30/10/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


With guests Iain Duncan Smith, Chi Onwurah and Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation. Isabel Oakeshott, Steve Richards and Tim Shipman are on the political panel.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she wants to help people who are


"just about managing" - so should she reverse


George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people


Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,


says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.


So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?


Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation


into her use of a private email server - is this the boost


Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?


And coming up here - after her first speech as leader


to the DUP Conference, we hear from Arlene Foster


on Brexit, her swipe at the Irish Government,


and her new name for the Opposition. Join me in half an hour.


and her new name for the Opposition. Now it is just a question of


building that runway with the political problems that lie ahead.


And haunting the studio on this Halloween weekend,


the most terrifying political panel in the business -


Tim 'Ghost' Shipman, 'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and


First this morning, two new models of car to be built,


securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant in Sunderland and a further 28,000


The news from Nissan on Thursday was seized on by Leave campaigners


as evidence that the British economy is in rude health


This morning, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked


what assurances were given to the Japanese firm's bosses


Well, it's in no-one's the interest for there to be tariff


barriers to the continent and vice versa.


So, what I said is that our objective would be to ensure that we


have continued access to the markets in Europe and vice versa, without


tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments.


That is how we will approach those negotiations.


We're joined now from Newcastle by the Shadow Business


Welcome to the programme. Labour has been a bit sceptical about this


Nissan decision. Can we begin by making it clear just what a great


achievement this is, above all for the workers of Sunderland who have


some of the highest productivity in the world, have never been on strike


for 30 years, and produce cars of incredible quality. This is their


victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are absolutely right. The Nissan plant


in Sunderland is among the most productive in the world. The workers


of Nissan are amongst the most productive as well. And it's really


a victory for them and for the trade unions and the business


organisations, and everybody who campaigned to make sure that the


government couldn't ignore their future. It's our future. I'm the MP


for Newcastle. It makes a huge difference to the region. We are a


region that still likes to make things that work. It is a huge part


of our advanced manufacturing sector. So it's really something we


welcome as well as the job security. I'm glad we have got that on the


record from the Labour shadow business secretary. But your Shadow


Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims the government is ignoring


manufacturers and cares only about a small banking elite. In what way is


safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs in the North safeguarding a


financial elite? As I said, we're really pleased that the campaigning


by trade unions and the workforce, and business organisations, meant


the government felt they couldn't ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be


clear that we want that kind of job security for all of those working in


manufacturing and in other sectors as well. And sweetheart deals for


one company, no matter how important they are, that does not an


industrial strategy make. Why'd you say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg


Clark told the BBC this morning that what was assured to Nissan is an


assurance he gives to the whole industrial sector? I was really


pleased to see Greg Clark felt he had to say something, even though


it's sad that we having our industrial strategy, you like, or


our approach to Brexit delivered piecemeal to the media rather than


to the British people and Nissan, actually. But he want published the


letter. He said he has told us what is in the letter and that


reassurances given on training, on science and on supporting the supply


chain for the automated sector. You must be in favour all -- of all of


that? We are in favour of an industrial strategy. Greg Clark,


unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say industrial strategy. I'm still


puzzling to find out what it is you disagree with. Let me put the


question. You said the assurances he has given to Nissan are available to


the car manufacturing sector in general and indeed to industry in


general. What is your problem with that? Two things. Let him publish


the letter so we can see that, let him have the transparency he's


pretending to offer. But also, we need an industrial strategy that


values -- that is values based and joined. He talked about electric


cars and supporting green cars. That was in regard to Nissan. At the same


time the government has slashed support for other areas of green


technology. So what is it? That is not to do with the Nissan deal.


Labour implied at some stage there was some financial inducement, some


secret bribes, that doesn't seem to be the case. You are not claiming


that any more -- any more. Then you claimed it was a sweetheart deal for


one company. That turns out not to be the case. What criticism are you


left with on this Nissan deal? I would be really surprised if all


that Nissan got was the reassurances that Greg Clark is shared with us.


He didn't answer the question of what happens if we can't get


continued tariff free access to the single market, if we are not within


the single market or the Customs Union. Do you really think a


negotiator like Nissan, who are very good at negotiating, they would have


excepted making this significant investment without some further


reassurances? Do you think there is some kind of financial bride and if


so what is the evidence? I would like to see the letter published and


I would also like to understand what would happen... There are 27


countries which need to agree with the deal we have from Brexit. What


will Nissan, how will Nissan remain competitive? How will the automotive


industry remain competitive? Greg Clark says he reassured them on


that. But how will that be so if we do not get access? We haven't heard


anything about that. He talks about reassurances given to Nissan. We


need to make -- to know where we're going to make sure Brexit is in the


interest of all workers, not only those who work for a Nissan and not


only those who can get the attention of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan


that Britain would remain a competitive place to do business.


That was the main assurance he gave them. He would help with skills and


infrastructure and all the rest. Since you are -- intend to repeal


the trade union laws that have made strikes in Britain largely a thing


of the past, and you plan to raise corporation tax, you couldn't give


Nissan the same assurance, could you? We could absolutely give Nissan


the assurance that we will be, our vision of the future of the UK, is


based on having a strong manufacturing sector. Repealing


trade union laws? As we have seen at Nissan, the industrial sector is


dependent on having highly trained, well skilled workers. -- highly


skilled, well-trained. You don't have that by getting -- having an


aggressive policy and trade union laws or by slashing corporation tax


and not supporting manufacturing investment. Remember, the last


government took away the Manufacturing allowances which


supported Manufacturing and slashed corporation tax. That is their


solution. It is a low tax, low skill economy they want.


Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you. I'm grateful for you joining us.


