02/03/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Fears that Ukraine could face invasion escalate this morning as

Russian forces take control of Crimea. President Obama and his

European allies tell President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like

he's listening. Shadow Education Secretary Tristram

Hunt has started spelling out Labour's plans for schools. So

what's the verdict - full marks, or must try harder? He joins us for the

Sunday Interview. And all the big political parties

are desperate to broaden their appeal. We'll look at some

changes. And tightening household finances.

And with me, as always, three journalists who'd make a clean sweep

if they were handing out Oscars for political punditry in LA tonight.

But just like poor old Leonardo DiCaprio they've never won so much

as a Blue Peter badge! Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan

Ganesh. Instead of acceptance speeches they'll be tweeting faster

than the tears roll down Gwyneth Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as

luvvie as we get on this show. Events have been moving quickly in

Ukraine this weekend. The interim government in Kiev has put the

Ukrainian military on full combat alert after Russia's parliament

rubber-stamped the deployment of Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.

Russian troops seem already to be in control of the mainly

Russian-speaking Crimea region, where Russia has a massive naval

base. President Obama told President Putin that Russia has flouted

international law by sending in Russian troops but the Kremlin is

taking no notice. This is now turning into the worst stand-off

between Russia and the West since the conflict between Georgia and

Russia in 2008, though nobody expects any kind of military

response from the West. Foreign Secretary William Hague is on his

way to Kiev this morning to show his support for the new government,

though how long it will survive is another matter. We can speak to our

correspondent David Stern, he's in Kiev.

As things look from Kiev, can we take it they've lost Crimea, it is

now in all essence under Russian control? Yes, well for the moment,

Crimea is under Russian control. Russian troops in unmarked uniforms

have moved throughout the peninsula taking up various positions, also at

the Ismis which links Ukraine into Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon

troops there. Three units have been captured according to a top

officials. We can say at the moment Russia controls the peninsula. It

should also be said, also they have the support of the ethnic Russian

population. The ethnic Russians make up the majority of the population.

They are also not entirely in control because there are other

groups, namely the Tatar as and the ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at

least at the moment tacitly resisting. We'll see what they'll

start to do in the coming days. David, I'm putting up some pictures

showing Russian troops digging in on the border between Crimea and

Ukraine. I get the sense that is just for show. There is, I would

assume, no possibility that the Ukrainians could attempt to retake

Crimea by military force? It seems that the Ukrainians are weighing

their options right now. Their options are very limited. Any

head-to-head conflict with Russia would probably work against the

Ukrainians. They seem to be taking more of a long-term gain. They are

waiting for the figs's first move. They are trying not to create any

excuse that the Russians can stage an even larger incursion into Crimea

or elsewhere, for that matter. They also seem to be trying to get

international support. It should be said, this is a new Government. It

has only been installed this week. They are trying to gain their

footing. This is a major crisis. They have to count on the loyalty of

the army they might have some resistance from solders from the

eastern part of the country who are Russian speaking. They probably

could count on Ukrainian speakers and people from the centre and west

of the country as well as regular Ukrainians. A lot of people are

ready to fight to defend Ukrainian Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin

go next? They have Crimea to all intents and purposes. There's a weak

Government in Kiev. Do they move to the eastern side of Ukraine which is

largely Russian speaking and there's already been some unrest there?

That's the big question, that's what everybody's really asking now. Where

does this go from here? We've had some unrest in the eastern part of

the country. There have been demonstrations and clashes. More

ominously, there have been noises from the Kremlin they might actually

move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in his conversation with Barack Obama

said they might protect their interests there. It should be said,

if they do expand, in fact, they've also said they are dead against the

new Government seeing it as illegitimate and fascist. It does

contain risks. They will have to deal with international reactions.

America said there will be a deep reaction to this and it will affect

Russia's relations with Ukraine and the international community. They

have to deal with the reaction in Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians

behind this new interim Government. Once Russia moves in, they will be

seen as an invading force. It plays on historical feelings of Russia

being an imperial force. Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits

on the security Security and Intelligence Committee in the House

of Commons. What should the western response be to these events? I can

understand why William Hague is going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side

by side whizz whoever's in charge. They need to CEOP sit numbers and

also President Putin. The truth is we are all co significant fatries to

the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20 years ago which was designed to

maintain the integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to

be a discussion along those lines. The difficulty is President Putin

has watched events in recent months, in relation to Syria, it is palpable

President Obama's focus of attention ask the other side of the Pacific

rather than the Atlantic. The vote in the House of Commons, I was very

much against the idea of military action or providing weapons to the

free Syrian army. My worry is, events proved this, the majority of

the other options toed as sad are rather worse. It is clear now we are

in a constitutional mess in this country. We cannot even contemplate

military action without a parliamentary vote that moves

against quick reaction that is required from the executive or, I

suspect, there will be very little appetite for any military action

from the West over in Ukraine. We are corn tours under the agreement

of less than 20 years ago. We may be but we've guaranteed an agreement

which it is clear we haven't the power to enforce. You wrote this

morning, Britain is a diminished voice. Clams Iley navigating the

Syrian conflict we relick wished decisions to the whims of

parliamentary approval. That may or may not be but the Kremlin's not

watching how we voted on the Syrian issue? In relation to Syria, it was

where is the western resolve here. The truth ask Putin's position is

considerably less strong. In diplomatic terms. He had a victory

in Syria in relation to chemical weapons and in relation to the

West's relationship with Iran. Putin is a vital inter locking figure. In

demographic and economic terms, Russia's in very deep trouble. The

oil price started to fall to any degree, oil and gas price, given the

importance of mineral wealth and exports for the Russian economy,

Putin would be in a lot of trouble. It requires an engagement from the

EU and the EU are intending to look at their internal economic problems

and will be smarting from the failure within a matter of hours of

the deal they tried to broker only nine days' ago.

