but in the event the

International Trade Commission ruled

in Bombardier's favour, finding that

by importing the C Series jets to

the US would not cause any damage to

Boeing's business. They will release

a detailed reasoning in the next

couple of months, and it's a

reminder that despite President

Trump's rhetoric of America first,

there are independent structures to

settle trade disputes and

non-American companies can get a

fair hearing.

John Campbell there.

Davy Thompson, this is clearly very

good news for Bombardier,

but what's your view of how this

decision was secured?

We believe we have led a campaign,

both local politicians and West

minister government, we have been to

the States and Capitol Hill, we have

been significant in what we have

done and while it is welcome news it

is tempered by the fact we have an

ongoing redundancy system at shorts

which will be realised in the next

couple of weeks. From tomorrow

morning our focus will be firmly on

securing those jobs but also

securing jobs we have heard in the

last fortnight have been lost across

the industry, we have Carillion,

Tesco, Sainsbury's, that is the real

debate to have.

You are pleased with

the ruled the unions have played but

do you see a benefit from a corner

that political approach? Did local

politicians play the part that some

of them were claiming on social

media, did the government played a

part?

We believe both parties, Sinn

Fein and the DUP did all they could,

we don't think they were assisted

ably and not by the British

government and people who believe

that two phone calls and to chat

over a cup of coffee between Prime

Minister and the president of

America was good enough, we don't

believe that.

There is a possibility

it could be appealed.

We said on

Friday night that we expect going to

accept the decision and the US

administration, it was a unanimous

decision and we believe that is what

they should do, respect the decision

and let's get on with making

aircraft and doing business around

the world.

Stephen Kelly, ice huge

sigh of relief as far as

Manufacturing NI is concerned?

These

are critical jobs to the economy,

not just in Belfast but our supply

chain which runs from the north-west

to North Down and these islands.

Bombardier is critical to the future

of the Northern Ireland economy so

to get such a positive result on

Friday came as a great boost.

What's

your assessment of who was

responsible for helping to save

those jobs?

They sate success has

many fathers and this is one of

those cases, everybody was working

hard and in a coordinated way. I

take the point that Davey has made

that the UK Government could have

done more, certainly the trade

unions and others were very

aggressive in terms of trying to

make sure this was seen as a massive

problem not just for Belfast but the

UK, and we needed to make sure that

was articulated to the American

authorities.

To complete that saying

of years, it is failure is an

orphan, success has many parents, so

some people were hedging their bets,

not sure how this one would go.

I

think the company, the UK

authorities and Canadian authorities

were all setting us up for failure,

they all thought we would get a bad

result but in the end we were all

delighted that the result was so

positive. The ITC isn't necessarily

influenced by politics, it has its

independence, to Democrats and two

Republicans, and to see such a

unanimous result shows that the

weight of the argument won through

and that has everyone's involvement.

David Thomson has already made that

point, it was a ruling 4-0 in favour

of Bombardier but there is a

possibility that could be appealed

and we know that Boeing is hoping to

review the detailed information when

it is published.

They are, so we

aren't allowed of the woods yet but

let's look at what Boeing has

achieved for themselves. They have

taken on a fight they shouldn't have

taken on, they have lost this

argument in the US, they have lost a

massive military deal in terms of

the Canadian government and damage

their reputation across the world,

so they should think long and hard

about whether to proceed without

appeal.

Davey Thompson, the C Series

has been bedevilled with

difficulties since it was first

mooted. Do you think that the deal

between Bombardier and are bus now

sets aside all those difficulties

and we can look forward to a much

smoother ride in future?

I don't

think it sets aside all the

difficulties. This C Series will be

an exceptional playing, by bringing

in are bus, it brings another

dimension. Airbus and Boeing work

competing against the C Series so it

opens up the markets. The decision

has probably put off potential

customers in the US for the last 18

months, we had one deal through in

terms of Delta, which is the one

that was complained about. These

decisions should be made before you

have a case, because it has put

people off from buying the aircraft

and put people back for a year.

Not

such good news for Kilroot Power

Station, 120 contract is look set to

lose their jobs.

It's devastating

and in the Antrim area, we had JGI

Gallaher and Michelin, we recently

lost Caterpillar, and other

threatened job losses and we can

rhyme of job loss after job loss.

