12/01/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Find out later in our week in 60 Seconds.

foundation to build on? What are we to make

foundation to build on? What are we that he's gone home, amid

disagreement and retribution? Sinn Fein and the SDLP have backed the

package, the two unionist parties haven't, while Alliance is

supportive of some proposals but very unhappy with others. In a

moment, I'll be talking to representatives of the five main

parties, but first our correspondent, Martina Purdy,

examines the political drama over the latest proposals to tackle

flags, parades and the past. Richard Haass, you are very welcome.

This is a very serious attempt to find a solution. I would not be here

unless that. I believe that the process is on life support.

Some commentators have displayed -- declared the Haass process dead, and

are already on the postmortem. We have a process that runs for many

years, and are too many issues needing to be solved. Even one of

those issues being resolved would have been a miracle, but expecting

three of the issues to be done in that time frame was a nonsense right

the start. Others have a more optimistic prognosis. I think there

is still life there. The emphasis is on the local parties to find a

remedy to the problems in the process. That requires all of them

to buy in. Whether that means that there will be discussions or

full-scale negotiations, we are yet to see.

In the meantime, the drama can be excruciating. Some parties seem to

be re-trench in now. It sends a bad example out internationally. It is

embarrassing to explain this to my colleagues. On the back of the

conference that we did a few months ago, will we are now having to say

that we cannot get our act together, and that sends a bad message.

that we cannot get our act together, complained about the process.

that we cannot get our act together, is a code of conduct, and they say

that the balance is against the state forces and do not like the

fact that the word terrorist is not in the tech will stop Richard Haass

is saying that it is unrealistic to expect everything that you want in

negotiations. I do not understand why anyone would

ink that is not moving ahead would be preferable. I think it is unfair

to the victims and survivors who deserve better full is. I think it

is very bad for Northern Ireland. Republicans want Haass indicated,

not more negotiations, but are being urged to return to the table with

Unionists. If there is a consensus to spend some time ironing out the

issues, fine. You want to avoid where basic issues are opened up and

renegotiation is an excuse not to go ahead and stop that will become

apparent soon enough. Some expect that the DUP call for

more talks is about buying more time. People are concerned about the

electoral advantage, and the whole next year.

They have their eye on that prize, and they would love to win East

Belfast back. The problem for the DUP is the extent to which there are

Dale tales wagging on that dog, and the concern about the feeling in the

heartland areas and whether that will cause electoral damage. Even

loyalists believe the Haass proposals for a much-needed

examination of victims issues. All is not lost stop we try to get what

we thought were reasonable suggestions.

Someone listen to and not. But we do feel that there is an opportunity to

move forward. Martin McGuinness is that there is a destructive elements

who do not want to move on. That is a bit rich.

who do not want to move on. That is Martin McGuinness is

who do not want to move on. That is responsible. Some warned about

division, and street violence like this unless it on flags.

I think there will be more negativity, more disillusionment and

cynicism. Probably that will end up in Wall Street having more tensions

involved. -- many street. I worried that the two Divinity School parts.

And there are economic consequence is. -- the two communities grow

apart stop some of the things are happening near our office is, so it

is obvious that people are concerned.

It is regrettable, to say the least stop church leaders have urged our

politicians not to give up. As politicians are due to meet next

week, one of the options is to implement Haass in stages.

Well joining me now are Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly, the SDLP's Alex

Attwood, Jeffrey Donaldson from the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party

leader, Mike Nesbitt and the Alliance Party's deputy leader,

Naomi Long. Welcome to the programme. Naomi, can

be clever one thing. Did your party endorse or reject this package? --

can we clear up. We reserved our chance to be highly

critical of what was in the document, because people expect from

our party that would we are very strong about our future, and honest

about our assessment of the package and what it will deliver. We were

very honest about that. It was clear listening to Doctor Haass that he

interpreted that you rejected the package. That may have been his

interpretation, but I was very clear in the room and that is not what we

did. The package fell well short of what we had called for, which was an

ambitious document that addressed all

ambitious document that addressed commission and stop us

ambitious document that addressed progress. In the past, I have agreed

with Richard Haass and we have a obligation to move it forward. On

parades, I agree with his analysis, some improvements made and a way to

go. Richard Haass was clear that the

parties who did not sign up to the deal that the parties who did not

sign up need to clarify why they did not do so full. Why did the DUP not

sign up? We want the best. Where I do agree

with Richard Haass is that it has to be good for victims and survivors.

He says not signing up is not good. It's quite specific about that. Yes,

but I want the best for them, and what is on the table at the moment

is not stupid and a even a 90% of people in the right fact that

government cannot acknowledge that, by that, in the case still have a

ways to go to address what is have in mind of evil is clear in the

document that there was something in the document for everyone including

Unionists. You failed to clear the bar.