You say if Mr Putin decides to increase the stakes and moves into

the east, takes over the whole place, our Government, you say, will

find itself with another colossal international headache. Some people

watching this will be thinking, what's it got to do with us? It's a

long way away from Britain. We haven't a dog in this fight? We have

in this regard for the longer term here. I think if there were to be

some military action in Ukraine, the sense of Russia taking over, it

could have a major impact on the global economy in very quick order.

You should not deny that. There will be move to have sanctions against

Russia. The escalation of that will be difficult. The other fact is

looking at our internal affairs and reform, partners, the Baltic states,

Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, they will be looking at a resurgent

Russia now and think they'll need to hold as tightly as possible to the

EU institutions and the power of Germany at the centre of that. This

whole appetite for the reforms politically and economically will be

closed very much within a matter of a short period of time. It has

longer term implications. Mark Field, thank you.

We're joined now by BBC News night's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is

there any prospect of a western military response? Clearly at the

moment, it is nil. The boat has sailed with the Crimean. It has been

per performed by Russian forces. It is now a matter of coordinating a

plate cal line. European foreign ministers tomorrow. To say what will

our future limits be? Where could we possibly draw red lines? To try to

think a couple of steps down this, what happens if Russia interrupts

energy supplies to EU member states ornate owe countries? These are the

important steps they have to think about. It is quite clear we are in a

different world here now. Also, Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign

exchange crisis. Within literally a few weeks they could run out of

money. All of these are rushing towards decision makers very fast.

There is an interim and I suggestion unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea

semi-to be under Russian control. There are clashes between the

reformers and Russian nationals in the east of the country. What does

Mr Putin do next? He has lots of options, of course. He has this

carte blanch carte blanch from his Parliament to go in to the rest of

Ukraine if he wants to. His military deployment suggests the one bite at

a time, just Crimea to start with. See what response comes from the

Ukrainian Government. Of course, so far, there hasn't been a coherent

response. The really worrying thing about recent months, not just recent

days, are the indications that the future of Ukraine as a unitary state

is now in doubt. Look at it from the other side of the equation. The

President when faced with demonstrations, many extremists, he

was unable to deal with that. Now we have the other side, if you like,

the Russian speakers, the other side of the fight, Russian nationalists

showing they can get away with unilateral action more or less with

impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have been sacked. I think there are

considerable questions now as to whether Ukraine is falling apart

and, if that happens, we're into a Yugoslav-type situation which will

continue posing very serious questions for the EU and NATO for

months or years to come. So, Janan, Ukraine is over? Where the west to

concede to the Russian in Crimea, it would perversely be a net loss for

Russia. You'd assume the rest of Ukraine would become an un

unambiguously a member of the the EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a

Russian dream of Eurasion dream, they will look at Putin's behaviour

and is a, no, thanks, we'll head towards the EU. It is a short-term

victory for Putin which backfires on his broader goals in Well, many

people said if he grabs Crimea, he loses Ukraine, which is your point.

We have seen violent demonstrations in the big eastern cities in Ukraine

yesterday. People taking control of certain buildings. The risk is there

of spreading beyond Crimea. I think the lack of any unified or visible

response from Ukrainian armed forces... They allowed Russian

troops to walk into the bases in Crimea. They have supposedly gone on

red alert but they have done absolutely nothing. We don't see

them deploying from barracks. There are serious questions about whether

they would just fall apart. Putin is not going to let them split away. I

would have thought he would like the entire Ukraine to come into the

Russian ambit. Barack Obama is saying this will not stand. He has a

90 minute conversation with Vladimir Putin and what is his response? I am

suspending my cooperation in the run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is

the EU doing? Nothing. There is nothing they can do and Putin knows

there are a series of lines that he is able to cross and get away with

it. Why should Berlin, London, Washington be surprised by the

strength of Vladimir Putin's reaction? It was never going to let

Ukraine just fall into the arms of the EU. That is the interesting

point. And who does he listen to? Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela

Merkel because she is the only person who can talk to him and I

find that response worrying. We need to speak with a united voice but

nobody knows what we should be saying. Military intervention is out

for the West so we go to economic sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin

just say, oh, you want sanctions? I have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it

is move and countermove, and it is difficult to predict where it will

end up. In all these meetings that are being held, they do think a step

or two ahead and try and set out clear lines. Thank you for coming in

this morning. Labour has been struggling since

2010 to decide exactly how to take education secretary Michael Gove,

one of the boldest reformers of the coalition and most divisive figures.

Ed Miliband appointed TV historian Tristram Hunt and many thought

Labour had found the man to teach Michael Gove a lesson. But how much

do we really know about the party's plans for England's schools? Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland are a devolved matter. Child has been back

to school to find out. A politician once told me, do you know why

education secretaries changed schools? Because they can. Michael

Gove might dispute the motive but he is changing schools, like this one.

The changes he is ringing in our encouraging them to be academies,

free from local authorities to control their own budgets, ushering

in free schools, focusing on toughening exams and making them the

core of the curriculum with less coursework, and offering heads more

discretion on tougher discipline. And he is in a hurry to put all this

in place. But has that shut out any chance for a Labour Government to

change it all themselves and do they really want to? Any questions?