I'm still struggling to see what is left of Labour's criticism? Yeah,


except for this. This was a valid point she just made. What we know


for sure is that Greg Clark could say to Nissan, my aim is to get


tariff free deal. There is no way he could guarantee that. None of us


know that. I don't think that was enough. I think clearly there was a


more detailed package involving training and other things. He has


acknowledged this, albeit we do not know the precise mechanism. What I


think is interesting about this is if you reverse what happened this


week, at a time when the government says Britain is open for business


and it is going to have an industrial strategy, so far it is a


bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't made this commitment. Imagine what


would have happened? It is an impossible scenario. The government


seems to me was obliged to make sure this didn't happen. Let's not forget


Nissan has invested hundreds of millions in the north-east. It has


been a huge success story. When I spoke to workers from Nissan, they


were so proud because they went to Japan to teach the Japanese had to


be more productive. The idea that Nissan was just going to walk away


from this given its track record, its importance, wasn't really


credible. The government had some bargaining chips. Absolutely, of


course they weren't going to walk away. The majority of people in the


area in which Nissan is braced -- based, voted for Brexit. Nissan


knows it is in a powerful position because it is an emotive sector.


Clearly the government didn't want to have some big showdown. I


honestly don't think this is a smoking gun. The Labour Shadow


minister really struggled to articulate what exactly she thinks


the government is hiding. I think the reassurances were given were


pretty anodyne, really. They were anodyne and general. And what Greg


Clark was setting out was an objective and he made the right


noises, and Nissan exercised its right to sabre rattle. It does have


a history of doing that. The one thing that would now be clear given


Greg Clark's performance this morning on the BBC, is that if we


were to discover some kind of financial incentive directly linked


to this investment, not more for skills or infrastructure, that is


fine, but some direct financial investment, compensation for


tariffs, which would be illegal under World Trade Organisation


rules, what you might call a financial bride, the sect -- the


business Secretary's position would be untenable? He would be in a very


difficult position indeed. Just released the letter. There is


nothing to hide. Put it out there. The most revealing thing is that


people are getting wildly excited about the fact Greg Clark announced


Britain's negotiating position would be that we would like tariff free


trade with Europe. This is regarded as an insight into what this comment


is doing and it says a great deal about how little we have been told


in Parliament and the media about what they are up. Do you think it is


exciting we are going for tariff free trade? We're easily excited


these days. We don't know. This is where these things are at such a


tentative phase. We don't know how the rest of the European Union is


going to respond to Britain's negotiating hand. We know Britain


once the best of everything, please. It is a starting point. But that is


not how it is going to end up. We are getting wider than that. We have


will have to see. Now, Universal Credit,


a single payment made to welfare claimants that would roll together


a plethora of benefits whilst encouraging people into work


by making work pay. But have cuts to the flagship


welfare scheme reduced work incentives and hit the incomes


of the least well-off? Well, some of the government's


own MPs think so, and, as Mark Lobel reports,


want the cuts reversed. Theresa May says she wants


a country that works for everyone, that's on the side


of ordinary, working people. It means never writing off people


who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits,


but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy


the dignity that comes But now some in her party


are worried that the low earners will be hit by changes


to Universal Credit benefit system originally set up to encourage


more people into work. We also need to focus tax credits


and Universal Credit Concern centred on the Government's


decision in the July 2015 budget to find ?3 billion worth of savings


from the Universal Credit bill. Conservative MP Heidi Allen


is working on a campaign to get MPs in her party to urge


the Prime Minister to think again. I want her to understand for herself


what the outcomes might be if we press ahead


with the Universal Credit, Do you think Theresa May, right now,


understands what you understand? To be fair, unless you really


get into the detail, and I have through my work


on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, I don't


think anybody does. Independent economic analysts


at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan that cuts to Universal Credit weaken


incentives to work. One of the key parts


of the Universal Credit system That is how much you can


earn before your credit As the Government has


sought to save money, both under the Coalition and now


they Conservative Government, both under the Coalition and now


the Conservative Government, that work allowance has been cut,


time and time again. The biggest cuts happened


in the summer budget of 2015. That basically reduces the amount


of earnings you get to keep It weakens the incentive people have


to move into work. What do changes to the Universal


Credit system mean? The Resolution Foundation think-tank


has crunched the numbers. If you compare what would have


happened before the July 2015 summer budget to what will happen by 2020,


even if you take into account gains in the National Living Wage


and income tax cuts, recipients will be hit


by annual deductions. Couples and parents would receive,


on average, ?1000 less. A dual-earning couple with two


children under four, with one partner working full-time


on ?10.50 an hour and the other working part-time on the minimum


wage for around 20 hours a week, they would


receive ?1800 less. Hit most by the changes


would be a single parent with a child under four,


working full-time I think, if I'm honest,


it is unrealistic, given the economic climate,


to expect everything to be reversed. What I would like to see


is an increase in the work allowances to those people


who will be hardest hit. That is single parents and second


earners hoping to return to work, because they are the people we need


to absolutely make The Sunday Politics understands that


about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs are pushing for changes ahead


of the Autumn Statement. A former cabinet minister told us


that they believed further impact analysis should be done to find out


if any mitigation measures Former Work and Pensions Secretary


Iain Duncan Smith, an architect of the system, now says


the cuts should be reversed. But his former department has told


us that it has no plans to revisit the work allowance changes announced


in the budget last year. What I would say to Heidi Allen


and IDS, they got it right the first time and they should stick


to the vote they cast last year, because these reforms actually


do make sense. What interests me is the fact


we are trying to move people off welfare into work,


we are raising the wages people earn by massively increasing


the minimum wage and this People are coming off


welfare and into work. Campaigners are pushing for savings


to come from other areas to relieve The other thing we have to start


looking at is the triple Financially it has been a great


policy, and it was absolutely right that we lifted pensioners


who were significantly behind, for many years, in terms of income


levels, but they have I think it is time for us to look


at that policy again, because is costing us an awful


lot of money. With just over three weeks to wait


until the Conservative leadership's new economic plan is unveiled


in the Autumn Statement, its top team is under pressure


from within its own ranks to use it And I'm joined now by former Work


and Pensions Secretary, Welcome back to the programme.


