20/10/2013 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Hello, and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland. The

Ulster Unionist Party faithful met this weekend for their annual

conference. With the party's first major electoral challenge under the

leadership of Mike Nesbitt now just months away - did he persuade

members he can turn their fortunes around? If the right message is sent

and the hard work is put in, I believe we can make a comeback. We

have a great youth wing. We have a great leader. Mike Nesbitt joins me

live in studio. And as the First Minister, Peter Robinson, praises

the GAA's efforts in peace-building, a leading GAA commentator plays

hardball over clubs and tournaments being named after republican

paramilitaries. I'll be asking Peter Sheridan, the man who organised

Thursday's dinner at which Mr Robinson made his comments, if it's

now a case of one step forward and two steps back? To discuss that and

more I'm joined by today's commentators, Sheila Davidson and

Malachi O'Doherty. The Ulster Unionist leader has unveiled his

alternative to a peace centre at the Maze. Mike Nesbitt used his

conference speech to call for the setting up of a world class trauma

centre for those suffering mental illness. The conference was told the

party is more united than it's been in years. Here's our Political

Correspondent, Gareth Gordon. He is a man the critics claim who is

pedalling as fast as he can, but still getting nowhere. Unfair, say

the vast majority of people here who believe that under Mike Nesbitt,

they are finally moving forward. It is a year and a half since he became

Ulster Unionist leader on this very stage in this very room. As good a

time as any to ask what has changed under his leadership. Those who are

left claim they are better off without the likes of Basil McCrea

and John McCallister. No sign of division, there is united approach.

There is a dedicated attitude and we are moving forward under the sound

and capable leadership of Mike Nesbitt. All the people who

disagreed with him are gone! We are not interested in what has gone

before. The next test will come next year under the election. Their

European candidate was talking about speech-making. We have got to show

improvement and that is obvious. We are up for that and are prepared to

do it. We believe we have the policies and you will hear later

today some ideas going forward. We are trying to bring forward a new

generation of people. You have to have a mix of experience and youth.

