29/10/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the

And in Northern Ireland:

Deja vu all over again as tomorrow

marks another deadline at Stormont

with a round of last-minute talks.

I'll be asking the smaller

parties if anyone really

believes a deal is possible.

on from the abortion act white MPs

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland.

So the two main parties don't look

like they're about to meet

tomorrow's latest Stormont deadline.

They're not here, but the three

smaller parties are and I'll be

asking them what they think the next

move will be.

Do they have any say

in what's going on?

And what do they make of a budget

being drawn up at Westminster?

And residents say they want them

to come down - but not yet.

I'll be looking at the dilemma

of the peace walls.

And with me throughout

with their thoughts -

Chris Donnelly and Felicity Huston.

The Secretary of State

was at Stormont on Friday night

for more talks with the DUP

and Sinn Fein and with no deal

in place at this late stage,

it looks like James Brokenshire's

"glide path to greater

Westminster intervention"

is about to become a reality.

If that does prove to be the case,

he's expected to begin

the process of legislating

for a budget next week.

I'm joined by the UUP's Steve Aiken,

the SDLP's Colin McGrath

and Stephen Farry from the Alliance

Party.

We did invite the DUP and Sinn Fein

to join us as well...

Stephen, what do you expect

to happen tomorrow?

We're not sure. The Secretary of

State has said he wants some written

confirmation from the two parties

that a deal is born but at this

stage it seems unlikely that will

happen. He will then move to put

through a budget at Westminster

starting the 6th of November. It is

not welcomed but we have to ensure

this is essential to ensure that we

get our public resources sorted.

There is a governance gap and we

have to have ministers in place of

some description who are capable of

taking decisions to spend that money

efficiently and effectively if we

are to make a difference and reform

and make our public services

self-sufficient.

I was speaking to Ian Paisley on

Thursday night and it has to if at

this late stage it at a rabbit could

be pulled out of a hat and he did

not even think there was a hat!

The

problem we have is that nobody knows

what is happening in these

negotiations. Number of the smaller

parties do not know what is

happening, the media and the people

do not know. That is a smoke screen

and not being able to tell people

what is happening in the

negotiations. The negotiations have

been happening for seven months,

there must be some give and take so

what and what has been taken? Two

weeks ago we were told a deal could

be imminent. But without any detail.

It works in the favour of the two

main parties to know whether the

residue or a no deal. They do not

want to sing together the detail.

The question must be asked by the

public and the parties, what are

they afraid of?

What do you think

will happen tomorrow? Steve Aiken,

do you think something can be

produced at the last minute?

I do

not think they will be any talk of a

deal until after the party

conferences. I do not see our Ben

Foster and they do not see Michelle

O'Neill and Gerry Adams going around

and saying they have reached a deal

before their respective party

conferences all over in the next

week or two. All of us had

trepidation when we heard on Friday

that the talks were continuing but

Gerry Adams had arrived and every

time he arrives in the process it

seems that gone backwards. One of

the biggest concern is that we have

as a party as we do not know what is

being discussed and in the

rank-and-file of the DUP, they do

not know what is being discussed. It

would be very useful if we actually

knew where we got to because I

think, looking at the history of

these things, I regret to say it,

you will have to do the pantomime of

going away for one week to have

in-depth crisis talks to get to the

next stage before Gerry Adams puts

the kibosh on it again.

People keep

on saying this and every time it has

been said that Gerry Adams is not

making a positive contribution, Sinn

Fein has said that is not the case.

It is a mischaracterisation.

The

point is that you do not know. Let

us look at the evidence, every time

he comes along, things go backwards.

You have said backwards but Stephen,

this is exactly what people voted

for. We keep having these

conversations and saying this is not

what people wanted or 44 but this is

precisely what people voted for,

they voted for Sinn Fein to hold the

line in great numbers and for the

DUP to do likewise.

We have seen

people thought out of fear creating

a polarising situation. People voted

against the perceptions of what the

other party was about. In practice

we have two parties that are only

appealing to the core constituents.

That is the job.

Everyone of us is

there to represent the entire

Northern Irish community, investing

in health, education and our

economy. The fact we have a deadlock

is not just around the content of

how we deal with Bangladesh is but

the presentation of that shows that

people are putting that one issue on

a pedestal above acting responsibly

in the interests of the entire

community and we have lost all sense

of proportionality.