Theresa May said she is on the side of the just managing, the working


poor. But they are about to be hit from all sides. Their modest living


standards are going to be squeezed as inflation overtakes pay rises,


they will be further squeezed because top-up benefits in work are


frozen. Incentives to work are going to be reduced by the cuts in


universal benefits. So much for being on the side of those just


managing? Theresa was right to focus on this group. The definition has to


be the bottom half, in economic terms, of the social structure. It


doesn't look good for them? This is the point I am making, it is an


opportunity to put some of this right. One of the reasons I resigned


in March is because I felt the direction of travel we had been


going in had been to take far too much money out of that group of


people when there are other areas which, if you need to make some of


those savings, you can. The key bit is that the group needs to be helped


through into work and encouraged to stay in work. There was a report


done with the IFS, when we were there, at Universal Credit. It said


Universal Credit rolled out, as it should have been before the cuts,


people would be much more likely to stay in work longer and earn more


money. It is a net positive, but that is now called into question.


Let's unpick some of the detail, but first, do you accept the words of


David Willets? It says on the basis of the things I read out to you that


the just managing face a significant and painful cut in real terms if we


continue on the way we are going. I do, in essence. That is the reason


why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised that issue as well, that we got the


balance wrong. It is right that pensioners get to a certain point,


when they are on a level par, doing the right thing over five years.


Staying with that process has cost us ?18 billion extra this year, in


total. It will go on costing another 5 billion. Then there is the issue


of tax allowances. I want to remind you and viewers what David Cameron


told the Conservative conference in 2009. If you are a single mother


with two children, earning ?150 a week, the withdrawal of your


benefits and the additional taxes that you pay me on that for every


extra you earn, you keep just 4p. What kind of incentive is that? 30


years ago, this party won and election fighting against 98% tax


rates for the Rex richest. I want us today to show even more anger about


96% tax rates for the very poorest in our country. Real anger, and


effective rate of over 90%. Universal Credit reduces that. Some


will still face, as they lose benefits and pay tax, a marginal


rate of over 75%. That is still too high? Yes, it is the collision


between those going into work at the moment they start paying tax. A


racial Universal Credit is set at 65%. You can call that the base


marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will face 75%? That is the point about


why the allowances are so important. The point about the allowances which


viewers might not fully understand is that it was set, as part of


Universal Credit, to allow you to get certain people, with certain


difficulties, as they cross into work, to retain more benefit before


it is tapered away as they go up in hours. A lone parent, who might have


various issues, you want her to have a bigger incentive than a single


person that does not have the same commitments. It is structured so


that somebody who has difficulty going to work, they all have


slightly different rates. What happened is that last year a


decision was taken to reduce tax credits, and, on the back of that,


to reduce allowances. I believe, given everything that happened now,


we need to restore that to the point where it helps those people crossing


over. You say a decision was taken, it was a decision by the former


Chancellor George Osborne in the summer budget. Other decisions were


taken in successive Budgets to raise the Universal Credit budget, which


resulted in the disincentive being higher than many people wanted. Do


you accept that has been the consequence of his decisions? I was


in the Government, we take collective responsibility. I argued


this was not the right way to go, but when you are in you have to stay


with it if you lose that argument. There was another attempt before the


spending review last year to increase the taper, so the marginal


rate would have gone up. I managed to stop that. I'm Sibley saying,


what we made as a decision last year, given the circumstances and


given that the net effect of all of that, I think it is time for the


Government to ask the question, if we are in this to help that group of


people, Universal Credit is singularly the most powerful tool.


One of the Argentine aid in the paper published on Thursday, we are


set going on doing two more races of the tax threshold, taking more


people out of tax. That has a diminishing effect on the bottom


section. Only 25p in that tax rate will help any of those. Most of it


goes to middle income? You and I will benefit more from that. With


Universal Credit, every pound you put into that will go to the bottom


five tenths. That is why I designed it like that. He pressed the button


and immediately start to changed circumstances. Should the cuts in


Universal Credit that Mr Osborne introduced, against your argument,


should they be reversed? I believe so. I believe you can do it even if


there is concern about spending. I don't believe you need to go through


with the continuing raise the tax threshold. Cost is dependent on


inflation, but give or take. It is in the Tory manifesto? Has more than


doubled. What is in the manifesto, and Lasse Prime Minister made this


clear in conference, we want to improve the life chances of people.


Today's announcement on the Green paper is what I wrote over the last


two and a half years. Big changes necessary to how we deal with


sickness benefit. That can now be done because of Universal Credit,


because people can go back to work and it tapers away their benefits.


It is the most powerful tool to sort our people that live in poverty,


Universal Credit. We need to make sure it lands positively. If Mr


Osborne's cuts were reversed, what you and some of your backbench Tory


colleagues want to do, how would that improve the incentives of the


working poor, as they try to get on in life? They have to pay more tax,


they lose some benefits. How would it improve it? Would many still face


a 75% rate? The key question is, first and foremost, as people move


through income to the point where they are getting taxed, that group


will be enormously benefited by the re-emergence of these allowances at


the right level. That is what the IFS have said, that is what the


Resolution Foundation are saying, and the Centre For Social Justice is


saying. You have to get that group, because they are most likely to be


drifting into poverty and less incomes are right. Would it help


those who face a 75% margin? We don't face that. Exactly right.


People much poorer than us do. I would love to get the marginal rate


down to testify percent, and lower,. -- down to 65%. It is a balance of


how you spend the money. I would prefer to do that rather than


necessarily go ahead with threshold razors. I think the coronation of


the marginal reduction of 65%, getting it down to 60%, plus more


allowances, will allow Universal Credit to get to the group that is


going to be, and the report written by the IFS and ourselves, it shows


it is going to be the most dynamic and direct ability of a Government


to be able to influence the way that people improve their incomes in the


bottom five deciles. Would you take on extra work if you knew you were


going to lose 75% of it? Even 65%? This has been my argument all along.


Universal Credit can help that enormously. One point that goes


missing, 70% of the bottom five deciles will be on Universal Credit.


