02/06/2013 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Ulster Unionist whip is withdrawn from Lord Laird after he's caught up

in a lobbying sting - we hear from Mike Nesbitt. And Alasdair McDonnell

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2446 seconds

defends his leadership of the SDLP. Northern Ireland. The Ulster

Unionist peer Lord layered fans and self caught up in a row over

political lobbying after agreeing to carry out Parliamentary work for pay

them -- back payment. We will have reaction from the Ulster Unionist

leader. Is it a case of back to the future for the STL P when its former

deputy leaders Seamus Mallon and Brid Rogers appeared to

emphasise... The man with his hand on the tiller, Alasdair McDonnell is

with me in the studio. With me to comment on it is Alex Kane and the

former Victims' Commissioner Patricia McBride. The Ulster

Unionist peer Lord layered and Lord Cunningham and Lord Mackenzie have

been accused of carrying out Parliamentary work for payment. All

three have denied breaking any rules. Let us listen to a bit of

what he said. Our political editor joins me now. This is a breaking

story. It is happening as we are an air. Mike Nesbitt has issued a

statement saying that Lord Laird has ruling wished the party whip.

initial response of the Ulster Unionists to this episode was that

Lord Laird was correct in referring himself to the Westminster

authorities. He became the target of an investigation by two teams of

undercover reporters. The Sunday Times posed as representatives of a

South Korean energy company and the video you saw was from a separate

investigation by the Daily Telegraph and it was on the Panorama

programme. They posed as lobbyists on behalf of the G. The rule is that

members of the House of Lords may undertake work but not work for the

parliamentary duties. Lord Laird has denied any wrongdoing. Initially he

was backed by the party, but having reviewed the video footage, Mike

Nesbitt decided that more action was required. On Friday, he made me

aware of the situation. He was at pains to say he was very confident

he had done nothing wrong but in the in stretch -- in the interest of

transparency he referred himself to authorities at Westminster. Waking

up this morning, looking up the papers and reviewing the video

footage, I decided that we needed to go a bit further, so I contacted him

and the web and is being relinquished pending the outcome of

the Westminster review. We will take it from there. Has he resigned or

was it taken away? It has been taken away, it has been suspended. We are

making a gesture to say that this is a particularly serious series of

allegations. We want Westminster to do what they have to do. The Ulster

Unionist Party expect high standards of all our elected representatives

and that includes looking at rules and not saying how can I work around

that, that involves looking at a rule and saying how do I give

meaning to both this period and the letter of that rule. You are

concerned that he has not stuck to the spirit of the rules? There is

some evidence. On the face of it, it does not look good and I expect our

representatives to honour the spirit as well as the letter of rules and

laws. David Cameron made a speech in which he predicted that lobbying

could be a big scandal, is this something which applies not only to

Westminster but also to Stormont? This would be an appropriate time to

look at it. As you walk around Stormont, it is always full of

people and some of them are there, obviously lobbying, and perhaps we

need to look at some clarity about the status and the relationships and

to make sure that nothing is happening, either by omission or

ownership that is not the way it should be. That was Mike Nesbitt

speaking to you earlier. What do we know about these two separate sting

operations that appear to involve Lord Laird? The Daily Telegraph,

which has been working with Panorama reported that Lord Laird had told of

their undercover reporters that he was interested in taking a payment

of �2000 per month to represent a company that is backing the

interests of the G. No money was paid over. In relation to the other

investigation, he is quoted in that newspaper saying that whilst he

would not ask questions, what happens in the House of Lords is

that appears at their friends and colleagues to as questions. That is

the thrust of the other report. Lord Laird is saying he is confident he

has broken no rules and he has passed this on to the Parliamentary

authorities. The question will be whether you can keep to the letter

of the rules and not necessarily to the spirit of them. What are the

implications for the Ulster Unionist Party? It is an embarrassment. That

is why Mike Nesbitt has moved quickly. It is not the first time

that Lord Laird has been involved in controversy. Back in March,

questions were asked about his role as paid adviser to Christopher

Knight who was interested in buying the Belfast Giants. That got

embroiled in scandal when it emerged he was on the sex offenders register

in Florida. Lord Laird referred to the charges against him as a minor

misdemeanour but then apologised for that comment. Thank you. Alex Kane

joins me now, he is a former director of communications for the

Ulster Unionist Party and former Victims' Commissioner Patricia

McBride. How damaging is this situation? It is embarrassing. It is

embarrassing for Mike Nesbitt because it had nothing to do with

him. It is to do with a peer who is linked to the party. If you listen

to him this morning, he used the term when he watched the tape that

it was an edifying viewing. If you look at how he dealt with Ken

Maginnis and David McNarry, he moved quickly, he wants to close this

down. It is nothing to do with him or the party. What do you think?

think he should have done his due diligence. He was criticised. He did

not think it was his role to undertake due diligence in concern

with the Belfast chance. He should have learned from that lesson.