Visiting a different school, first in line to get a crack at that

would-be Labour's third shadow education secretary since 2010,

Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not been taken about fine tuning

previous direct opposition to free schools and he has also suggested

teachers in England would have to be licensed under a Labour Government,

allowing the worst to be sacked and offering training and development to

others and of course ending coalition plans to allow unqualified

teachers into classrooms. Full policy detail is still unmarked

work. Your opinion about evolution? What is very clear is that Labour's

education policy is still evolving. We are learning that they have some

clear water, but we also seem, from the sting at the back, to get the

feeling that there is not a great deal of difference from them and the

current Government on types of schools and the way education should

proceed. -- from listening at the back. So what exactly is different

about their policy? What Tristram Hunt's job is to do is to be open

and honest about the shared agenda between us and the Tories. There are

a lot of areas where there is clear water between us and Tristram Hunt

as to turn his back, shared agenda, stop fighting it, and forge our

agenda, which I think people will be really interested in. The art of

Government, of course, is to balance competing pictures of policy, even

inside your own party. It is fair to say that if Labour reflects and

draws its own visions of a shared agenda, it might have to square that

idea with teaching unions, who are already unhappy with the pace and

tone of change that the Government had sketched out. What we sincerely

hope is that if Labour were to form the next Government, that they would

look at a serious review of accountability measures. That is

really what ways on teachers every single day. Actually they would look

at restoring the possibility, for example, of local councillors to be

able to open schools. That seems eminently sensible. If they are not

going to move back from the free schools and academies programme, at

the very least they need to say that academy chains will be inspected

because at the moment they are not. Labour have balls in the air on

education and are still throwing around precise policy detail. There

are areas that they could grab hold of and seize possession. A focus on

the rounding of the people, developing character, the impact of

digitalisation on the classroom. Also the role and handling of

teachers in the system and the interdependence of schools. That is

all still to play for. Currently I think the difference between the

parties is that the coalition policies, while we do not agree with

all of them, are clear and explicit, and Labour's policies are yet to be

formulated in a way that everybody can understand clearly. I don't

think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband will want to pick unnecessary fights

before the election. I think we will have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness

around the whole area of policy but after the election there will be

grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But if fuzzy policy before the election

is the lesson plan, it does rather risk interested voters being left in

the dark. Tristram Hunt joins me now for the

Sunday interview. Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael

Gove's school reforms would you repeal? We are not interested in

throwing a change for the sake of it. When I go round schools,

teachers have been through very aggressive changes in the last three

years, so when it comes to some of the curriculum reforms we have seen,

we are not interested in changing those for the sake of it. Where we

are interested in making change is having a focus on technical and

vocational education, making sure that the forgotten 15% is properly

addressed in our education system. What we saw in your package was an

interesting description of how we have seen structural reforms in the

names of schools. Academies, free schools, all the rest of it.

International evidence is clear that it is the quality of leadership of

the headteachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom that

transforms the prospects of young people. Instead of tinkering around

the names of schools, we focus on teacher quality. Viewers will be

shocked to note that this Government approves of unqualified teachers in

the classroom. We want to have fully qualified, passionate, motivated

teachers in the classroom. It sounds like you might not repeal anything.

You might build on it and you might go in a different direction, with

more emphasis on technological education but no major repeal of the

reforms of Michael Gove? I don't think you want to waste energy on

undoing reforms. In certain situations they build on Labour

Party policy. We introduced the sponsored academy programmes and we

began the Teach First programmes, and we began the London challenge

which transformed the educational prospects of children in London. We

want to roll that out across the country. You have said there will be

no more free schools, which Michael Gove introduced, but you will allow

parents let academies, which just means free schools by a different

name. No, because they will be in certain areas. We want to create new

schools with parents. What we have at the moment is a destructive and

market-driven approach to education. I was in Stroud on

Thursday and plans for a big new school, in an area with surplus

places, threatened to destroy the viability of local, rural schools.

We want schools to work together in a network of partnership and

challenge, rather than this destructive market-driven approach.

You say that, but your version of free schools, I think, would only be

allowed where there is a shortage of places. That means that where there

is an excess of bad schools, parents will have no choice. They still have

to send their kids to bad schools. And we have to transform bad schools

and that was always the Labour way in Government. At the moment we just

have an insertion of new schools. Schools currently underperforming

are now underperforming even more. Children only have one chance at

education. What about their time in school? Our focus is on the

leadership of the headteacher and having quality teachers in the

classroom. So they cannot set up new better schools and they have to go

to the bad schools. Tony Blair said it should be easier for parents to

set up new schools where they are dissatisfied with existing schools.

You are not saying that. Even where they are dissatisfied with existing

schools, they cannot set up free schools and you are reneging on

that. We live in difficult economic circumstances where we have got to

focus public finances on the areas of absolute need. We need 250,000

new school places. 150,000 in London alone. We have to focus on building

new schools and where we have to put them. And secondly... Absolutely

not. Focusing on those schools. Making sure we turned them around,

just as we did in Government. We have had a remarkable degree of

waste under the free school programme. If you think of the free

school in Derby, the Academy in Bradford, and as we saw in the

Telegraph on Friday, the free schools in Suffolk, a great deal of

waste of public money on underperforming free schools. That

is not the Labour way. We focus on making sure that kids in schools at

the moment get the best possible education. Except that in your own

backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of secondary school pupils attend a

good or outstanding school. 148 out of 150 of the worst performing local

authorities and it is Labour-controlled. Still terrible

schools and yet you say parents should not have the freedom to start

a better school. We have great schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well.