Whatever change you make to Universal Credit has a dramatic and


immediate effect I am arguing, genuinely, it is time to rethink


this. The Prime Minister wants to make this a priority. I am


completely with her on this. I think she made a really good start. To


deliver this, we need to... You have a lot of work to do to deliver it.


Because it is a manifesto commitment, or because they want to


do it, stopping increasing the personal allowances are not


acceptable, what about bringing to an end, by the end of the


parliament, the pension triple lock that pensioners enjoy to improve and


put more money to the working poor? What about that? Well, you are


absolutely right that there is now the danger, I think, of a mess


balance between the generations. Quite rightly at the beginning, when


we came in, we have a commitment as a Conservative Party in a manifesto


to get pensions back onto earnings. It was moved to a triple lock that


guaranteed a minimum. What about ending up now? I understand it is a


promise through the Parliament, but after 2020? I am in favour of


getting it back to innings and allowing it to rise at reasonable


levels. Moving from earnings to the triple lock has cost ?18 billion


this year. Here was a high, under pressure, as the Government was


scratching around to pay more money out of working age areas, when the


budget was almost out of control on the pension side. I'm in favour of


helping pensioners, but now they are up to a reasonable level, at a


steady rate, that can be afforded by Government, which takes the pressure


off, working age people have to pay for that. In years to come, time to


end the triple lock and use the savings to help these


people we have been talking about? As part of a load of packages, yes.


It would also help with the intergenerational fairness argument.


Thank you for being with us. Now, a prominent London Imam


called Shakeel Begg - who is Chief Imam the Lewisham


Islamic Centre - is an extremist. That was the verdict of the judge


in a libel action that Mr Begg took against the BBC, after we described


him as an Islamic extremist Mr Begg had complained about a short


segment in an interview in November 2013 with Farooq Murad,


the then head of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation


which claims to represent British In that interview, we described


Mr Begg as an extremist speaker who had hailed jihad


is the greatest of deeds. From his base of the Lewisham


Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been involved in a number of community


organisations, including the Police Independent


Advisory Group in Lewisham, Lewisham Council's Advisory Council


on Religious Education and as a volunteer chaplain


at Lewisham Hospital. But in his judgment,


Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character


- a trusted figure in his local community, but when talking


to predominantly Muslim audiences he shed the cloak of respectability


and revealed the horns of extremism. The judge cited one speech made


by Mr Begg at a rally outside Belmarsh Prisonm-


the high security prison that houses terrorists -


as particularly sinister. The judge said the imam


was expressing admiration and praise Following Friday's judgment,


the hospital trust have told us that Mr Begg's status as a voluntary


chaplain has been terminated. We have been told by


Lewisham Council he is no longer on their Religious


Education Committee. The Metropolitan Police


have confirmed that Mr Begg remains a member


of their Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham, as well as


the borough's faith group. I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief


executive of the Quilliam Foundation. Welcome to the


programme. I have here in my hand a statement from the trustees of the


Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject the judge's ruling as fanciful and


say they are unequivocal and unwavering in their support of


Shakeel Begg as their head imam. What do you make of that? To be


honest, it doesn't surprise me. At the end of the day he is only the


imam of that mosque because he belongs to the same theological


fundamentalist views that the mosque would portray. If they were to say


he was an extremist, they would be saying in fact that they have


allowed extremist preaching and extremist theology within their


walls. I think this is a very important decision and a very


important judgment by the judge. First of all, these people like to


operate in a linear, under a veneer of respectability. When that veneer


is taken away, there are a number of things that can happen. First of


all, the BBC did very well to stand by their guns and say, we're not


going to be intimidated by somebody who is threatening to taking -- to


take us to court for potential libel. Many other media companies


have done that in the past and people have capitulated. Also, this


has exposed him. Legally now, here's some deal can be classified as an


extremist preacher, somebody who promotes religious violence. I think


the mosque really needs to take a step back and say, how we part of


the problem that we are facing within society? Or are we going to


be part of the solution? It really concerns me. The High Court judge


says that Mr Begg's speeches were consistent with an extremist


Salafist is the most worldview. What is Salafist is and how widespread is


it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It comes from the Middle East. It is


from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for them was the old colonial Ottoman


Empire. There is the quiet Salafist to get some with their lives, lives


outside society. There is a revolutionary who tries to convert


other people to their worldview. And then there is the Salafist jihad


ease. People like Islamic State etc. We have seen of increased in recent


decades because of money that has, growing from the Middle East. When


that is mixed with a political ideology, it becomes potent. Do we


have a political -- particular problem in Britain with this in our


mosques? Absolutely. Without the theology that says hate the other,


hate other Muslims, that excommunicate other people, that


says it is OK to fight and is good to fight when you have got an enemy,


we wouldn't really have a jihadi problem. Really that is something we


have to tackle. The number of mosques and institutions supporting


Salafist and Islam is has been on the increase. Do we have a problem


with what the judge called Jekyll and Hyde characters who hide their


extremism except when they are speaking to specific groups?


Absolutely. One of the things we have focused on in the past, a


number of hate preachers now in prison, people like Anjem Choudary,


and everybody focused on them. But there is a range of people operating


under that level. People who will show one face to the community


because they actually need that for a respectability. They need that for


a legitimacy. They need that to operate. When they are behind closed


doors and talking to their doors and talking to their


constitution, that is when you will see the real face of what these


people believe. It is an increasing phenomenon. We are seeing it more.