There is no

groundswell of pressure coming on

health cuts, an education cuts from

ordinary men and women in the state

telling you do must get back to

devolution around the Executive

table and sort it out. In fact,

there is silence. People on the

areas and writing newspaper reports

have said this is not good, we are

all suffering but that is about as

far as it goes.

I did not accept

that in the sense that anyone it

Speed two tells me that we should be

back in there, doing our jobs,

earning our beaches and legislating

and I do not think that is the

preserve of the three smaller

parties, I think that message has

been said but I do accept that

people are not feeling it in the

pocket, it has not got to the crunch

point. But as you start to see

longer waiting lists and the

cutbacks and the schools taking

effect whenever you have to start

increasing class sizes, looking at

merging schools, Windows problems

get through, people will look at...

Those issues are already happening.

But they have not got to the

crescendo where we are making a

massive impact and people are

saying, we are at crisis point only

see things changing.

People

supporting the DUP will say that

they will not concede on the Irish

Language Act and Sinn Fein will not

settle for anything less.

There has

been progress in the negotiations on

that over the last seven months. But

we are not told what that progress

so we cannot comment on it. If there

has been progress, it must be put on

the table because aside from the

media and the smaller political

parties, the public are not finding

out what is happening in the name

and all parties in the election in

March were voted in on a mandate to

deliver devolution and that is what

the people of asked for and we must

deliver on that.

Steve Aiken I know

you don't like the references of

James Brokenshire but he has talked

about this glide path to greater

Westminster intervention, is that a

lighter version of direct rule or is

that proper direct rule? Will be

limp along into the talks continue?

We are already heading towards

direct rule, that is clear, whether

it is light, heart, whatever, we are

steadily moving in that direction

and once the budget has been passed

and we see with the DUP money is

going to be allocated and what it

goes into, the next thing we will

see is where his ministers from the

Northern Irish others being given

rules to be able to move that on and

we will see that we are heading down

that direction, we are very much in

the final stages, I believe.

You

think that is the end of Stormont,

you will be told thank you for your

contribution, we do not need you as

an MLA any more? Presumably that

cannot continue indefinitely.

I

cannot see that, we are in our final

stages. Here is the reality. In

Northern Ireland, a quarter of the

electorate voted for Sinn Fein, a

quarter voted for the DUP, a quarter

did not fool and a quarter voted for

the other parties.

We have one

quarter of the electorate and

controlling where we are going to

and what we're doing, that cannot be

right.

I do not think Sinn Fein

would accept that reality. Maybe if

they were present and the DUP were

president -- present we could ask

them, but they are not here once

again.

There are ways that we can

avoid the direct rule situation.

Either the DUP and Sinn Fein

approach this with greater

transparency and stop blocking

progress or going to fool on direct

rule. We can reform the structures

of the institutions are musk and we

must come together and talk about

that. All the issues that are

holding things up whether that be

language, equal marriage, issues

around abortion, human rights and

equality issues should be debated on

the Assembly floor.

If it is as

simple as that by two Sinn Fein and

the DUP not agree on that and move

on? The point is, it is not that

simple.

They want to control things

themselves. Then an authority

anyway. Let us address this and

afflict the democratic wishes of the

people of Northern Ireland.

At like

to ask you about tomorrow. Are you

sending a party delegation tomorrow

to meet Colin McGrath?

Our party has

been ready at every stage, we are at

Stormont most Mondays and Tuesdays.

We will be there tomorrow.

Do you

think you will have a meeting with

the Secretary of State tomorrow?

We

have not been asked but if so, we

will be the present to speak to him.

We had a meeting with him on

Thursday. What did he say? Not an

awful lot, typical of this process.

You get much talk and headlines but

no details.

Did he ask for your

ideas?

We provided some ideas and

had a conversation but we do not

know the content of the negotiations

and if you do not know the content

you cannot comment on that.

Do you

expect to meet the Secretary of

State to say this process?

I will be

at Stormont tomorrow but we might

get a phone call at 3:30pm telling

us can we see him at four o'clock

and we will talk about analogies and

all sorts of things and gripe at...

We picked up the phone all the time.

Tomorrow is the deadline! Mark, we

have been talking all the time for

the last nine months and said we

must move on. Let us look at

something different, let us look at

the voluntary coalition, let us move

on from where we are. You think that

is the answer? Cannot be any worse

than this!

I do not see the DUP Sinn

Fein giving in to a voluntary

coalition.

Surely that flies in the

face of everything you have stood

for at the time of the Good Friday

Agreement?