We face challenges, just as Wolverhampton does and the Isle of

Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like large parts of the country. What is

the solution to that? Making sure we share excellence among the existing

schools and making sure we have quality leadership in schools. Those

schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all academies. It is not a question only

of structure but of leadership. It is also a question of going back to

the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids are school

ready when they get to school. To make sure they are reading to their

children in the evening. We can't put it all on teachers. Parents have

responsibilities. I understand that but you have told me Labour's policy

would not be to set up new schools which parents hope will be better.

Parents continue to send their kids to bad schools in areas like Stoke.

Labour has had plenty of time to sort out these schools in Stoke and

they are still among the worst performing in the country. You are

condemning these parents to having to send their kids to bad schools.

Where we have seen the sett ing up of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that

is not the simple solution. Is simply setting up a new is not a

successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on

Friday at a failing comprehensive is not a successful model. What works

is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on Friday at a failing

comprehensive school and now people are queueing round the block to get

into it. You can turn around schools with the right leadership,

passionate and motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the

learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of the Labour

Government, only four kids from your this Government would set up the new

school. In Birmingham, they got in a great headmaster and turned the

school around and now people are queueing round the block to get into

it. You can turnaround schools with the right leadership, passionate and

motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the learning outcome of

their kids. In the last few years of a Labour Government, only four kids

from your area of and you had plenty of chances to put this right but

only four got to the two and you had plenty of chances to put this right

but only four got to the two leading universities. Traditionally young

people could leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries,

the steel industry, the traditionally young people could

leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel

industry, the but also to get an apprenticeship at Jaguar Land

Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten

15%, which we have just not seen from this Government, focusing on

technical and vocational pathways, is fundamental to Your headmaster

was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good teacher? He He never taught me.

Over 90% of teeners in the private sector are qualified. They look for

not simply teachers with qualified teacher status. Teachers with MAs.

Teachers who are improving them cephalitis. Becoming better

educators. cephalitis. Becoming better

teaching. You were taught by unqualified teachers. Your parents

paid over ?15,000 a year for you being taught by unqualified

teachers. Why did you make such a big deal of it? Because we've seen

right around the world those education systems which focus on

having the most qualified teachers perform the best. It cannot be right

that anyone can simply turn up, as at the moment, have schools at

veritising for unqualified teachers teaching in the classroom. We want

the best qualified teachers with the deepest subject knowledge, for the

passion in learning for their kids. It is absurd we are having arguments

about this. Simply having a paper qualification doesn't make you a

great teacher. Let me take you to Brighton college. It is gone from

the 147th to the 18 18th best private school in the land. Fllt the

headmaster says: This is the top Sundaytimes school

of the year. The school in derby where this Government allowed

unqualified teaching assist taints. We had teachers who could barely

speak English. That is because if you have unqualified teachers you

end up with a dangerous situation. The problem with that school was not

unqualified teachers. People were running that school who were unfit

to run a school. We have an issue about discipline and behaviour

management in some of our schools. Some of the skills teachers gain

through qualifications and learning is how to manage classes and get the

best out of kids at every stage. It doesn't end with a qualified teacher

status. That's just the beginning. We want our teachers to have

continue it will development. It is not good enough to have your initial

teacher trainingaged work through your career for 30 years. You need

continual learning. Learning how to deal with digital technology.

Refresh your subject knowledge. As an historian I help teachers. You've

taught as an unqualified teacher. Not in charge of a subject group. I

give the odd lecture. I'm-y to go to as many schools as possible. I don't

blame you. It is uplifting. Would you sack all unqualified teachers?

We'd want them all to gain teacher status. What if they say no? If they

are not interested in improving skills and deepening their knowledge

they should not be in the classroom. If a free school or academy hired a

teach thinking they are a great teacher but unqualified, if they are

then forced by you to fire them, they will be in breach of the law.

They are being urged by us to make sure they have qualified teacher

status. We've lots of unqualified teachers as long as they are on the

pathway to making sure they are qualified. But if they say they

don't want to do this, will you fire them? It is not an unreasonable

suggestion is that the teachers in charge of our young people have

qualifications to teach and inspire our young people particularly when

we face global competition from Shanghai, Korea and so

we face global competition from teacher of Brighton college finds

incredibly inspeechational teachers who don't' necessarily have a

teaching qualifications. It is a different skill to teach ten young

nice boys and girls in Brighton to teaches 20 or 30 quids with

challenging circumstances, special educational needs, different

ability. Being a teacher at Brighton college is an easy gig in comparison

to other schools. Where we want teachers to have a capacity to teach

properly. Do you think Tristram could ever lead the Labour Party? I

think Ed is a great leader, the reforms yesterday were a real sign

for his leadership. And the fact David Owen, the man with a

pre-history with our party is back with us. It is great. Even Gideon

had to change his name to George. Have you thought of switching to

Tommy or Tony? Maybe not Tony! Michael Foot was called Dingle Foot.

I love the Labour because it accepts everybody from me to Len McCluskey.