Friday was good news but we now need

to focus on how we develop the

economy, and that needs to be

underpinned by a manufacturing

strategy, which incorporates every

facet of what we have. We need to

move forward with that quickly. We

are in talks now at Stormont, if we

don't underpinned those by real jobs

and economic stimulus, the building

will not stand. We have not put in

that stimuli to bring in real jobs

and future hope for young people and

that's where we sit today.

Stephen

Kelly, is it by definition

disastrous job losses for East

Antrim?

I've lost a job and I've had

to make people redundant, it's not a

pleasant experience, but this is a

story that isn't necessarily all bad

news, it certainly bad news for the

individuals involved but the

consumer has paid too much for

electricity, this takes £15 million

out of electricity markets. Davey

and I were at the gates of Michelin,

who had to close largely because

they were too expensive, so it is

important we sort these out for the

future. The decision to close

Kilroot isn't a position of the

market for regulators, it is purely

a decision for a yes. They can

participate in the marketplace

without that capacity agreement so

the future isn't necessarily

jeopardised, but it is a decision

for AES Management and I encourage

Davey and his colleagues to take

that up with the company.

Politicians have raised concerns

about security of supply. You say it

is good news because prices will

come down but the politician say if

we don't have security of supply, it

is not good news.

The market is

changing to more of our model like

across the water in GB. We used to

have a big pot of money that was

spread across all generators, now it

is slightly smaller and only spread

towards generators that are most

efficient and offer the most savings

for consumers. We have put a market

out there that was bid is requested,

those bids came in and they were

specifically requested for what is

called a single closed area in

Northern Ireland, so we have enough

power, those people employed,

experts in the area in terms of SONI

and the utility regular are

confident and we are assured by

that.

Are you reassured by what

Stephen Kelly has just said? Do you

have reservations about security of

supply?

We have absolute

reservations. Anybody who could

invest in Northern Ireland now we'll

be looking at whether we have

stability of government? We don't.

We have stood squarely and said

energy prices are too high, there is

no pressure on the manufacturing

sector and the infrastructure and

other stuff and we accept that, but

we have to look at how the system

was denationalised many years ago

and what that generated in profit.

You can only play the ball in front

of you, you cannot go back and play

a game that finished a long time

ago. What do you make of Stephen

Kelly saying that mission and closed

because of the cost of electricity

that now with this All-Ireland

supply, jobs could be created in

future?

We could create jobs, we did

stand outside Michelin, we have

worked closely on 95% of stuff that

we agree on but 270 people who

thought they had a lifetime

guaranteed of work, we know that

Kilroot was due to close anyway so

people were taking out mortgages

based on that and there is a moral

and social responsibility on AES who

are pulling out without their three

years notice and we will go into

talks with AES about retaining the

planned on their jobs but if that

isn't possible, they have a

responsibility to the people of

Northern Ireland to step up.

Is

manufacturing sound enough in

Northern Ireland to reassure those

270 people who will lose jobs in

Kilroot and maybe Ballylumford that

they will not be on the scrapheap

forever?

Absolutely, Davey

referenced the issue of future

investment. This new market is to

encourage future investment in the

energy sector, in a much more agile,

flexible and efficient producing

plant. What we had in the past, or

up until now, is big and bulky

generators that have to be used

because they are running and we are

all picking up the cost of that.

This money is coming purely from

consumers, and what we need to make

sure is that as the electricity

system changes, we give people the

best price. Our manufacturing sector

is growing, we have some difficult

news stories at the moment, some

great news on Friday and we hope

future good news can happen but we

need the Executive back to make sure

they have a plan in place for that

to happen.

Gentlemen, good to hear

your thoughts. Thank you.

Let's turn to my guests of the day,

Patricia MacBride and Alex Kane.

It's good news and attention they

not such good news. Let's talk about

Bombardier. Did you see that coming?

I don't think anyone saw it coming

but if you look at Spotlight the

other night and saw the weight of

what was presented by the British

government against what was

presented by the Canadian

government, you would hope they

would be a positive outcome from

that as well as work done by the

unions.

A lot of people claiming

credit for pulling it out of the

bag.

There is more security now for

people who work at Dunbar DA then on

Friday morning and that is the

positive thing to take out of it,

rather than who is credited, but

that contrast between that and what

is happening at Kilroot and

Ballylumford, we'd now potentially

see job loss. The big issue around

the electricity market is

maintaining security and consistency

of supply.

Are you satisfied about

that?

Right now I am, given that the

purpose of the regulator is to

insure that is there, we have a

system operator and a regulator and

the regulator said the happy that

the supply will be consistent and we

are saving £175 million per year in

terms of new deals that will be put

in place and we should all see the

benefit of that.