I want to see all of the

eligible party sitting around a

table, taking the seat and

delivering for the people of

Northern Ireland, as elected, that

is what we want.

Stephen Farry, if

there is no solution tomorrow or

immediately thereafter, and it looks

like direct rule has been imposed

once more, that is the end of

Stormont, is it? Will you still

remain an MLA?

I do not know and

those decisions that will have to be

taken but I am clear that before we

get to direct rule we have other

options. We have been talking to the

secretary of state for the past he

beat as have other parties. We are

trying to open this process up and

look at other options before we lose

sight of devolution.

Thank you very

much, gentlemen. We will watch with

interest.

Let's hear what my guests

of the day - Chris Donnelly

and Felicity Huston -

make of that.

Felicity, are people being let down

by the inability of the two main

parties to reach a deal?

I think people have given up

expecting any agreement. I think we

have entered a state of this

tournament, everyone has abandoned

all hope. I do not know how many

times I have been seeing this on

here, we getting nowhere and

everyone has given up.

We are told

tomorrow is the absolute deadline,

do you believe that?

The Secretary

of State is always on the verge of

taking a stand but he goes on and

on.

Will it get past tomorrow?

I

would confidently expects all, that

has happened time and again so far.

I do not think that he wants to put

things in place, like the old

fashion secretary Northern Ireland.

Some people have said they will have

been let down by the politicians,

others have said this is exactly

what was voted for. This is

democracy.

What we heard earlier

prior to Felicity talking and the

three representatives, we heard the

frustration of the three minority

parties, we have never been as

politically marginalised as they are

at the moment, they are outside the

process and this is about the Irish

government, the British government

and DUP and Sinn Fein. I know that

Steve Aiken was focusing on Gerry

Adams but I think this is a red

herring, sources I have heard inside

Sinn Fein have all said the same

thing, it is about implementation,

prior agreements about the Irish

Language Act, that was referenced in

the St Andrews Agreement, and I

cannot see any movement until there

is changes in that process. The

legislative process will have to put

into place on direct rule so that

the budget can be brought forward

but the talks, they will have to be

another round that focuses more

specifically on those crunch issues.

You know that there were reports in

the public domain one week ago that

a deal had been done and the senior

Sinn Fein figures have found

something they could sign up to but

that Gerry Adams had pulled the rug

from under their feet. You either

believe that or not, but do you give

any credence?

I do not, although

sources I have spoken to within Sinn

Fein, whether in the north or the

South have said the same thing. We

saw this previously with Martin

McGuinness and Gerry Adams, the talk

suggested that the big bad Wolf,

Gerry Adams, comes from Dublin. He

does not have to arrive in the

building to change things, so I do

not give much credence to that. I

think that Sinn Fein has been with

one voice on this and know that

electro and they have a mandate to

do that.

Felicity, finally, what do

you think that politicians should

say to James Brokenshire if they get

a phone call to meet him tomorrow?

Yes, please, but let us be sensible,

put everyone in the room, openly

discuss what has been agreed and as

the gentlemen of the have said, the

public has a right to know, we pay

the salaries, we ought to know what

they are talking about.

OK, thank

you both for the moment.

Time now for a look back

at the political week in 60 Seconds,

with Gareth Gordon.

Sinn Fein was fighting on two

microns in Dublin as a Gerry Adams

took on the Taoiseach.

This stubborn

elements are being humoured by the

British government and denying

citizens their rights. And you are

tolerating that.

This does not sound

to me like the language of someone

who is trying to read the party into

an agreement.

In Belfast that seems

we were witnessing the endgame of

the Stormont talks.

I think there

has been progress but that clearly

has not been sufficient progress or

else we would be back in the

Executive.

No deal, you do not think

your rabbit can be pulled out of a

hat?

The Miz to be had from which to

take the rabbit from.

Abortion

legislation... There was a row over

the use of ministerial cars by civil

servants.

These are official

government vehicles and it is

important that they make good use of

those.

At Westminster the search was

on to find the top dog of politics

but closer to home, one which showed

its owner who was boss.

Would you

like a biscuit?

She is impossible to live with!

Gareth Gordon reporting.

Politicians here must invest

in areas around the peace walls

if they are ever to come down -

that's one of the key findings

of a survey carried out among people

living in their shadow.

The Peace Walls Programme found that

fear remains a key issue

for residents but that many

want to see the walls

removed in the long term.