And we're going to carry on seeing it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque


stuck by him, but given the clarity of the judge's ruling, are you


surprised that the Metropolitan police would wish to continue with


Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm absolutely shocked that that


decision. What Uzzy going to do? Advise them on how to deal with


extremist preachers and promote religiously motivated violence? I


don't know what he's going to advise them on. Because we now have a judge


that has ruled against him and actually classified him as an


extremist and somebody who promotes religious violence, we actually have


a possibility for the CPS to actually prosecute him. There is a


law that has been in place since 2005 called religiously motivated


violence. If he has been classified as somebody who promotes this, there


is a potential for the CPS to prosecute. I want to called into


question other organisations, interfaith organisations, other


Muslims groups, who say they want to fight extremism, I call on them to


say, this guy is an extremist preacher, we should cut our ties


from him. This was a very high risk strategy by the BBC. The exposure


could have been over ?1.5 million of licence payers money. Will this make


it more difficult for Jekyll and Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg


has behaved? Absolutely. It will do. One of the things they will now have


to make sure is that they are a lot more careful. Careful with what they


say to their own constituency. It won't solve the theological problem.


But it will actually stop other people from operating in this manner


and allow other media organisations to have the confidence to expose


them when they do. Haras Rafiq, thank you for joining us.


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


Arlene Foster felt the love of the DUP party faithful yesterday


as she delivered her first conference speech as leader -


but there was no love lost as she hit out


at the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and here,


Their representatives are sent out around the world to talk


down our economy and to attempt to poach our investors.


And with their thoughts on all of that and more,


my guests of the day are the News Letter's Political Correspondent,


Sam McBride, and fellow journalist, Suzanne Breen.


So, Arlene Foster's first conference as DUP leader has come and gone.


Predictably there were attacks on the Ulster Unionist


and SDLP leaders - who were re-christened


Less predictably, perhaps, Mrs Foster launched a broadside


But perhaps least surprising of all - no attack in the leader's


speech on Sinn Fein - how times have changed.


Our Political Correspondent, Gareth Gordon, was there


Just a few final touches... This time to claim the ovation. In less


than a year, Arlene Foster has made the DUP her owner. Regarded as the


party's main asset with the voters. She soon find a way of describing


her rival, Mike Nesbitt and his ally, Colin Eastwood. Steptoe and


son were a very odd couple. Actually, the similarities are


amazing. One was an older bitter man, the other was a frustrated


younger man. They had to live together but they never got on. And


they made a life selling junk to the public! There was no mention of our


partners in the Executive, Sinn Fein. But a dig at the Irish


Government. While they seek to take the views from Northern Ireland on


Brexit, their representatives are sent out around the world to talk to


our economy and to attempt to poach our investors. Now, it is clear,


conference, at the one place that a hard border does exist is in the


mind of the Irish Government. Deputy said another election could be


close. The temptation for the Prime Minister to call early general


election is, I have to say, strong and growing. Our party is making


preparations for such an eventuality. The DUP latest recruits


from the Ulster Unionists try to look at home, even if they have not


always been conned an their new party. This time last year, you


treated the picture of the North Korean litre... The cut and thrust


of politics. It is harassing today? I don't think so. Is the DUP not


confining you? The DUP can accommodate Sammy Wilson, so can


accommodate me. What was the verdict on Arlene Foster's press conference


as DPP leader? It's difficult for the DUP to attack their partners in


Government. The Irish Government is an easy target. The irony is that


the Ulster Unionist Party cosying up to the test DUP, that was a line of


attack and yet it is the DUP sharing power with the historic enemy. What


was the verdict from the third? Very good. She will do well. She is


absolutely out of this world. Love her to bits. Very good. They have to


top Ian Paisley. Not as good as Ian Paisley? Format not yet. She is


leading the Ulster people and we thank Doctor Paisley for his


leadership and Peter Robinson. What does she have to do? More


interaction with people. She has been around the country and visiting


all borders. She's not Ian Paisley. It just goes to show, you cannot be


complacent. This was a lap of honour for Arlene Foster but she will no


more hard work lies ahead. Gareth Gordon on the conference


floor with the party faithful. Well I spoke to Arlene Foster


yesterday just after she came off the stage -


and I began by asking her about that attack on the Ulster


Unionists and SDLP. So, are their new close-working


arrangements in Opposition People have rumbled Mike and column.


They now selling what is going on. How can a Unionist leader forming


coalition in the fashion that they are talking about and not weaken


unionism and Northern Ireland's place within the UK? It is a


complete farce. The one and get the other. If you vote for Ireland, you


get Eileen. That's the reality. I think it is quite amusing. You think


it is funny but if you think about it, what you have said is a


nonsense. You asked how it could not weaken Unionism for Mike Nesbitt to


work closely with Colin Eastwood, by that logic, how does not weaken


unions even more for you to be working on Government Martin


McGuinness? Into a completely separate. What Mike and column are


talking about is an election pack. They are going to go forward with


the opposition programme and they're going to ask people to vote for


them. When we stand in an election, we stand on her own two feet and put


forward our agenda. As you well know, we could forbid that agenda in


May under our 5-point plan and people voted for it. They voted for


it in their thousands and we had more votes than ever before and we


came back with 38 seats, despite the fact there are many who came back


with a lot less. I am very content to stand on my own two feet and


said, if you vote for Arlene, you get Eileen. But people also got


Martin. You can't pretend that didn't happen. And it could happen


in an election next week. Would it? I hope people would rally around the


DUP. Whether the nationals people decided to vote for Martin's party


or Colin's party is a matter for them. I am trying to put forward a


positive fish for Northern Ireland. People told me that it didn't matter


who the First Minister was in Northern Ireland. Yet we came back


as the strongest party, which meant that I could be the First Minister


and we could have a majority of unionists in the Executive and the


largest party in the Assembly and we could shape the agenda and that is


exactly what we're doing, as the DUP, we shape the agenda for


Northern Ireland and are moving ahead with the issues that matter.