It does require compromise. How do you compromise on something as the

fact that 90% of the deaths in Northern Ireland were caused by

terrorism and Doctor word-mac cannot even -- Doctor Haass cannot even

acknowledge that. If he went and talked to the victims of

described the victims of that atrocity but did not include that it

was an act of terrorism, he would be chased out of New York.

But you are also turning your back on some things that Richard Haass

say are good for unionism, that should be what you want.

We are not turning our back on anything. We need dialogue to turn

the gap. We have made progress in terms of how we would deal with the

past. We have made progress on parades. And on flags, we didn't get

agreement there. But the opportunity is to take forward a discussion that

everyone can getting gauged in. There are positives there. -- can

get in gauged in. The DUP is not walking away from the table. -- can

become involved in. What is agreed, and what needs to be

discussed? All the five parties of the executive wanted Richard Haass

to do this. We wanted to be able to do this. He listened to everyone and

brought us closely guarded from the outside. -- closely gathered. All

the parties were involved. We brought him in. There was a

statement from the four churches saying that we should agree to the

implication and we have had something that we are glad to hear

about. That night it was not clear, but it is very clear now. We have

three parties here, we should implement the proposals.

She still wants negotiation on other points. Let me be clear. I believe

that what is in the document should be implemented, but I worry that

when we go to implement on parades, there

need to close the gap. What Richard Haass has given us is a prescription

for more torque, but I do not think it is a good prescription.

You are playing with words. Naomi did not say renegotiate. She said

let's implement this. Are there difficulties? Yes, there are. He

said that 80 or 90% happy with the programme. When you are talking

about five parties, if we could all say that, we would be doing very

well will stop that was during the process.

So a revised position then. He has made that clear. We do have an

agreement. Now, the British and Irish governments need to get

involved and talk about it in terms of implementing it. They need to say

whether they are for or against the agreement. The bottom line is that

what you have to do surely is reaching agreement with the

Unionists, not with Richard Haass. At the moment, you and Richard Haass

are singing of the same song sheet, but the Unionists are not there. The

Unionists have to explain why they are not there. I have difficulties

with this as well. Even within the British system, within the system

they defend, the Welsh language act is protected, the Scottish language

act is protected and there seems to be this pathological hatred of

Irish. In the hall, this is a document we can move on with. That

is what three of the parties are seeing. This is a political

agreement. Every single agreement we have had, the biggest difficulty was

implementation. We are dealing with three issues which were already

dealt three issues which were already

were 80 or 90% there. Then what changed? I said the ten or 20% not

over the line represented serious issues for us. Gerry Kelly is

misrepresenting my position. It was an initiative from the First

Minister and Deputy First Minister. The other three parties bought into

it. Who would not agree to enter into a process that would see better

outcomes on these issues? The most important and significant

intervention since Richard Haass went home came on Friday when the

Irish foreign affairs minister, in response to the -- to the debate on

who was responsible for the car bombs, said it was an act of

terrorism against innocent victims. If it is good enough for Dublin, why

isn't it good enough for bloody Friday in Belfast? The British were

involved in that. Was it terrorism? I am not talking about who was

responsible. You asked me a question. Terrorism can come from

governments as well. Let's move on. Is it worth sinking the entire

process which Richard Haass says would be good for everyone in

Northern Ireland on the basis of trying to get Jerry Kelly to sign up

to your narrative and use of language? It is not my narrative. It

is the rule of law. The 2000 Terrorism Act gives a definition of

terrorism. I uphold the rule of law. Richard Haass says this would be

good for victims and survivors. Richard Haass says this would be

proposals. They didn't want it. You are the leader of a political party

which represents an awful what of people. Some of them are victims.

Are you not have a mandate to take difficult decisions and then explain

them to people who support you and don't support you based on the

decisions you have taken? That is political leadership. I have agreed

with the victims I have spoken to that it was not a good deal because

it was airbrushing terrorism out of history. My leadership was to say I

would not allow that to happen. You are not undermined by your party

Executive? You didn't find the rug pulled from under your feet? A lot

of people think that happen. The words of the motion are the words

that I wrote. We have some optimism because we have a meeting on Tuesday

of the five parties. I think that should happen and it should be a

quiet conversation. The big story this week is not the fallout from

Haass, it is the fallout from closure of accident and emergency

units. You can't pretend that Haass isn't also a huge issue. Let's do it

quietly and get on with it the way we are supposed to do, at Stormont.

Dealing with the issue of language, Gerry Adams has recently described

some IRA activities as murder. I don't have any issue with saying

that there was terror imposed on this island by paramilitary

organisations. Did this document deliver a possibility for both sides

to agree on those issues? Everybody agrees the position of greatest

strength in agrees the position of greatest

mentioned the comments made by the minister in Dublin. He also said

that his understanding of Haass was the Irish state, if there was a

truth and recovery process, would have to give all the information.

