02/03/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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 Nowadays we take the issue of

fairness in employment for granted. I have never felt it important

to ask anybody's religion when I'm going to employ them

as a sheet metal worker. This is the story of fair

employment in Northern Ireland. it masked a much greater problem

in terms of educational disadvantage. The Fair Employment Act of 1989

changed Northern Ireland's society dramatically.

We still have a way to go. But are we on the right track?

Absolutely. What does Austria want?

I mean, what does she want?