Good news and bad

news? It was good news for the DUP

because if Bombardier didn't have

come through, they would have Gavin

Robinson and Sammy Wilson in DUP

constituencies, being told this is

big catastrophic news for Northern

Ireland, but I was struck by what

Davies said that it was local

politicians who did all the lobbying

for the deal to make sure Bombardier

came back on board, but it shouldn't

be asked, at this moment it should

be either through direct rule or at

local executive, because there is no

manufacturing or economic strategy

and there are more job losses coming

down the line and these guys need to

be able to talk to someone because

at the moment they are all talking

to each other and that is quite so

many people claimed credit, because

until Friday no one was taking any

responsibility for it, they were all

clearing their own tracks and saying

it was there doing all the time.

That is bad government.

Thanks, both.

Let's pause for a moment and take

a look back at the week gone past

in 60 seconds with Stephen Walker.

The new look Sinn Fein leadership

team - in all but name -

arrived at Stormont

for the latest talks.

Michelle, smile.

Gregory Campbell discovered

there is a budget deadline.

I'm zoning in particularly on the

7th of February.

It will be

difficult for us if we don't have a

budget by the 8th of February.

The SDLP claimed the two big parties

made compromises last year.

We should publish the progress that

was made, published the compromises

and stop trying to pretend to the

public that nobody has compromised.

The Fianna Fail leader

Micheal Martin says his new position

on abortion was clear.

It is both pro-life and pro-choice

in respects.

Can you be both?

And making an impression -

Jan Ravens told us about getting

to grips with Arlene and Michelle.

Very much like that, Arlene has got

that kind of...

Stephen Walker on Jan

Ravens' work in progress.

Back to my guests for a final word.

I want to talk about abortion in a

moment, we heard Michael Martin

talking on Thursday, but in

Loughinisland, I challenge to the

Police Ombudsman's ruling on the

Loughinisland killings is to be

heard before a judge. Or you

surprised how that turned out?

I

don't think it was a surprise, once

it was in the public domain that

Justice McCloskey had represented

some applicants in that previous

review, he had to step aside.

He

said the legal test for him to set

aside have not been met.

But with

the potential for bias, the law must

be seen to apply evenly but this

means the families have to go back

to court and face another set of

hearings to get to the next stage in

uncovering the truth, that is not

the way to deal with the past, we

need a cohesive strategy that

addresses the needs of all victims

and we are failing in delivering

that.

Patricia is right, I wasn't

entirely persuaded by his argument

for not staying with the case

because I don't buy this notion that

anyone will not have unconscious

bias, these guys have been around

for 40 years and will have dealt

with all sorts of cases, but I think

most of them can set it aside and

move on but if you're talking about

helping not just these families at

all the other cases because each of

these issues has been dealt with

separately, bringing up emotional

cousins and we need some system

which puts it all together and says

let's deal with it as a whole

because it is a troubled society,

not just individual families.

And

Patricia speaks as Victims'

Commissioner so you have an

interest, and I also to talk about

abortion, and that very interesting

comment by Micheal Martin that you

can be pro-life and pro-choice at

the same time, carving out an

interesting space.

It is, and it

added by dynamic to the debate about

repealing the 8th Amendment and

hopefully added to the debate about

reproductive rights in the North.

This is about ensuring that people

who need a termination because of a

crisis pregnancy have the ability to

access abortion where necessary, so

for Micheal Martin to do that is

quite courageous.

For pragmatic?

I

think courageous because he has come

from a background perceived as being

pro-life for a long period and for

him to step out of that and say I

have to accept there are women who

will face crisis pregnancies and it

is up to meet to provide protection

under the law to deal with those in

the way they choose to.

Can you be

pro-life and pro-choice?

I'm not

sure you can be, because I have

spoken to people in the pro-life

body who say there are no

circumstances whatsoever that they

could justify an abortion. I don't

know how you could say I am pro-life

and pro-choice, maybe I suspect it's

more an electoral device, he is

trying to cover a number of bases.

That is the charge of his critics.

In the next few weeks people will

say, Micheal, how can you be both of

these?

The marriage equality

referendum answered that, you can

allow other people to access rights

you cannot access yourself.

But as

pro-life you say it is OK to take

life in some circumstances but I do

not see how you can be both. We will

hear more

McDonagh and Paul Scully.

And with that it's back to Sarah.