That demonstrated the Irish government is now thinking about the

implementation of Haass. That is something the British government

should now think about. Are they prepared to say that when it comes

to Haass and its implementation, all British records will be made

available. Those are the questions we should be concentrating on, in

order that we don't let down the victims and survivors again. They

have suffered the most and they deserve the most. What compromises

did the SDLP make? Unionists said they were not prepared to make the

compromises which were being demanded of them. What did you give

up on that was geared to you? We have been loyal defenders of the

parades commission. Another is described the parades commission as

cheerleaders for sectarianism, the SDLP access it as the rule of law

the parades commission. We had conversations with Jeffrey Donaldson

that we were prepared to look again at the architecture around parading.

But the other parties could not compromise on that important access

between rights, responsibility and relationships which was at the core

of resolving the dispute on parades. So we did compromise. There are

issues in this document were rethink through implementation we can get

even better. But do not know put in jeopardy the best chance since 1998

to deal with some of the biggest issues we have never faced up to the

four. There has been a lot of discussion over the last ten days

about what went wrong and discussion over the last ten days

two governments? Do we need to see David Cameron and Enda Kenny step in

to be more proactive? My reservation about the proposals on flags are

that if we couldn't even discuss those issues when they were on the

table, how do you take that forward? The governments need to be

involved. They are not by standards. They are protagonists in

the troubles and the need to be involved. I think we are starting to

see some evidence of that happening. I am sceptical about how hands only

want to be. Important thing Richard Haass said was that more time will

not solve this, it is more of leadership that is required. I don't

want the parties to be involved in another process which will be

rehashed the last six months. I think the public are tired of our

arguments. They want to see delivery. The real progress will be

who can deliver these agreements. We cannot resolve this unless we can

get some issues off the table. Some parties want to implement what is

there and you want to renegotiate what is there. How do court that

circle? There isn't agreement. You can't implement something that is

not agreed. There needs to be agreement between the five parties.

Don't yet have an agreement. For people to talk about implementation

when we don't have an agreement is an very best premature. We need to

close the gap on whether our areas where there is not agreement. I

believe that can be done. Based on the discussions we had during those

talks... Jerry Kelly has said he does not except your narrative.

talks... Jerry Kelly has said he narratives. One of the things which

came out of narratives. One of the things which

acceptance by all that there is not a single narrative. Unfortunately

Mike continually wants to say there is a single narrative. If it is good

enough for Aidan Gilmour and Irish government and for Gerry Adams to

use the term murder in relation to some of the activities of the IRA,

why isn't it good enough for you? I didn't say it wasn't good enough for

me. Mike has reduced this down. Terrorism is mentioned in the

document. One of the issues is language. We are prepared in all of

this to deal with the issue of language. I repeat this again and

again. There are a series of narratives. He is confusing

narrative and facts. Those car bombs were acts of terrorism. Let's end on

looking to the future rather than the past. Give us a timescale for

sorting this out. Tuesday will tell a tale. Peter Robinson once a

working group to resolve differences. Martin McGuinness once

a working group to implement Haass. They have to work jointly and it is

up to them to implement this. Will the British government confirm that

whatever they are prepared to fund and show leadership, I think that

will be a position of strength. Irish government have already shown

leadership. We need to leave there. No doubt we will need to return to

these important issues in the future.

Thank you all very much. I'm joined from London by the Secretary of

State, Theresa Villiers. Thank you for

State, Theresa Villiers. Thank you was recently made we will come back

to in a moment. Has the time now come for the two governments to step

up to the plate and take ownership of this issue? Both governments have

been supportive and involved from the outset. Before this process was

set up, myself, my predecessor and the Prime Minister continually

pressed and encouraged the Executive to move forward on a range of issues

to help heal sectarian issues. We were delighted when these proposals

were published. I thought it was a good idea to have this further

process on three of these enormously difficult issues. Throughout, I have

worked with the parties in Northern Ireland to support that process and

encourage everyone to find a way to move forward on these difficult

issues. You deliberately adopted an arms length approach during

negotiations. They have failed. If you want to avoid political drift,

you need to re-engage ready quickly. I am engaged and will continue to

being gauged. I think it is wrong to say that it has failed. Even with

the robust discussion you have just had. A lot of the parties are seeing

the parties are saying there is a willingness to continue the

conversation. What came out from the discussion you have had is that the

meeting between party leaders on Tuesday will be very important. That

is an opportunity for them to keep this process alive and keep working.