Certainly there was a sprinkling of youth among the more mature

membership, so who are they and why did they join? For me it was the

youth wing. The party itself, its policy, the great leader we have,

that is why I joined. Do you see a future in politics? Possibly. In the

past youth was not promoted, is that changing? It is. There are dozens of

young candidates coming through. I have been selected to run and there

are a number of other colleagues doing the same. If the right message

is sent and the hard work is put in, I believe the Ulster Unionist Party

can make a comeback. Mike Nesbitt has been accused of taking the party

to the right and here he was prepared to take a risk, posing for

photographs with an organisation many unionists are trying to get rid

of. It is a good thing with the political leader to engage with

anyone who has a part to play in the future of Northern Ireland. The

Parades Commission has a future to play in Northern Ireland. You know I

would like to see them replaced, that is on the agenda for talks, but

that is no reason not to show ability to people who want to engage

with a political party. His conference idea was a mental health

centre to replace the troubled Peace Centre at the Maze. Who would it be

for? Let me be clear, this centre is for everyone. Even those for whom we

may feel little or no sympathy. The conference closed for the first time

with a performance by a pipe band from County Antrim, a change of

tack, if not of tune. Gareth Gordon reporting - and Mike

Nesbitt is with me now. Several commentators said yesterday's speech

needed to be the best of your political career - do you think you

hit the target? People in the room seemed happy, people on social media

seemed happy. I am not happy because I have never done that and thought I

could do a bit better. In broadcasting and politics, people

are quick to tell you what they do not like, they are not so generous

in terms of saying when you have done something they do like. The

feedback I am getting has been surprisingly positive and there has

been a surprising volume of it. Might that be because there has been

no internal debate because some of the key people opposed to your

leadership or were unhappy have now left the party? Only two people left

the party. We had a lot more people in the room today that we had last

year. We had a Friday afternoon session about party development, it

was in the same room it was in last year, that room was three quarters

full a year ago, people were up yesterday. Two figures left the

party and there was much talk about that, give me an example if they are

not significant, of a hotly contested policy issue in the Ulster

Unionist Party at the moment? All the issues we have been talking

about, like abortion, are matters of conscience. There are some debates

in the party. Welfare Reform Act is something that is coming down the

tracks now. The DUP said the sky would fall in if we did not bring in

the legislation and here we are in October, the sky has not fallen in,

but it might, because this package will take 750 million out of the

Northern Ireland economy. Is that a debate in your party? Yes. We are

arguing about it internally, we are having debates. We are having robust

debates and that is perfectly healthy within a political party. We

are a much healthier political party than we were in 2012. You spoke last

year about being a liberal and progressive Unionist, that is what

you said you wanted to be, but critics would say you have taken to

the party on the right. I do not agree with that. All those issues

are in the talks and that is where they should be and I think we should

give the talks the space they need. Flags is tangible, parades is

tangible, there are only so many ways you can cut and dice them. We

can reach agreement on those. Dealing with the past is different,

it is a major challenge and one of the little tokens of that has been

the so-called Peace Centre at the Maze. They did not tell people what

the function of it was and that is why I have come out with an

alternative that everyone can buy into, because it is for everyone and

offers practical help. Tens of thousands of our citizens suffer

from PTSD and other mental health issues. Let us build a facility that

is world-class, the whole world would look to say we want to come,

we want to share in that, you have expertise that will help us. It

seems that this has come out of the blue. I have studied these things

for some time, I was a victims commissioner. You see on Wednesday,

when they say that these people have been coming forward and these issues

in terms of employment and training, mental health will be up there and

everything else will be down there. Have you costed this? You can save,

you can do it for a fraction of the 18 million euros that was set aside

for the Maze Peace Centre. How can you build this that will be the envy

of other countries for under ?18 million? I have spoken to experts

who say you can do it for under that cost. The cost will depend on the

venue and they do not want us to get hung up on a debate about venue, I

said that there is a suggestion and it was only a suggestion, a venue

that has been lying idle for a lot of years, it is on sale for ?1.6

million. The taxpayer will never see the money back, two or three million

would convert that into a mental health centre. It might, but you are

going to talk about putting in place programmes of work and experts who

will cost a lot of money to recruit. I would have thought you would have

no change out of ?18 million? Are you confusing the capital costs and

the running costs? Talk to the Health Minister. You can set up

centre and the running costs, how long is a piece of string? That is

the point. A report has been largely ignored which says we have huge

mental health issues. I am suggesting this and the first step

is to say here is a concept and the second phase is to buy in and the

third phase is to say what can we afford. You think that idea will

excite people? I think it is a big idea and it is the right idea

because we have tens of thousands of our citizens who do not get out of

bed with a sense of purpose because of mental health problems and that

is universally acknowledged and it is for everyone, even people whose

mental health is a result of bad choices, we have to help them and

their families, because it is also intergenerational. How do you turn

the fortunes of your party around? We are now in a better place and if

we continue, we will be in an even better position next year. Thank

you. Now let's pause for a look at the political week gone past, in

sixty seconds. The row over gay men and blood

donation continues, the Health Minister addressed criticism. In

terms of breaking the ministerial code, I did it unwittingly. The DPP

try to clarify the implications of the abortion guidelines. It is

difficult to envisage a circumstance were anyone could be accused of

aiding or abetting a crime of having abortion in England. A plan to

reallocate school funding was defended by the Minister. I am not

here to take money off schools but I need to tackle social deprivation.

Peter Robinson reached out to the GAA, but another minister got there

first. I opened a newspaper to see a photograph of my colleague Nelson

McCausland playing Gaelic football. That shows that all things are

possible. Gareth Gordon reporting - and we'll

be discussing that speech by Peter Robinson - and the subsequent

reaction to it - a little later in the programme. Let's return to this

weekend's Ulster Unionist Party conference - and here to discuss it

with me are Sheila Davidson and Malachi O'Doherty. You are both

welcome to the programme. Let me ask you what you made of Mike Nesbitt's

speech yesterday and also his defence of it this morning. He is a

polished performer. Part of the problem is it shows the contrast

with those behind him. A. I wonder would those who would mostly be

concerned to have PTSD treatment, say in the British Army, would they

want to come here. Would they really want to come here? Essentially the

idea is a good one, but whether it is an alternative to the Peace

Centre and considering it is a stroke played within the broad

culture war where everything has to be, we win and you lose. Do you see

it as a credible alternative to the Maze Peace Centre? It is an

interesting idea. I have experience of PTSD in my family, I know

first-hand how traumatising that is in any family. The lack of mental

health resources that we have is not something that we should be playing

out in that kind of political field, there is a different role for that.