Welcome back. There have been plenty

of stories this week about Tory

Brexit angst. What about the Labour

Party? Reports suggest Jeremy Corbyn

is planning a big awayday to thrash

out Brexit policy.

Healy was on Andrew Marr this

morning.

The problem with the

undermining of workers' rights and

conditions has been a serious one.

What we are saying is there would be

enforcement of the agency agenda

that the EU has put forward,

preventing wholescale groups of

workers brought in to undercut and

undermined. There has to be a

regulated environment.

If you get

that, then you could have easy

movement?

We did. We have a

recruitment crisis in the NHS now,

particularly many nurses from Poland

and other countries who have

traditionally gone to work in this

country.

We are making progress. You

have agreed to ease of movement...

Our expert panel are still here to

talk about the Labour approach to

Brexit and some of the other issues.

That was Jeremy Corbyn being

questioned on the Labour approach to

free movement of people. When they

go on their big awayday this week,

will we get clarity on the

fundamental issues? Do Labour want

us to stay in the single market and

the Customs Union?

The key thing to

understand about the Labour position

on Brexit is there a competing

constituencies the Labour membership

as to pay attention to. You have a

liberal, younger, pro-remain people,

ardent supporters of Jeremy Corbyn

but also passionate against Brexit.

They see it as a Ukip culture war

thing they hate. You have a lot of

people living in constituencies who

have voted Labour who are a little

bit Ukip in some of their cultured

views of the project. They are

ardently pro-Brexit. You have an

ideological left faction,

represented in the Labour leader's

who think the EU is a capitalist

thing and we would be better off out

of it. It is technically hard for

the Labour leader to reconcile those

views. On the Customs Union and the

single market, the Labour problem is

the same as the government problem.

Anybody understands that the UK's

interests are served by being in

essentially the single market and

the Customs Union, but also it

happens to be a fact that the UK has

voted to leave the European Union.

If you stay on the Customs Union and

the single market, the Norwegian

model, a lot of people will feel

that is not enough Brexit. They

simply don't have answers to these

questions. They recognise what

economic reality is telling them to

do and they haven't found a way of

expressing that economic reality to

the 52% of people devoted to leave.

Then you enter up with the kind of

conversation Jeremy Corbyn was

having with Andrew Marr. The policy

becomes a little bit confused as to

whether they are in favour of free

movement, easy movement. Free

movement is not a phrase he wants to

use. He doesn't want to close the

barriers. It all looks a bit

confused?

Nobody has ever suggested

ending free movement means ending

immigration completely. One of the

main tranches of the Brexit argument

was to make it fairer for non-EU

immigrants to come to the country.

Currently working occupational

shortage lists are used to get

people to come in. If we need more

doctors, choreographers, dancers,

then we should put them at the top

of the tree and say, these are the

people who want to come in. Equally,

we need seasonal workers. There is

an itinerant against uncontrolled

immigration. That is what the EU

immigration system is perceived to

be. And controlled immigration. It

has inevitably led to complaints on

the Remain side of things that we

will suddenly have no doctors and

nurses. There was a row about that

recently. The latest ONS figures

suggest there has been a 5.4% rise

in EU doctors and nurses coming into

Britain. We will see. To be fair to

Jeremy Corbyn Knipe body gave a

pretty good account of himself today

and answered questions in a fairly

straight way. He did a better job of

explaining Labour's Brexit position

than Kier Starmer has been doing for

weeks.

It has been difficult for a

Labour spokespeople to outline the

policy on Brexit. There doesn't

appear to be a clear policy. Do you

think they are moving to a position

where they will have a much more

defined approach to what they want?

First of all, I think Rafael's

description was a bit of a

mischaracterisation. The Labour

position now is we're Remainers that

accept a democratic vote has taken

place and we need to exit the EU

because that was the result. We need

to do that in a way that keeps

business and jobs and the economy

vibrant. In a way that the

Conservatives showed no particular

sign of caring about. It is not that

they think the EU is a dastardly

project, it is more like, this is

what people voted for, how do we do

it? There is no point in the Labour

Party at running the government on

Brexit. There is no point in the

Labour Party saying, this is exactly

what we would do, when the

government is the one in the driving

seat. They are controlling the

negotiations, they get to decide

what is going on. What Labour can do

in this reality is challenge the

government when they think they are

wrong, as they have done in fact

since the negotiations began. We

have got a transition period. We

have got various things. We have got

a parliamentary vote at the end of

Brexit. That is because of Labour

putting pressure on government. You

can take credit. You can put it

where you want to. We're having a

discussion about what the Labour

Party position on Brexit is. I am

saying, where is the wisdom of

Labour overrunning the government,

which is controlling negotiations?