You mentioned electoral pacts and you made an interesting comment


during a speech. I want to see if I understand this. You said I will not


be watering down Unionism to form an electoral pact or political Alliance


with anyone or any party. Does that mean if there was a snap election


that your deputy would not have the same kind of agreement between the


DUP and Ulster Unionists that made are you one east Belfast and the one


for Fermanagh South. Are you ruling out any arrangement with them in the


future? Let me say two things, first of all, it appears that Mike has


said he wants to do pacts with the SDLP. That is a matter for him. If


there were a Westminster election tomorrow, I would have to ask what


would serve the best interests of Unionism and that would be the way


in which I would decide how to go forward, not looking at anything


else but what is best for Unionism, what strengthens Unionism, in terms


of a Westminster election at Westminster. That is how I will


approach this matter. Interestingly, he did not really make much


reference about some of the controversial issues like fatal


foetal abnormality or same-sex marriage during your speech.


Presumably that was deliberate. Did you consult with your party


colleagues before you said there would be no movement on the DUP's


part on the issue of supporting same-sex marriage before you make


that statement? Because some MLAs in Stormont from other parties are


openly tweeting the members of your party are not at all happy with what


he said. That is just a nonsense. Because of course that was our


position before May, in our manifesto and it is our position


since then. There was no surprise in any of this. I was asked a


question by a huge story. It is no surprise in any of this. When we put


together manifested, we were very clear about delivering on it. The


reason why those issues, which you told me where issues of the


election, of course they went the issue of the election. The issues of


the election were in and around health and education and investment


and those were the issues people voted on. They did not vote on a


narrow agenda. They voted on a broad agenda for Northern Ireland. That is


what I was reflecting on today. A straight answer to this question,


are you clear that every one of the 30th MLAs in the DUP support your


position on same-sex marriage? Because I can think of a few who I


think would take a different line and who would support to same-sex


marriage if given the opportunity. And that is your assessment. And I


have to respect your assessment. But let me say this. I have spoken to


them. That's fine. It is the party policy and the reality and the party


policy was passed to the Executive of the party back in April and it


came to the people in May and people voted for it in May and it is quite


amusing to hear some commentators and others talk about the fact we


need to vote on this issue. We did have on this issue. As recently as


May of this year. Those are the issues that were important at the


time, health, education, investment, jobs and those are the issues that I


am focused on, moving forward because I believe if we focus on


those issues we will deliver a better Northern Ireland for


absolutely everybody. You also spoke about Brexited he had outlined here


approached that in the forthcoming negotiations, which he said will be


tough negotiations. You're pretty clear about how you want handle


that. It wasn't your message on Grexit basically no special status


for Northern Ireland? It is off the agenda? -- it wasn't your message on


breaks it -- Brexit. We have to recognise the geography of Northern


Ireland is different from the UK and we should recognise it in


negotiations and the Prime Minister will recognise this because she has


already in the House of Commons when she said we were different because


of our land border with what will be the European Union. Special status


or different but not different enough to have special status, which


is it? It is in negotiation. It hasn't even started yet. Those of us


who've been to many negotiations are Northern Ireland now it will be an


evolving picture and that we have to get the best deal for the people of


Northern Ireland and that is what I am focused on regardless of whether


people voted remain or to leave, the figure should now be what is


rightfully people of Northern Ireland and that is where I am and


where I hope others will come to as well. I know there are others


struggling with the fact that the UK voted to leave the EU and are having


difficulty with that. They're engaging in court cases are doing


all sorts of things when in fact they


should be concentrating on doing what is right for the people of


Northern Ireland. That is my focus and I hope others will eventually


come to that determination as well. You so clearly the Brexit means


Grexit. The whole of the UK must leave the EU. It seems to suggest


that the idea there might be some special status for Northern Ireland


is of your radar. -- Brexit means Brexit. You have also set... People


might want to know whether there is a possibility that during the


negotiations on pain of special status and Northern Ireland might be


acceptable to Arlene Foster. What I have said to you is that the whole


of the UK's leading the EU. Even the Prime Minister has recognised that


there are specific circumstances which pertain to Northern Ireland


and those have to be dealt with. Whether people want to label that


special circumstance or special starters, I am not that interested.


What I am interested in is doing what's right for the people of


Northern Ireland. Your message to the Irish Government, if I was to


summarise it, having read the speech is, effectively, mind your own


business, stay out of it? No, it's not that at all. I don't know how


you came to that determination and! I said we had the best relationship


we have ever had with the edge Government, we'll continue to have


those negotiations but frankly cannot have it both ways. They are


currently out in America talking to friends that are already in Northern


Ireland, saying they should come south to the Republic and they are


also talking to potential firms we are talking to try to get them to


the Republic of Ireland as well. Is it competition or is a corporation?


Which do they want? They have to make up their mind in relation to. I


know they have a different economy and they will want to sell that but


please don't misrepresent what is happening in Northern Ireland. Our


offering to investors has not changed. We still have the talent,


the value and come April 20 18th we will have a tax offering as well.


And I think the offering for inward investors will be even stronger


after Brexit because there are huge opportunities in relation to


international trade. Arlene Foster speaking to me


straight after her conference speech Let's hear what my studio


guests make of that. I'm joined by the journalists


Sam McBride and Suzanne Breen. Arlene Foster's firepower was


trained on Mike Nesbitt and call me eastward, rather than Republicans.


Not a mention of Sinn Fein at all. There was one reference to not


getting a united Ireland and that was pointed at Anna Lo, but the real


enemy is Mike Nesbitt and the Ulster Unionists for Arlene, and she has


been bothered by this new nickname of Marlene and made remarks about


Steptoe and son team the opposition and remarks about people's


appearance and this was a vicious attack on opposition and she clearly


thinks not very much of them. She dismissed Mike


Nesbitt and Colum Eastwood. The DUP did not attack Sinn Fein but any


attacks were from people marching in a newsreader. They were people


outside the party. The DUP is clearly in love with its leader, she


stands on a honeymoon period and masterful she surveys. What about


the defections? We the people named as coming across from Ulster


Unionists to the DUP. They're not exactly the big beasts of the forest


in political terms but it is significant enough in its own way.