I think that the interesting thing that you take out of the party

conference was that he needs to be careful he is not turning into a one

trick pony in terms of it is all about this culture war. This is a

party which aspires to take back the leadership of the Unionist community

and unless he is talking about the big issues, the economy, we are not

actually going to get a feeling that he is going to be that leader in the

future and I am not sure... His performance was good, and he perhaps

needs to work harder on that. They need to play on a bigger stage. What

about the way in which Mike Nesbitt has or hasn't pulled the party to

the right? Where does that leave Liberal Unionist members of the

Catholic community? That is the problem. It is part of the

architecture of the agreement that this must happen. That militates

against the possibility of unionism drawing in Catholics or nationalism

drawing in Protestants. I do think that in time we have to look at that

architecture and see how it can be changed. I would not like to be

leading liberal unionism and having to show most of the time that you

are more opposed to Sinn Fein than Peter Robinson is. That is a losing

form. Thank you. The sight of the DUP leader at a high profile event

praising the work of the GAA would, as Peter Robinson acknowledged

himself, have been unimaginable just a few short years ago. But today the

question is: has the move been overshadowed by comments made by the

the high profile GAA commentator Joe Brolly who said it's no-one else's

business if GAA clubs or tournaments are named after republican

paramilitaries? In a moment we'll hear from the Chief Executive of

Co-operation Ireland who organised Thursday night's event, but first

here's a reminder of what Peter Robinson had to say and Joe Brolly's

subsequent reaction. Joining me now from our Foyle studio is the man who

organised the dinner at which the First Minister spoke about the GAA,

the Chief Executive of Co-operation Ireland, Peter Sheridan. You are the

man who was responsible for the dinner on Thursday night in which

Peter Robinson made his comments, do what extent has Joe Brolly's

reaction undone the efforts of Mr Robinson? I think it was

disappointing to hear him, who has shown a generosity of spirit in

other ways, to be so exclusive in his comments. What the GAA are

trying to do is reach out to another community where they want to see

young Protestant people playing their sport, they want people from

the Protestant community coming to games and the director-general made

that clear. For Joe Brolly to use that language word he says you can

join it, you will have to abide by us, I think Peter Robinson in his

remarks talked about the need for understanding, reaching beyond our

own communities and unfortunately he was not reaching beyond his own

community and trying to have that understanding of what that might

mean for the other community. Why do you think that is the case? Why did

he say what he said? Given that he has taken a different tack in public

on other matters in the past. He has appeared to be more middle of the

road in the past. You would have to ask him. When we use language like

that, it pushes back the other community and then ignited a

response from people who then were suggesting that Peter Robinson was

wrong to outreach and try to move this into a different place by

reaching out to the other community in some of the remarks he made. His

speech was littered with positive comments. In 18 months, we have had

negativity around flags, parades, Long Kesh and Maze, it was a move

towards a positive speech, but then for Joe Brolly to push it back and

say it is no one else's business, but the GAA are a sporting body and

they want to encourage people of all traditions across this island to

become involved in the sport. You have to understand the barriers

which might prevent people from doing that. Who is more embarrassed?

I think it has enhanced Peter Robinson's position because it

demonstrated someone who was reaching out from his constituency

and a willingness not to acknowledge the role of the GAA, but to praise

it in peace building. He demonstrated that the GAA had out

reached and were making moves. In some ways I think it put Peter

Robinson in a better light. He has been criticised from people like Jim

Allister who said he was foolhardy to make the speech. There were also

people like Gregory Campbell and Sammy Wilson, they have not overly

criticised him, but they have been clear to set out their stall of what

they think of the GAA needs to do to be acceptable on the issue of naming

its clubs and tournament in future. Anyone who was there would have

acknowledged that Peter Robinson's statements were more statesman-like.

We know what nationalist politicians stand for and we know what Unionist

politicians stand for, but what we want to know is what they will do

for the other side? Unfortunately the ethnic nature of politics here

mean we always champion our own side, but Peter Robinson did not

just do that on Thursday night. Unfortunately the remarks from Joe

Brolly did not take into account what needs to be done for the other

side. The people attacking Peter Robinson are doing the same thing.

Were Joe Brolly's comments embarrassing? They were in contrast

to what the director-general and Danny Murphy were saying. Thank you.

Let's have a final thought on this from Sheila Davidson and Malachi

O'Doherty. I think when you get anything like this, you scratch the

surface, you get to a polarised point and that goes for both the GAA

and anyone on the loyalist side. We have to understand the language we

use and that is something we have to be more mature about. We need to

recognise and understand that there are polarised positions, we will not

get away from that, but if we get more statesman-like in the way Peter

Robinson got and the GAA as well, then we have a way to go for the

future. First of all, Peter Robinson going to the GAA dinner, and

secondly, Joe Brolly's response. It is great that Peter Robinson did and

there were times when he looked more statesman-like and yet lapsed back

into it. As for Joe Brolly? If that represents the views of people in

his community, he was right. That is it from us.