We are a big, broad happy family on our way to Government. Thank you

very much. You're watching The Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us for Sunday

politics Scotland. In over 20 minutes I'll

On-the-runHello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

The row over 'On The Runs', that saw the First Minister threaten to step

down, continues with claim and counter claim about who knew what

and when. The Justice Minister, David Ford, joins us live to discuss

the fall-out. Also today, as a bid is made in the

House Of Lords to extend libel reform to Northern Ireland, we hear

from both sides of the legal debate. And, joining me to share their

thoughts on those issues and more, my guests today are Newton Emerson

and Cathy Gormley-Heenan. In the end, it was a case of crisis

averted, but at one point this week the collapse of the Assembly looked

like it might just happen - again. The political storm blew up in the

wake of the collapse of the John Downey court case and the light the

court judgement shed on secret letters issued to IRA 'on-the-runs'.

As the blame game continues, where has this past turbulent week left

the political process and the ongoing attempts to resolve our

troubled past? Joining me now is the Justice Minister, David Ford. Thank

you for joining us. First of all, a development today. Peter Hain wrote

in the Sunday Telegraph and has called for the soldiers involved in

the Bloody Sunday killings not to be prosecuted. Do you agree?

It almost looks like playing a part in one pseudo- amnesty, he is now

try to play a part in another. When the Attorney General suggested we

should draw a line under the past it was almost universally rejected.

There are difficulties with evidence when you go back that far but it

does not mean we should abandon the opportunity if there is one in some

cases. There is an anomaly in the system and does that not need to be

addressed? The system is full of anomalies,

mostly because of the way the British government was making side

deals. That is the reality and we are living with those anomalies as

people like we try to get the justice system to work properly

today. You can understand why Unionists are

pretty angry. How people potentially involved in violent crime are given

a potentially "get out free card" as they describe it?

But the fact that somebody was on duty in one case doesn't mean they

did not commit a crime. That is the way very highest standards should be

held for those who are responsible as agents of the state. We have to

look at the practical realities as to what may not be possible without

saying we draw a line and effectively grant an amnesty without

an attempt to get justice where it is possible. What would your advice

to Peter Hain be? I am not sure his advice is being

particularly well received. Perhaps the best thing he could do is to

give a full account of everything he did to the enquiry.

In the Sunday Times, Peter Robinson accused Peter Hain of misleading

Parliament over the on-the-run letters in 2006 and 2007, but Peter

Hain refuted that. When you look at what he said in Hansard, it makes

for interesting reading, doesn't it? Some of the remarks appeared to be

less than the complete truth. He said that he said it had to be

addressed. I think he needs to examine his precise background and

perhaps that is something the judge will do in the coming months.

You got clarity on Thursday night, Friday morning that there are five

"live" OTR cases currently in the system for consideration. Should

they be stopped, as the DUP has demanded?

I simply don't have enough detail what the status of that is whether

they can be stopped. I have a track -- asked for legal advice as to what

the department can do. It is a really unclear position. You will

have heard the Secretary of State saying it is a devolved issue, but

it was never a devolved issue. The Northern Ireland Office continued

and accepted a call from a senior official on Friday that they were

still responsible for those five even though we are still four years

into devolution. So as far as you are concerned, you

are the justice minister but these five cases have not been devolved to

you? I have made it clear that I want no

part in Peterhead and's shabby scheme. -- in Peter Hain's shabby

scheme. It is unclear as to quote -- whether there was any right for The

Northern Ireland Office to continue to pursue them after devolution.

It looks like being scheme is continuing, doesn't it?

It appears to pay but whether it is legally the case is something on

which I am seeking advice. Presumably being plucked -- the

enquiry will clarify some of this, do you think?

It is not expected to report until the end of May. We know something

about the broad terms of reference but there are frequently differences

as to how they are interpreted. If a judge wants to get into the full

details of the case we will have a better chance. The select committee

in Westminster may well be looking at the detail if they don't think a

judge lead enquiry has gone far enough.

The most senior... It turns out that the most senior civil servant in

your department, Nick Perry, knew about what you've called "this

shabby, back door deal" all along. You did not!

I don't know how much Nick knew. The civil service code makes it clear

that civil servants serve the minister who leads the department

they are in. The day they move departments they have allegiance to

a different minister. And that is how it should be. It is the

principle of a nonpolitical civil service working in the interests of

the ministers who are there by the political process. I would be

annoyed if people who moved from the Department of Justice were telling

what went on in that department. You might think I would have wished to

know from Nick Perry, but there are much wider implications and his

behaviour has been proper. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary

but people might be wondering that it is not a good example of joined

up government? Files have markers put in them when

governments changed and when ministers changed saying, the

information below this is not to be revealed to the new ministers and

there are lots of complications around that.

What other wider political implications, do you think? Night --

Mike Nesbitt declared that as far as he is concerned, the Haass talks are

dead in the water and he is taking no part. Is that your position?

No, that was a foolish thing for him to say. It doesn't matter what

emerges from however many enquiries, five parties have the

responsibility for leading the executive. Collectively, we have the

responsibility to build a better shared future for Northern Ireland

and to ensure we put the past behind us in a way which deals with it

honestly and comprehensively and we can provide something for which I

children and grandchildren can be proud. If we say, I wash my hands of

it, we will not get anywhere. But this situation of the past 72

hours has fatally wounded that process, has it not?

Maybe the four of us will have to carry on without him.

Fundamentally, the people of Northern Ireland, through their

elected representatives, have to solve the problems whatever else is

happening. Do you think the DUP will stay in

the process? I think they have distanced themselves from Mike

Nesbitt. I am not sure he wants to be relevant, but certainly I want

the Alliance party to be relevant and I will continue to do a good job

in Justice. Those are the key things for Northern Ireland, moving forward

and not falling out over the past in a way which stops us moving forward

together. Thank you. Let's hear from our

guests now, the commentator Newton Emerson and Dr Cathy Gormley-Heenan

from the University of Ulster. Hard to know where to start, isn't it?