Tomorrow the Special Advisers' Bill reaches the final stages in the

Assembly. At one point it looked like it would fall after the ST LP

threaten to lodge an petition of concern. It changed its mind.

Alasdair McDonnell says the party will probably abstain when it comes

to the vote. As a result, the bill is expected to pass. Whatever the

outcome, has the controversy damage the party? The murder of Mary

Travers shocked community used to killing. For decades, her wore her

brief in silence until Sinn Fein appointed Mary McArdle, the only

person convicted in connection with the killing, as a Special Adviser to

the Culture Minister Carol McCallan. At the time of the murder, Alistair

McDonnell was the family doctor and he understood the herd them

appointment will cause. Initially the party appeared sympathetic. It

changed its mind when they would not accept amendments. We have made

every attempt that we possibly could to shape this into good law and it

has not been successful. I think at this stage we are considering

supporting a petition of concern. Will you do it? I think we will.Ann

Travers met with party leaders who were less banking to talk about it.

Can I ask you how the meeting went? Show some respect! Finally the party

appeared to have a change of heart and agreed not to block the bill and

denied it was ever an option. Crime who was going to veto the bill?

There were no hints coming from the party. Dominic Bradley raised the

issue that because Jim Allister was being so awkward and unhelpful, we

were having great difficulty. more than a week, the party wrestled

publicly with the issue of what to do about the Special Advisers' Bill

before coming to a conclusion loaded with potential pitfalls. In a way

they were dammed if they did and downed if they did not. The

impression is left of the party that is not sure where they are going.

There have been pressure from the party of old guard. The macro and

younger all coming from Mass was shot dead. To put those people who

have that type of record into the top of the administration in

Stormont is to actually negate any of the basic philosophies of the

Good Friday Agreement in terms of reconciliation. It is giving two

fingers to the Unionist community. When Seamus Mallon and Brid Rogers

weighed in, it made things impossible for Alasdair McDonnell

who had looked as though he was beginning to get to his feet steady

on the ground and get a grip of things. The role of the leader is to

make a decision and to lay down policy and get on with it and seemed

to be a few days when the party was struggling. Alex Attwood struggled

publicly when he was asked questions. People clearly felt

strongly. Some people in Sinn Fein were suggesting that some

individuals may support the petition of concern. Alasdair McDonnell is

with me now. How difficult has it been to have the issue of your

leadership raised and the direction of the party raised in the way it

has been? It has not been difficult. It is a difficult issue. We are

dealing with it in a democratic fashion. We discuss things. Other

parties operate difficult -- differently. We discuss things

openly and honestly. This was a difficult issue, in some ways it was

the lesser of two evils, there is a serious victims issue out there that

has been neglected for many years and victims are brushed under the

carpet, brushed out of the way by the present Executive at Stormont in

many ways and the victims issue has to be one of our priorities. We

cannot create the processes we want to see until we deal honestly with

the past. It is embarrassing that the two former deputy leaders of

your party appeared to weigh in and effectively criticise the tact you

appeared to be taking? I am not embarrassed at all. I respect their

point of view. They are members of the party in good standing and they

are welcome to express their point of view. That is the culture of the

party. We are not a top-down party, we are a bottom-up party. We listen

to them. We listen to victims. that demonstrate that you got it

wrong in the first place? No, I am sorry, things involved in politics.

We are between a rock and a hard place in terms of this bill. The

bill is flawed, we want to see a better bill, we worked very hard to

repair that Bill. Jim Allister would not tolerate the repairs and neither

would the DUP and Sinn Fein voted against our amendments. In

frustration, one of our members did raise the question of the

possibility of a petition of concern. He raised it in a

conversation with me. We deal with facts. The facts were that that was

a possibility. He said that he thought he probably would. He was

quite entitled to say that because he was deeply frustrated and angry

about the way he had been treated. Our membership has victims as a top

priority. We will continue to do that going forward. Sorry. I have

worked for 30 years as a GP. Ann Travers was a patient of mine, an

employee of mine. Ann Travers asked us for a meeting. We matter.

thought you were getting it wrong. will not criticise Ann Travers.