The survey was published

by the International Fund

for Ireland and its chairman,

Dr Adrian Johnston, is with me now.

Thank you very much indeed for

coming to join us today. A

significant piece of work and we

only have a short time to look at

some of the issues. Given the wider

political challenges that we face at

the moment and we have just

discussed this in detail, how Big

the challenges it for you to get our

politicians to focus on this

important issue?

I think it has been

a challenge over the past two years,

getting people to speak about this

issue and we have seen from the

survey results that many of

respondents within it have mentioned

that there was a lack or minimal

political engagement at the

grassroots level with the piece was

activity which did not reflect what

we expected from the programme of

government commitments. We must

ensure that going forward that there

is a focus brought very much to the

fore around this piece while. The

legacy of what has occurred about

the peace Wall is not about safety

concerns, it is about economic

Council to regeneration within those

areas and we can see from the super

output area is that we looked at

Varadkar survey that there are huge

economic obligations with respect to

jobs, employment, mental and

physical health within those areas

and those legacy issues have not

been dealt with in those areas.

You

have said that the key to getting

things sorted is in those key areas,

that is less likely in the case of a

devolved government and it does not

look like devolution will be

restored in the short-term, how do

you square that circle?

As we move

forward there will be ministers and

departments responsible for economic

regeneration of those areas for the

issues we have talked about and

going forward we would ask that

anyone, whoever is responsible,

we're not too -- we're not sure who

is currently responsible and who

will be responsible in the future,

but they must look at that and we

would hope that the peace walls

would be removed. The communities

have not been engaged, their voices

have not been heard, those living

around that area are unsure of what

the future will hold for them and we

must ensure they are part of that

process. That ring fenced divorces

will also be put in place. -- ring

fenced resources.

We had that

Bunting devolved government in the

past but we have not had Stormont

for over one year now. Is that

target becoming much more difficult

to achieve in your view?

It is more

difficult but it is difficult to

achieve even when it was announced

because there was no road map put in

place at that would be achieved.

Engaging with communities and

understanding their needs, whether

it is safety, education, employment,

none of those aspects are taken into

consideration when that time and was

put in place, there is no strategic

plan. Four years into that

communities deserve a plan and to be

engaged in this process to see what

the future will hold for them.

Whenever you speak to people on the

ground and living in the shadow of

the peace walls, they have said that

ultimately, if not now, perhaps in

their children or grandchildren'

time, they would like the balls to

be removed, that is passed 2023, why

are there more than 100 piece was in

place 20 years after the signing of

the Good Friday Agreement?

One out

of the tomb of respondents believe

that it is about securing safety and

80% of those surveyed have said they

feel safer than the environment. It

is about security and ensuring the

security fears are eradicated and we

have to...

Is it a substantial

issue? Is providing security or is

it a comfort blanket that people are

unhappy about letting go of?

We have

seen some success in our piece was

programme and they should rhetoric

that that programme was about having

conversations, allowing communities

that have conversations about the

future and the area of the peace

walls, not necessarily about the

removal. Discussions have moved on

to not just the removal but the

reimaging and reduction of the peace

wall and we have looked at physical

transformation is happening in those

areas. There's the possibility and

as we went through those some areas

that decide and in fact, the war was

not there for security reasons, the

will was there as a safety blanket.

Then they had the problem of what we

they do have the wall was removed

and what is the incentive to do

that? That comes down to economic

regeneration, shared spaces,

opportunities for young people,

better outcomes, that is what this

conversations are about and that is

why it is imperative that we put

resources around this, ring fencing

long-term resources and political

support to ensure that the road map

can be put in place.

We are not

where you would like to be at the

moment but are you optimistic that

we can get to the promised land?

Very much so. As we look at the

survey results, there was big

conversations, we want to see how

those conversations have been

evolving and over 50% of

participants in our survey have had

crossed uniquely good relations and

good communications with people from

different communities. 66% of those

respondents believe that not doing

anything with the wall will be

detrimental to committee

communications and others have said

that any engagement they have had

has been positive. That is good for

us to hear that we can get to

discussions about the removal of the

walls.

Very interesting, thank you

for joining us.

And let's have a final word

with Chris and Felicity.

What's the key to moving

this issue forward?