I think there is a lot to be said for trying to narrow down the issues

of difference between the parties to try to focus on a further discussion

to see if we can get this agreement across the line. I suppose my

question is, if that something you expect the parties to do on their

own in a room around a table? Or are you an Irish government going to

help facilitate that discussion? They didn't manage to sort those

issues with Richard Haass that on their own?

We are prepared to facilitate, but we will only get a solution if there

is a cross-party agreement within Northern Ireland. In many senses,

that was the whole point of devolution, so that decisions on

crucial issues like this could be made by the people elected by the

people of Northern Ireland. Explain what you mean when you say that you

want to encourage and facilitate agreement and discussion. What does

that mean? Does that mean that you will chat discussions of that is

necessary, that she will call them together, or you will sit on the

sidelines and let them get on with it on their own?

If I was asked to comment cherry process, I would. -- to chair a

process. I hope that they will respond to the many comments in

Parliament this week when MPs from across the house and size to how

important it was to seize this opportunity. I think considerable

common ground was built up between the parties, even the parties who

cannot accept proposals yet seem willing to continue to have a

conversation to try and resolve those outstanding issues. That is

the important thing for the party leaders to bear in mind. If those

issues were easy to resolve, they would have been fixed years ago.

What about Alex Attwood's specific point, are the British Government

prepared to fund and implement the Haass proposals? The British

Government says that the proposals should largely be funded by the

block grant, which we already provide to Northern Ireland. We

already provide other funds to the Irish government. If they want to

come to the British Government, and ask for more funding, we will

come to the British Government, and Alex act would -- Alex Attwood be

promised that he asked for, because we think that the funding should

already come from the ground that they already get from the executive.

I am joined by Alison Morris from the Irish News and Neill clerk from

the Belfast Telegraph. That was a very clear answer from Alex

Attwood's question. No additional funds at this stage. These

potentially expensive bodies would have to be paid from by the block

grant. She's did not say no, she said at

this stage. There is some room, but it was one thing that was not

counted for when they did the Haass negotiations. It was not considered

how much it would cost to implement. It was all right not counting the

cost during the Good Friday negotiations because Tony Blair was

there to foot the bill with the booming economy. Stopping violence

is something that the economy should focus on, and it is a bit disturbing

that it is not being focused on at the moment, they are focusing on

whether or not words like terrorism are included.

Is it surprising that it is the language that is dividing people at

the moment? You do not get the sense from the

two Unionist representatives, they are painting themselves into a

corner. It is unlikely that you could get Sinn Fein to agree to the

word terrorism. It was said that the people who were acting illegally had

to bear the greatest responsibility for the Troubles.

We have parties who want to implement and others who want to

negotiate. Where did we go from here? It will be very interesting to

see the outcome of the leaders meeting. We did find out there was

an issue involving the use of meeting. We did find out there was

brought relief to the survivors and victims, I think many of them will

be disappointed that the issue of language is halting what could give

them a recovery process. It is a good example of politics in

Northern Ireland, that if it is good for one side the other side you not

think it is good for them. Is it that simple? I think that once Sinn

Fein agree to it, it is difficult for the DUP to give it to their

electorate. People wanted to bring it into the commission and give them

an opportunity to get rid of it before the next elections. What they

have done is halt that process. We will hear more from you soon. We

will look at the political week gone past in 60 seconds.

Heavy rain and strong winds brought fears of flooding and there were

stormy seas to navigate. The idea that this agreement can keep on

being negotiated and sometimes positions will change dramatically

and the parties will change dramatically is not realistic.

Tributes were paid to Paul Goggins who died on Wednesday. I first met

him when he was Northern Ireland Minister, and he was outstanding.

There was a major incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital due to a

backlog of patients in a Haass. We -- in A Mac. We have had an

unreasonable amount of patience. And might we see Richard Haass again?

Would you come back if it sorted it out once and for all?

The few final thoughts from Alison Morris and Liam Clarke. That laugh

was very telling. He is not Morris and Liam Clarke. That laugh

if he would come Morris and Liam Clarke. That laugh

impression that Richard Haass would intervene again, but not on that

long-term basis. Was he ruling himself out about being axed back --

asked back? I do not think there is a point in him coming back. The

parties need to agree with each other, not with Doctor Haass. They

need to get the Unionist parties on board and the few concerns that the

Alliance Party have. Will we ever going to see

agreement? They agreed the devolution of policing and justice

before an election. It is possible that if the politicians want to do

it that it would, but the mood is not very good at the moment, and we

have Monday and Tuesday's meeting. What would you be hoping for in that

meeting? Any sort of group that is setup is currently seen as a

delaying tactic. The concerns have to be met before the election. That

way, they can say that they are working on the issues, without

committing themselves to anything. And he for joining us on the

programme. That is it for today. I will be back tonight. Mont Today.

Thank you for joining us. Goodbye. -- for storm want today.