Let us talk about Peter Hain and the issue of whether or not soldiers

involved in Bloody Sunday should be prosecuted. You can understand it

will create another political altercation?

Yes, there is no reason why Bloody Sunday should be treated any

differently to any other atrocities. The Unionist position is

that special treatment shouldn't be given to the victims so why should

it be given to the perpetrators. It is an attempt to create another de

facto amnesty. The object of letting off the soldiers is that nothing

could be prosecuted from 40 years ago. Why would that be the case? We

are prosecuting radio celebrities from 40 years ago so are you saying

a multiple murder is less serious? It is revealing of a new agenda to

have a de facto amnesty but that is not legally or politically possible.

It is hard for people to pick their way through the minefield of this

latest row. You have Peter Hain saying that all of this was in the

public domain and people should have known about it and looked at what

was being said in Westminster and Stormont. Then Peter Robinson says

today in the Sunday Times and quoting answers Peter Hain gave that

he says were less than open and honest. How do you get at the facts?

Hopefully, that is what the enquiry will attempt to do. I have read

about the on-the-run letters years ago in a law journal. People

interested in the peace process probably did have a sense that

something was happening. It is like many things in Northern Ireland, it

flares up at a particular point. This past week, the issue has been

more than anything that there needs to be a renewed impetus on a process

with which we deal with the past. We have been dealing in with it since

1998 but in a piecemeal way. Maybe a bit too pragmatic and approach.

Briefly, Peter Robinson made it clear he would resign if he did not

get a satisfactory result -- response from the government. He

said he got the response he was looking for and his demands were

met, where they? I genuinely believe he was ready to

resign, but not to bring down the executive. He wanted to reassert his

mandate. That is why his credit -- threat was read -- credible. I

genuinely think he would have hit the button for an election. Not to

bring it down. Briefly, what about Haass? Is it dead in the water? Mike

Nesbitt thinks it is but it is an opportunity to decouple some issues.

The flags and parades were to difficult to include as a composite

block. It is an opportunity to decouple those things and it is a

new way to deal with the past. Thank you, both. Now, let's pause

for a moment as Conor Macauley takes a look back at a turbulent week in

local politics in 60 Seconds. The stormy weather makes life tough

for fishermen and they appealed to Stormont for help. We have had to

rely on charities based in England to come and help us says something

about our politicians and the executive.

A different type of storm is brewing on the hill as the case against the

man accused of the Hyde Park bombing collapsed. John Downey is one of

several on-the-run buts who were told they were not being sought by

police. Peter Robinson threatened to resign when he hand -- heard.

I am not prepared to be the head of a government kept in the dark. The

deputy called for calm claiming others did know.

We were the only people who knew about this.

David Cameron wants to know more and appointed a judge to lead a review.

I agree with Peter Robinson that it is right to get to the bottom of

what happened. Conor Macauley reporting. An attempt

in the House of Lords to extend libel laws to Northern Ireland was

last week withdrawn after a government minister warned that the

Stormont executive must have primacy on the issue. When the Defamation

Act wrote about first major changes to the UK libel laws since the 19th

century, Sammy Wilson halted its extension here. Joining me now to

discuss this is Lord Bew, who is part of that attempt in the Lords to

extend reform here, and the lawyer Paul Tweed who's opposed.

Why was the attempt made at Westminster?

When you get a Northern Ireland provisions Bill going through the

house, and it is a rare advent, it is inevitable people will make the

attempt. There is a lot of feeling in the House of Lords on this issue,

there is an attempt to have a debate about it at least. The truth is, the

matter is now over. The Minister made it clear for a number of

reasons that they will not intervene and it is now a matter for the

assembly. A report will be set up from the Law Commission with a

distinguished academic to work on it. That is where the debate and

focus now is. It was worth airing last week again at Westminster and

that concerns exist about freedom of expression here. It is now at a

weaker level than the rest of the UK.

What is your basic concern? The fundamental concern for me

personally as an academic, there is an issue about academic freedom and

what academics can save. It is also about political and historical

matters. This bill extends academic freedom. It defends the idea of a

public interest defence for the media as a whole. If we are going to

deal with the past, particularly here, one has to have the freest

possible discussion and there really isn't any question that historically

the courts have been used to limit in some way of the amount of

freedom... As far as all parties are concerned in London, it is supposed

to be the correct context for public debate. The absence of this

legislation curtails free and open discussion, critically about the key

issue of past? In my opinion, it was outrageous

that these peers attempted to impose legislation Northern Ireland which,

I should say, has been rejected by Scotland. The Republic of Ireland's

laws are broadly similar to our own as they currently stand so there is

no need for change whatsoever. As far as our libel laws are

concerned, there are plenty of safety mechanisms built in. I act

for both plaintiffs and newspapers and just before Christmas I acted

for a national newspaper in defending a case of so-called" is

libel tourism" . We successfully did that. So the law as it currently

stands is effective. My big concern is access to justice for the

ordinary man on the street. We talk about academics and scientists and

I'd sample size with those views. If he feels there is a genuine threat

-- I sympathise with those views. I would be happy to countenance

specific change in the law but not a whole scale introduction of an owner

is law that completely makes it impossible for the ordinary person

to take legal proceedings here in Northern Ireland. Finally, a key

change is the removal of the jury is. I sat on all the Ministry of

Justice panels in London when they debated the English change to the

law and I did not get one argument that convinced me that juries were

not doing a good job. It is very significant that the one thing the

press are worried about here are their readers, the general public,

deciding whether they have performed properly and fairly in terms of

their reporting. You, as a libel lawyer, may find

yourself very busy if the status quo is main stained -- maintained.