Quite simply, I have been dealing with victims, I have a lot of

people, patience of mine walking around with bullet holes in them. I

do not need any lessons from anyone in terms of victims. Why are you

going to probably abstain tomorrow? Is the bill is flawed. We will not

vote for it. It is the lesser of two evils because it is the issue of

victims, the majority of victims we have spoken to feel that this bill,

bad as it is, let it go and let the courts deal with it. The vast

majority of victims, I would have thought would have been much happier

for you to support it. Ann Travers has a point of view. There are a

whole range of points of view. I am on good terms with Michael

Gallagher. Paul Kavanagh says he was a victim. He was convicted of

killing in the IRA and he says it is unfair. There is a hierarchy of

people. There are a handful of people who are an elite within Sinn

Fein. There are interests unfortunately do not take precedence

over the interests of thousands of victims. It means that Paul

Kavanagh's victimhood and needs are down the pecking order compared with

the innocent victims that are out there. Why not support the

legislation because by abstaining it looks like you're balancing Ann

Travers concerns whether Paul Kavanagh's concerns. I am sorry if

you want to look at it that way. We are looking at this, it is a flawed

bill, we have made the point it is flawed, we would have supported the

bill had our amendments to make the bill a decent bill been accepted.

They were not accepted and we are withdrawing. Quite simply, that is

the honourable position. Three members of your party are concerned

about this. They are coming under an enormous amount of pressure. There

is a lot of speculation that somebody might break ranks. It only

takes one of your MLAs to break ranks and a petition of concern

could be raised. There is a lot of spinning going on. Are you sure that

will not happen? I am quite sure it will not happen. I am absolutely

sure. Do you wanted in writing? The party had never been more united and

never more functional and never more clear-cut as to whether priorities

lie. You are clear that all of your party members will abstain? That is

a different question. You asked me was a sure that nobody would sign a

petition of concern. Are you sure that all the members will abstain?

Yes. Let us hear from Alex Kane and Patricia McBride. You wrote a

critical piece about their handling of the situation. You said that the

party had been embarrassed and shamed into changing its position.

Do you retract any of that? I do not. He talks about the use of

probably in relation to what Dominic Bradley said. It was the use of that

and the fact it was not stamped out immediately by you as leader which

caused Brid Rogers and Seamus Mallon to enter the debate. What made that

newsworthy is the fact they normally do not. That is the first time for a

long time I have heard either of them coming to a public debate and

say something, whether you like it or not, it sounded critical. The

fact that you have ended up saying we are going to abstain. That also

seems weak, because you're either for a bill or against a bill. It is

a personal criticism in one sense, but it is a criticism I have made of

the UUP and the DUP. I do not know where you stand on this. Do you want

to answer that? He is objecting to the democracy that works within my

party. We have tried to fix this bill and they will not allow us.

DUP, UUP, TUC work to obstruct any amendments. We are united in this.

We are quite able to stand united tomorrow or any other day. You are

former Victims' Commissioner, where do the victims fit in? We need to be

aware that Alasdair McDonnell has said that he believes that should be

a hierarchy of victims. That is concerning. It undermines everything

that his party has stood for up until this point. A lot of people

would agree with that. It is an about-face in party policy. The

second issue regarding this is that the public opinion believes that the

intervention of Seamus Mallon and Brid Rogers has had an impact on

this. I am asking, where are the victims who have been consulted? My

colleagues and I established the forum for victims and survivors,

that is the proper mechanism. Has the party been to that for? Who have

a spoken to, I am not aware from my discussions of people over the last

week. Let us look at the political weight in 60 seconds. -- wake. Would

they are wooden day, the STL P finally decided not to block the

special advisers Bell? We will not be supporting a petition of concern.

Sinn Fein called a bad law. This bill is for anyone who has been hurt

in the past. After two years in prison, Marian Price was released.

We do not feel anyone should lose their liberty on the basis of that,

it is not open to challenge. Siam illustrate whether the party will

make the decision to fish or cut bait. Only implement the Good Friday

Agreement will they allow it to be undermined by bad law. A final