The other thing that is important to

says the party position is very

responsive and it is changing. As I

understand that they are very

responsive to all the polling on

positions around a referendum.

How

unusual for the Labour Party to

respond to public opinion.

But

that's just democratic, isn't it,

Rafael? They are responsive to the

conversations they are having with

their EU sister parties in Europe.

They are listening to all these

things. And calibrating as things go

on.

Donald Trump had some advice as

to how we should approach the EU

negotiations. Aimed at the Prime

Minister not Jeremy Corbyn. This is

how he said he would approach

negotiations.

Would it be the way I would

negotiate? No. I have a lot of

respect for your Prime Minister. I

think they are doing a job. I think

I would've negotiated it

differently. I would have had a

different attitude.

What would you

have done?

I would have said the

European Union is not cracked up to

what it is supposed to be and I

would have taken a tougher stand in

getting out.

A few in the

Conservative Party would probably

agree with Donald Trump. Is that

helpful to the Prime Minister?

Coming after what was a helpful week

from Donald Trump in terms of

relations with the Prime Minister,

his love of Britain and his promise

of tremendous trade in Davos,

perhaps it is a bit of a slide.

Actually this morning we heard Piers

Morgan described Donald Trump, his

close friend, as a ball china shop.

That would be his approach to

negotiations. Perhaps David Cameron

should have taken more a bit Donald

Trump approach when he tried to

reform the EU from the inside, which

in the end his failure to do so led

to the referendum we are now

debating.

There are lots in the

Conservative Party, lots of

backbench Brexiteers, who think that

is what has gone wrong, that the

government has made too many

concessions to the EU, hasn't been

hard enough in the divorce period.

Yes, a lot of those people are not

in government and have not got a

practical -- practical reality of

what is required to take the UK out

of European Union. Everything Donald

Trump is said about international

policy, particularly with regard to

Europe and the European Union,

demonstrated as not have a great

understanding of what the EU is as a

project or an institution. If I was

a Tory Brexiteer I would be a bit

concerned about Donald Trump been

very enthusiastic about the project,

because for a lot of liberal minded,

moderate people in the broad

mainstream of public life and

politics, Donald Trump is absolutely

toxic. The idea that Brexit is a

sibling project -- project is

damaging. Theresa May will want to

make it distinct from what Donald

Trump is doing.

One other

intervention today is Grant Schapps

has been out in the papers. He has

said it is becoming increasingly

clear we cannot continue to muddle

along like this. Mrs May should name

a date. By that he means a date by

which she will exit Number 10 and

stopping Prime Minister. He wants a

timetable. He says if that doesn't

happen there may be a revolt.

Rachel, it is not what she needs, is

it?

Is not what she needs. It is

maybe what the country needs. She

has been put on notice. She has been

told of things don't improve by May,

which is when there are local

elections, including in major

cities, if the Conservative Party do

as badly in those as they are

expected to, and predicted two, then

there may be more moves to get rid

of her. It is not surprising, is it?

The situation is completely

untenable. We can't model along like

this, having a Prime Minister or

can't lead.

Graham Bailey, the chair

of the 19 -- 1922 committee, said he

keeps getting letters from backbench

MPs who want to trigger a leadership

contest -- contest. They say it is

getting nearly 40 mark. That sounds

like they are warning MPs, please

don't send in any more letters

because you may trigger a leadership

contest. Is that a real threat?

I

think the notion of Graham Brady

being ashen faced is probably quite

true. There are a lot of stories

today saying that eight of the new

intake are prepared to give letters

in. Some of the old schools.

Problems among Remainers and

Brexiteers. After recent may need to

do is take hold of the situation. --

what to May needs to do is take hold

of the situation. She needs a third

keynote speech on Brexit to take

control, to silence the critics.

Boris Johnson is due to give his own

landmark speech on a so-called

liberal Brexit, which I'm sure

Rachel will be looking forward to

hearing. Perhaps Theresa May should

seize the moment, take control and

put her own new stamp, so people are

not just mentioning Lancaster House

and Florence but a Newsbeat.

A big

danger for Theresa May is not

Brexit. There are a lot of Tory MPs

who think Brexit is taking care of

itself.

They are worried about the NHS. We

have to leave it there.

That's all for today.

Join me again next Sunday

at 11am here on BBC One.

Until then, bye bye.