There will not be a rush of oligarchs coming to Northern

Ireland, believe me. I work from London, Dublin and Belfast and less

than 5% of my work takes place in Belfast. I don't mind. I will work

within the law and what the law gives to me but I cannot get justice

for the general public where they have no access to legal aid. We have

always been treated differently in Northern Ireland. We cannot recover

insurance premiums so we have always been treated differently.

How do you respond? He can understand your specific and concern

about academics but what about members of the public? He feels he

represents their best interests and an extension of this legislation

would not serve them? The whole problem with libel law is

the conflict between the need to have an -- a right to defend your

reputation and the freedom of debate. After a long process of

examination we have come up with a new position in Westminster. If you

say the Republic of Ireland is different, that is right. We see

massive scandals in the Republic of Ireland and there was not one

serious article in the press anticipating anything leading up to

the whole area of the collapse of the economy and bankers and so on.

Does this tell you you had the requisite level of freedoms of

discussion here? It is true that Scotland is different but it has its

own tradition of law which is elaborate. We have had UK law here

essentially. You are not asking our judiciary to operate on an old

second-hand car. The media in London will be operating according to the

new model and it creates a number of anomalies and difficulties for the

judiciary here in Belfast. We are not the same as Scotland,

what about that point, nor the legal system -- system in the Republic of

Ireland. Our law is broadly similar to Scotland and Ireland. Putting

this in perspective, the number of libel actions that have come before

the courts in Belfast over the last 30 years are probably to every

decade at Oaks. A survey was carried out in England about the so-called

libel tourism -- every decade at most. This is a non-issue. A

non-problem. The press are sensitive about it to protect their financial

issue -- interests but it is not an issue.

Thank you both for joining us. Newton says it is not an issue. I am

fed up defending libel reform because everyone thinks it is about

journalists. The Defamation Act is about protecting academics and

scientists. I follow alarming cases where scientists were pursued

because companies didn't like the results. There are thousands of jobs

like that in Northern Ireland in a university and Major Forbes --

firms. It will only take one of these ridiculous cases to make as an

international pariah and a similar risk applies to IT. Those industries

need to get off the face -- fence and defend their interests because

the media cannot do it alone. Mike Nesbitt's billows out for

consultation. We know that it is a big responsibility on our show

ministers shoulders? They should take his day from the deliberations

in the house of Lords because they have much experience in the reading

of these bills. We have no formal opposition or an effective

opposition, the media plays that role and anything that could happen

in the media that could stop holding our government to account is

Government to change it. Thank you both for being here. Andrew, back to

you. This week grant Shap said he wanted

to rebrand the Tories as the workers' party to show it can reach

out to blue-collar workers. One Conservative Party MP said they

should scrap what he said was their boring old logo. We asked him and

two other independent MPs how they'd freshen up their logos.

Aspiration's always been our core value. About helping people get on

with life. Giving people ladders of opportunity. That's why our symbol

must reflect our values of aspiration and why I'm calling for

our symbol to be changed from a tree to a ladder which symbolises social

mobility and stands up for everything conservatism represents.

I like an he will fanned, an animal that never forgets. We're the only

party which seems to remember what life was like before the NHS and

minimum wage and the global financial crash was caused by too

little regulation not too much. We have a leader who can spot the

elephant in the room, the lack of women on the Tory frontbench. The

republicans in America have had the same idea. Theirs is a suspicious

blue. Our would be deepest red. We love our Liberal Democrat bird. Mrs

Thatcher called it the dead parrot when we launched it. We won the

Eastbourne by-election off the Tories very soon aftered with.

Perhaps it feels like we're in a coalition cage but we're escaping

that soon. Why does it fly to the right? Most Liberal Democrats would

want it to fly to the left. I hope it will soon.

Interesting there. Let's stick with the Robert Hall pin one. He was

being serious. The others were fun. It is interesting that talking about

appealing to the blue collared vote, the upper working class, lower

middle class, curiously now neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband has great

cut through with these people. But in wanting to be the Workers Party,

how do you square that with choosing five old Etonians to draw up four

next manifesto. Labour said one of the things was cutting inheritance

tax, after all their priorities they went to privilege rather than earned

income. Rebranding is not enough. The one question the modernisers

never asked themselves when they took party ten years ago is the

thing we know as the Conservative Party, salvageable as a brand? I'm

beginning to think it isn't. If you look at all public opinion research,

there are lots of people in this contrary with Conservative views.

They won't vote Tory or contemplate the possibility of voting Tory. Can

we get over the electoral problems by relaunching as a different

pro-business, pro-worker party. That means new name, new logo. It will

mean new people as well. If you say you're on the sides of what Thatcher

called the strivers, the people themselves want to see you have

strivers in the people who run your party so you know what we've been

through, the struggles we've had. How many of the six drawing up the

manifesto have had ever a mortgage. The one who's not an old Etonian

went to St Paul's. He's a day schoolboy! It is interesting and it

was funny you mentioned an elephant. Don't think of an elephant as the

title of that book. Calling it the Workers Party draws attention to the

Tories biggest electoral weakness. The idea they are a class apart. Out

of touch. I think it is interesting, they have identified their elections

are won or lost by this particular demo graphic of the C 1, and C 2.