The piece was simply are the most

visible manifestation of the

dividing lines in our society. What

you heard from Doctor Adrian

Johnston was that people do feel an

element of security with those, so

as they are removed, there must be

an ambitious programme that is the

regulation and enforcement, akin to

the Parades Commission, so that the

neutral spaces that are put in place

of the walls can be effectively

policed and that those people feel

secure, not just from physical

attack, but we know when you look at

the other mixed residential

communities, when others arrive and

try to claim territory by putting up

flags, that can add a poison

dimension to the hopes of people who

want to live in mixed communities.

Felicity, a brief thought from you?

It is very sad that after 20 years

we are still present. More have been

put up since the Good Friday

Agreement and people become used to

them, they become part of the

College of how you live and probably

if you live there you do not think

about them, that is what is present

and that the real problem.

OK, thank

you

Ellie Reeves and Bob Blackman.

With that, it's back to Sarah.

Now, the much anticipated

EU Withdrawal Bill,

which will transfer EU law into UK

law in preparation for Brexit,

is expected to be debated

by MPs later next month.

Critics have called it a "power

grab" as it introduces so-called

Henry VIII powers for Whitehall

to amend some laws without

consulting parliament,

and it faces fierce resistance

from opposition parties

as well as many on the government's

own backbenches, with 300 amendments

and 54 new clauses tabled on it.

We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Anna Soubry who has been a strong

critic of the legislation.

Thank you very much for joining us.

Before we talk about the withdrawal

bill, I would like to bring up with

you that the Prime Minister has just

sent a letter to the Commons Speaker

John Bercow asking for an

independent body to be established

to investigate claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament. What are

your thoughts on that?

A very good

idea, sounds like a great deal of

common sense. I had already this

morning sent a request to the

speaker asking for an urgent

statement from the Leader of the

House as to what could now be done

to make sure that any complaints

actually against anybody working in

Parliament, to extend the

protections that workers throughout

the rest of businesses and in other

workplaces have, they should now be

extended into Parliament and asking

for an urgent statement from the

leader. Clearly the PM is well onto

this and it is a good idea. We have

to make sure everybody who works in

Parliament enjoys exactly the same

protections as

protections as other workers, so I

welcome this.

This should maybe have

happened a long time ago. We hear

stories of harassment that has been

going on for decades, but until now

it has been difficult to work out

who you could complain to about it.

It is my understanding that my Chief

Whip and the previous deputy Chief

Whip, and Milton, shared that view

and have shared that view for some

time but found it difficult to get

all the agreement necessary. Anyway,

we are where we are and we are

making that progress, but

my Chief Whip and the previous

deputy Chief Whip wanted this done

some time ago.

That is an

interesting point. Let's move on to

the much anticipated EU withdrawal

bill which will finally be debated.

You have put your name to an

amendment which is calling for a

vote on the final agreement in

essence, do you really believe that

that will be a meaningful both

offered to the Commons?

Yes, if you

look at the terms of the amendment,

it would deliver exactly that. It

would give members of Parliament the

opportunity to debated and voted on

it. It would be an effective piece

of legislation and would go through

both houses and should be done. One

of the problems with this process is

that Parliament has been excluded

from the sort of debate and

decisions that would have enabled

the government to move forward in

progress and form a consensus so we

get the very best Brexit deal.

We

have been excluded, that has been

wrong in my view, but by the end we

should not be excluded. The

government have made it clear that

whilst there may well be a boat if

you win on this amendment, it will

be a take it or leave it vote. This

is a deal you should accept, or

there will be no deal.

If you look

at the amendment we put forward

there will be other alternatives.

This is all hypothetical because we

want a good deal and it is difficult

to see that the government would not

bring a good deal to the House in

any event. But this is hypothetical,

it would mean Parliament would say

to government, go back and seek an

extension as we know it is there in

Article 50. It is perfectly possible

with the agreement of the other

members of the EU to seek an

extension so we continue the

negotiations and we get a deal that

is good for our country. It keeps

all options open and that is the

most important thing.

How many

Conservative MPs really would take

that option in those circumstances?

It is only if you get enough votes

that you would be able to ask the

government to go back and

re-negotiate.

Have you for that?

For give me, but

you are jumping way down the line. I

am talking about an amendment that

keeps the options open. I am not

speculating as to what would happen,

I am not going there, it is far too

speculative. Let's get this bill in

good shape. The principle of this

bill is right and we need to put

into British domestic law existing

EU laws and regulations into our

substantive law. We all agree that

must happen. It is the means by

which we do it that causes problems

and we have this argument and debate

about what we call the endgame.

I am

sure we will talk about this many

more times before we get to that