The defections, they are not a game changer but they show the direction


in which Unionist politics is going. The DUP conference claim we are a


family, to welcome the new recruits bear and Greatham Creek, the Belfast


City Council, he had pride of place in the very top row. It was


interesting, he was wearing a 3-piece suit with a pink tie and


remastered waistcoat and he said, I Arlene Foster's first openly gay


councillor and that there are some wiser DUP there a little bit


alarmed. It will be interesting to see how people will handle Greatham


Creek. He has an independent streak. He has been critical in the past. As


have others, making reference to the DUP pings like North Korea. One of


the difficulties for anyone defecting, the internet has a long


memory. Graham Craig was probably one of the most viciously anti-DUP


unionist I could think so I was stunned when I read he had moved


across. It must alarmed unionists because if someone who is openly


savaging the DUP a months ago, he sent us letters regularly which were


so vicious we felt we could not publish them for legal reasons, if


he can move across, perhaps anyone can. And on Brexiter, I am


interested in what she had to say. She said to the Irish Government,


you are trying to poach our investors. If people want to come


shopping in the North, they're very welcome.


Let's talk about the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny's, all-island


conversation on the implications of Brexit in Dublin on Wednesday.


The DUP and the Ulster Unionists have both declined Mr Kenny's


invitation - Arlene Foster insisting she has better things to do


than listen to a lot of "grand-standing remoaners".


Mr Kenny, however, told the Dail it's important that as many voices


It is my intention to convene an all-Ireland conversation about this,


to which business people and members of civic society and political


parties could be inflated. -- invited.


Relations between the Unionist parties, between Northern Ireland


and the Government in the south, very tricky at the moment? Yes. They


are. This issue has always struck me as baffling. It seems an incredibly


pedantic debate, the Enda Kenny is saying we should have this debate in


a new forum specifically to discuss Brexit rather than the existing


North South Ministerial Council. The DUP are saying, no, it seems quite


baffling as to why there might not be able to be a compromise and it is


very odd because on the one hand the DUP have better relations with


Dublin than they had ever had. And yet be raised this chasm -- there is


this chasm with Enda Kenny day. Perhaps southern politics explained


some of it. I think you must be very embarrassing to Sinn Fein that this


is their partners in Government and yet Arlene Foster will not take part


in that forum. It is clear who wears the trousers and too is not Martin


McGuinness. Thank you both for now. Let's pause for a moment


and take a look back at the week in 60 seconds -


with Gareth Gordon... The Health Minister unveiled


a 10-year plan she claims will improve a system at breaking


point. There is no quick fix. We need to


have a sustained plan of action, what I set out.


As devolved leaders talked Brexit in Downing Street the Prime Minister


said Northern Ireland was a special case.


The position of Northern Ireland will be a particular position


because it will be the one part of the UK with a land border with a


country remaining inside the EU. And her Secretary of State denied


he would favour Westminster's I will work alongside the Executive


Committee First Minister and the Deputy First Minister through the


joint... You're not be in force of London? No, it is about how to get


the best deal for Northern Ireland. Naomi Long took over from David Ford


as Alliance leader though he and the woman who replaced him


as Justice Minister had issues - Since it is clearly her decision,


she clearly has a plan is to fund it. It is a personal decision. I am


Minister of justice. Martin McGuinness said on The View


last week it would be shameful and disgraceful if outstanding


legacy issues haven't been resolved by the first anniversary


of the Fresh Start deal. What chance a resolution


any time soon? I think there is no sign of a


revolution. There are people out there who very much need help and


they are not getting it and our politicians need to put their heads


together and get some sort of deal, even an interim deal, on the table.


There are people with serious injuries and they need assistance.


Are you any more optimistic? A little bit. It depends how you


define a resolution. Perhaps we will see some sort of progress but Arlene


Foster was pretty bullish, saying she will not allow the history of


the troubles to be rewritten. Thank you both.


That's it. Back to Andrew in London.


Barely more than a week now until polling day,


and a new revelation rocks the US Presidential election campaign.


If it wasn't bizarre enough, it just got more bizarre.


The FBI have reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's


use of private email servers whilst she was Secretary


of State, after the discovery of further emails.


Though not on her laptop or even the State Department.


Donald Trump is saying that it's bigger than Watergate -


so could it swing the election in his favour?


We spoke to top US pollster, Frank Luntz.


The FBI investigation is happening so late in the election process


that it would be very difficult to derail a Clinton victory.


That said, if there is one thing that could keep Hillary Clinton


from the presidency, it's an FBI investigation.


But there's still only four states that really matter, Florida, Ohio,


Right now, Clinton has beyond the margin of error leads


This would have to have a truly significant impact for the election


There is a point about a week ago when I was prepared to say that


Clinton had a 95% chance of winning this election.


Based on what has happened in the last 48 hours,


It is still very likely, but I wouldn't bet on it.


I thought the 2000 election would be the best election of my lifetime,


And then I thought 2008 would be amazing, because we had two


challenger candidates and the first African-American President.


It is ugly, it's painful, it is as negative as anything


The public is angry, the country, overall, is frustrated.


But for entertainment value, these candidates probably should


have charged us money, because it's better than any movie


at ever seen, it's better than any TV show.


That was Frank Luntz. He may be right or wrong about Mrs Clinton


still having an 80% chance of winning. I would bet on an 80%


chance? Yes, absolutely. I spoke to a high-profile American pollster and


strategist last night and he took a rather different view to Frank


Luntz. He thought, and I think some other high-profile commentators


agree, that this is actually much more serious than some people


realise. There are an awful lot of undecided voters out there looking


for an excuse to vote Trump. They do not like what they see in either


candidate. But because this FBI probe is not going to conclude


before the election, the question, the doubt over Hillary Clinton,


gives them an excuse to back Trump. The thing that will play on the


minds of the voters is, could the 100 day honeymoon turning to the 100


day divorce? Which even be impeached? It may give some people


an excuse not to vote for Mrs Clinton. It could provide a problem


in terms of energising her base. The battle ground almost matters more


than the polls. Florida and Pennsylvania have been trending to


Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump needs to win both. He does not get in without


both. He needs both. Just coming up in the latest BBC News, the


Washington Post tracking poll, Mrs Clinton is now only one point ahead


in the national poll. One point. Even given my caveat that the state


battles are most important. That is incredibly close? It is. Polls


yesterday showed Trump nationally closing of. -- up. There is a clear


trend and movement. This has reinforced everything that people


who have a problem with Hillary Clinton know about Hillary Clinton.