Mrs Thatcher got them by the shed load, Tony Blair got them. His

failure in 2010 is the reason David Cameron didn't win an overall

majority. I'm disappointed with the ladder. You should have a hammer or

sickle! The Conservatives have a terrible brand problem. You heard

them explaining why they did badly in the Wythenshawe by-election,

saying there's quite a large council estate there In 1961, I think the

Conservatives won a by-election back then, they were getting through to

those sort of voters. There is not a single Conservative councillor in

Manchester. They have this terrible problem. You're right for them to

pick up on the five Etonians writing their manifesto. David Cameron sir

rounding himself with his own. He doesn't have to do that. I seas

things like isn't Robert Halpen great. He decides and has his own.

He has some more slightly common people from St Paul's! One of the

ways the Conservatives hoped to broaden their appeal is the tougher

line on immigration. We learned net immigration is rising substantially.

Back up over 200,000. Nigel Farage of UKIP wrapped up the rhetoric. In

scores of our cities and market towns, this country, in a short

space of time, has become N'Zonzi rkable whether it is --

unrecognisable. Whether it is the impact on local schools and

hospitals. In many parts of England you don't hear English spoken, this

is not the kind of the community we want to leave to our children and

grandchildren. Helen, maybe people, I assume, will love the sentiments.

Others will say, this is getting... It is going down a dangerous road.

Nigel Farage's wife is German and he shares a flat with Godfully Bloom,

nobody knows what he's saying half of the time. You can handle the

letters from Yorkshire. Alex Salmond does not make his case on Scotland

for the Scottish. Let's put aside whether the policy's right or wrong.

How bad, by the Tories own lights, is the fact the net figure for

immigration went up 60,000? It looks really bad. If I was a Tory

strategist, I'd be philosophical about it. Immigration, even if they

were meeting the target, I don't think the public would believe it.

It is like crime a few years ago, the crime rates had been declining

for the best part of 20 years but the fear of crime remains high.

There's such a degree of cynicism that regardless of your

administrative record in Government, the public will remain hostile to

you. This is where Nigel Farage can be potent. He said it is not about

numbers. It is about community. It is about people seeing their

communities change. And in the Sunday Telegraph, it was said this

isn't a dog whistle, a it is a meaty bone for a bull terrier. The problem

for the Government on these figures is we know why the net migration

figures are not looking good. They got down the non-EU figures but the

EU figures are going up. From Italy and Spain as their economies tanked,

people came here. If he hadn't made such a big deal of the numbers, the

Tories, I mean, you could present this as a huge success story. If you

believe immigration was good for the country. You would say it doesn't

matter what Labour says, the best and the brightest young people from

all over Europe are voting with their feet to come to Britain. But

you never hear that case being made and certainly not by Labour. They

acknowledge although immigration is best in the abstract for the

economy, people don't feel it in their daily lives. There's a huge

vacuum for the case where immigration should be in our public

life. I remember a time when the economy was in such decline there

was a rush to the door in the sixties and seventies. Now we are

claiming our economy's doing better than any of the other major

economies bar Germany, people want to join in our success. London was a

declining city until the mid-eighties. Theresa May cannot be

honest. She was proposing a cap on immigration. Not going to happen.

Today she is saying maybe people from poorer member states cannot

come in until their economies grow. That's future accession states.

That's Turkey in ten years' time It is causing divisions with the

coalition. She's bashing Vince Cable. You often see Liberal

Democrats bashing the Tories. You don't often see a Tory minister bash

Vince Cable. She does on the immigration figures. He thought they

were good news. Last week, Vince responded to the news by saying it

was a policy he was happy for the gift to flunk. The problem was going

for a cap. There are six moving parts. UK citizens leaving, coming

back. EU citizens leaving and coming back and then third party nationals.

And students coming to study. Of course. You only have control over

the EU citizens. Have you to clamp down on ace strayian, Chinese or

American graduates. They should have gone for the Australian points

system. I don't have a pure cap on numbers just background etc. Tim

Farran said in the European election either vogue Liberal Democrat or

UKIP. He turned that to his advantage. It is hopeful but he's

come up with a way to spin this. Labour has his special conference.

Was it or was it not an event? Not sure it was the biggest moment in

the party since 1918. But things fell apart in the special conference

in 1981. 2004 got another special conference. Who's on board? David

Owen who founded the gang of four. He's not joined but he's given them

money. He's not going to sit with them in the Lord's. He's given

money. They lost the gang of four. Back comes David Owen. Not historic?

Why would he want it to be more significant than it was. There's a

tendency to see him taking the fight to his party. Why would he want

that? The fact it has not pleased Grant Shapps is not a test to see

whether this has worked. It has been described as an historic moment and

incremental of what John did. The trade union block voters disappeared

a long time ago. They still have 50% of the vote. But 2,000 of union

members voting for this guy has gone. It is a reform from 20 years

ago. Welcome but not historic. Ed Miliband's stored up trouble. Len

McCluskey wants a million new homes and answered to the benefit caps is

not reconcilable with the deficit reduction strategy. In five years'

time if there is a Labour Government it becomes very difficult. We should

keep an eye on it? Always. Labour Party process is never ending.

Unlike this programme. That's all from us today. Continuing reports of

events in the Ukraine on the BBC News Channel. There's no Daily

Politics tomorrow because of cover Arg of the Nelson Mandela memorial

service at Westminster Abbey on BBC Two live. We'll be back on the Daily

Politics on Tuesday at midday. We'll be back here next week with the Work

and Pensions Secretary, Ian Smith. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday

Politics.