Trump is running this insurgent campaign. We have seen at here with


Brexit. If you are running an insurgent campaign, you want to be


against the ultimate establishment insider and that is what Hillary


Clinton is. I suggested it was bizarre. Fathoming the behaviour of


the FBI is interesting as well. This is a separate investigation into a


former congressman, Anthony Wiener, who had done all sorts of things. He


seemed to be sex text thing a minor. A 15-year-old girl. The FBI


investigate. They get his laptop to see what else he has been too. In


the course of that, his wife, now separated, the closest adviser to


Hillary Clinton, they find on the laptop e-mails involving the Clinton


server to her. And yet the FBI cannot, it needs now a separate


warrant to access these e-mails. It hasn't got that yet. It has got a


warrant to do the congressman e-mails. On the basis of not knowing


the content, this has happened. Yeah. Who knows? He is a Republican,


this guy. Earlier this year he was being praised to the hilt by


Democrats. Absolutely. The timing is a nightmare for her. You described


the whole sequence. There is nothing definitive to doubt in this


sequence. All he is saying is he has discovered more e-mails in effect.


They are from the congressman's former wife. On Anthony Wiener's


laptop, which apparently she used sometimes. But what that shows is


that for all the scrutiny of modern politicians, they cannot escape


caricature. And as Tim was just saying, her weakness is perceived to


be secretive, elitism and complacency about that elitism. And


so just the announcement of a reopening of the investigation so


fuels that caricature, you have just revealed a poll giving her a 1%


lead. That must be related to what has happened. It is without a shred


of evidence that she has done anything wrong. You can see how,


because people only see things encourage kids, that is deadly


serious. -- in caricature. An American friend of mine said we have


got our October surprise but we don't know what it is. The FBI must


surely come under massive pressure. It did its -- it did this against


the Justice Department. The difficulty the FBI had was that this


information, for what it's worth, it came to them. Were they not to have


said something and it worked to have come out later, they would have been


accused of a massive cover-up. They are dammed if they do, dammed if


they don't. There is still time for another surprise. And early November


surprise. Who knows if there might still be something that comes out on


Donald Trump? This is the first election where I can remember we


have had two October surprises already. There are is stuff about


tapes knocking around about Donald Trump saying racist things. The


Clintons have got a lot of friends. It would be a big surprise if we did


not see anything else in the next few days.


Just when you think it could not get more interesting, it has. There has


been plenty in the papers lately about the Ukip leadership saying


unpleasant things about each other. But what about Mr Farage himself?


What's he up to? Well, on BBC Two tonight we may


find out the answer. Well, I'm led to believe


she's very experienced. But I don't think Strictly Come


Dancing is for me. That is, unless, of course,


you fancy popping a cheeky zero No, I don't think Strictly


Come Dancing is for me. Well, you tell Mr Balls he has just


lost your programme one viewer. I might have nothing to do these


days but, realistically, Well, that wasn't Nigel Farage. It


is a BBC comedy on tonight. Nigel Farage gets his life back. A number


of runners and riders. Let's come straight down to it. Who would be


the next leader of Ukip? Probably Paul Nuttall. He is the favourite.


The one who has the backing, not very enthusiastic backing, is Rahim


Cassandra. And also Aaron Banks, a big donor. The best of a rather weak


lot. I think Paul Nuttall should squeak through. I interviewed all


three of them this week. Mr Cassandra is a lively character and


he knows how to make a few headlines. With a bit of money


behind him, anything is possible. This is a guy who has been to the


States, who has literally studied what Trump has done. Pees on


secondment for the time being. The guy who is his line manager is one


of Donald Trump's campaign stop. He is extraordinarily right-wing. I am


told he kept a picture of Enoch Powell by his bed. Barry Goldwater


is one of his heroes, for example. There are other candidates. I would


suggest, put out as a hypothesis, Paul Nuttall is Labour's worst


nightmare. They are more vulnerable in the North. Paul Nuttall is from


Merseyside, a working-class background, performs well on


television. He is a really good interviewee. He is one of the best


around in politics at the moment. However, I think whoever gets it has


a massive task. The clip of this Nigel Farage satire partly shows


why. His dominance was overwhelming. He, in many ways, did a brilliant


job at keeping the show on the road. The trouble for all new political


parties is keeping it going is tough. A very different party, the


SDP, with all those glamorous figures in it, lasted eight years,


something like that. I think they are in real trouble at the moment


because of the implosion we have been seeing in front of our eyes and


the ideal -- ideological splits. Whoever gets it will face a tough


tussle. All three of the main contenders want to put Nigel Farage


in the House of Lords. They were falling over themselves to soak up


two farads. That is how you win this election.


Mr Aaron Banks, who is he putting his money on? He said he supports


Rahim. I know Mr Banks is utterly fed with the shenanigans in Ukip. He


thinks it is terribly disorganised, dysfunctional and doesn't want a


great deal to do with it for the foreseeable future.


It is not quite Trump the Clinton but it is interesting. That is it.


The Daily Politics is back tomorrow. And all of next week. Jo Coburn will


be your next Sunday because I am off to the United States to begin to


rehearse presenting the BBC's US election night coverage on the 8th


of November. It will be here on BBC One, BBC


world, BBC News Channel and BBC online.


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


We will be in the Book Of Records as the oldest family in the world.


We grew up together, we played together, we worked together.


Drink was never seen amongst us at all.


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers are joined by Iain Duncan Smith, Chi Onwurah and Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation. The Daily Mail's Isabel Oakeshott, commentator Steve Richards and Tim Shipman of The Sunday Times are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles