12/12/2013 The View

Tonight - he's the British Prime Minister who's widely credited with

starting the peace process. 20 years on from the signing of the Downing

Street Declaration, Sir John Major discusses Haass, dissidents and why

loyalists have no reason to worry about any erosion of their

Britishness. It is a phantom fear. It is perfectly clear from the

Downing Street Declaration that so long as Northern Ireland wishes to

remain British and the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain

British, they will remain British. Also tonight - is limited immunity

the best way to get to the truth about the past? We hear the views of

victims. You can't take somebody's life and not pay in some way for it.

Joining me live in studio, the former police ombudsman, Baroness

O'Loan, and the Alliance Party's deputy leader, Naomi Long. And in

Commentators' Corner tonight - the author and columnist, Susan McKay,

and the Belfast Telegraph's political editor, Liam Clarke.

And you can, of course, follow the programme on Twitter - that's

@BBCtheview. It's been a busy week for the former

Prime Minister, Sir John Major. On Tuesday he was in Soweto for Nelson

Mandela's memorial service and last night he was the guest of honour at

a ceremony in Dublin, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Downing

Street Declaration. It was signed by Sir John and the then Taoiseach,

Albert Reynolds, in December 1993. When I met up with Sir John this

morning in Dublin, I began by asking him how important a role the

Declaration played in preparing the ground for the Good Friday

Agreement. I think it was an essential component of it. But of

course, there are many people who played a part in this. Both before

the Downing Street Declaration and thereafter. There are no single

heroes in this. So many people played a part, many of whom will

never be known, in bringing together a process that finally delivered

peace. And it was a communal effort. And it is impossible to overestimate

the importance of public opinion in all of this. The public were sick

and tired of the fact that he was a political problem that had resulted

in violence, but the politicians had not been able to cure. The attitude

made it immensely easier to proceed. How much did public opinion affect

the speed at which you were able to move forward and how much were you

affected by the way you didn't have the Commons majority that perhaps

would not have given you the recall room? -- wriggle room. The Commons

majority was not a problem. I had very strong support from the Labour

Party and the Liberal Democrat party so the Commons majority was not a

problem. It is one of those fallacies of commentators who look

at things rather inadequately. Public opinion wasn't really

relevant in terms of the speed, either. What was relevant was that

you were putting to rest, decades, centuries of distrust. And that

necessarily takes time to build confidence. We had to build the

confidence of the nationalist community, the Unionist community

and the men on both sides of the divide who were engaged in violence.

It was like a multifaceted Rubiks cube and we had to bring everything

together in order that we could make an advance that would stick. You can

easily make some advance but if it does not stick, if it isn't

accepted, you are wasting your time put up it was at that point that

producing something that would last and be accepted that really took the

time in the peace process. That meant, even privately, having some

kind of contact with the IRA. You can't make peace if you are not in

touch with the people who are disturbing piece. So it was

essential. Just as Albert Reynolds and I took political risks, so did

the leaders of the IRA, in eventually deciding to play a

subliminal part in the peace process. He started talking to the

IRA, even indirectly. -- you started. Does that mean that the

current administration needs to be talking to dissident republicans? It

is a different situation. The problems that exist are tiny

compared to the problems that existed a long time ago. The

distinctive difference is that there were many people 25 years ago in the

communities who tacitly supported the people who were living outside

the law. That is no longer the case. You are now dealing with a wholly

different set of circumstances to the one applied 25 years ago. There

has been some criticism of David Cameron and his government for not

being sufficiently engaged with Northern Ireland politics. Do you

think that criticism is fair? I don't, actually. I think we have an

extremely good Northern Ireland secretary who has extremely close

contact with the government in Dublin. I think they are very aware

of what is going on and very concerned to make sure that we

return Northern Ireland to what we might call a perfectly normal

society. You have talked in the past about the early days of Tony

Blair's government, when he would pick up the phone to talk to you, in

that changeover period, I suppose. And how those phone calls became

less frequent and then stopped altogether. As David Cameron ever

picked up the phone to sound you out about Northern Ireland? I am not

going to go into that but suffice to say we have known one another for a

long time. Is he doing the right thing? He is great concern to make

sure Northern Ireland returns to normal society. -- he is very

concerned. The relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland is

better than it has ever been at any time in our long histories. I think

we are looking at a very bright moment in terms of Anglo-Irish

relations and things will continue to improve. A high water mark in

terms of British Irish relations but there continue to be problems on the

ground in Northern Ireland. I'm sure have followed with interest the

Haass talks and people are waiting to see what formula Richard Haass

and Meghan O'Sullivan come up with over the Christmas period. Were you

surprised at issues like flags parades remain so problematic 15

years after the signing of the agreement? Disappointed rather than

surprised. If I go back to my early discussions with Albert Reynolds, we

thought the peace process would take longer than it did, and we were

always aware from the outset that outside the mainstream agreement,

which encompasses 99% of people, there would be a tiny minority on

either side of the community who would not be reconciled. We were

always aware that would be the case. I think you are seeing a bit of

that. Richard Haass, very experienced in diplomacy, think he

is the right person to look at it and I hope when he reports, we will

be able to move forward. But I don't think there is any chance what ever

of slipping back remotely to where we were. The communities, north and

South, Catholic and Protestant, would not permit that to happen. We

are not going to slip back, because of the history of Northern Ireland,

people fear something has gone wrong and we will slip back to where we

were. That is not going to happen, something has gone wrong that it is

minor compared to what used to be the case and it will be put right.

Loyalists feel their sense of British identity and culture has

been eroded and continues to be under threat. I don't imagine you

could get anybody more British than you, do you have any sympathy for

their view? I think it is a phantom fear. It is perfectly clear from the

Downing Street Declaration that for so long as Northern Ireland wishes

to remain British, so long as the people of Northern Ireland wish to

remember it is, they will remain British. No one is abandoning them

pushing them to one side. If you look at everyday life in Northern

Ireland, it is in comparable better than it was 20 to 25 years ago. In

comparable a -- incomparably better. They don't see it that way, they say

they don't have educational opportunities or jobs. There are

many people in southern Ireland who don't have jobs, many people in the

United Kingdom and across Europe, it is a function of what has happened

economically after the financial problems of 2007 and 2008. But it is

a different proposition, a different cause of the pub ability than that

which existed prior to 1993 -- the probability. There has been a great

deal of Scotch and about what the options might be for Richard Haass.

-- a great deal of discussion. Where do you stand on people getting some

kind of immunity, so that victims know what happened? Does it have to

be considered? We had better see what Richard Haass has two say about

that. It depends what we are talking about and I am not prepared to offer

a blanket view on that. In terms of the most serious crimes, it is very

difficult to push them to one side. Very difficult indeed. Let us see

what Richard Haass has disabled that. You talked about high water

mark for relations between the UK and Ireland, was that partly because

of the Queen's visit two years ago. That put the seal on it. Relations

have been improving for a long time and her visit was frankly

sensational, the warmth was immensely moving for everybody,

including the Queen, I think. Next year resident Higgins will come to a

-- come for a state visit to the United Kingdom -- President Higgins.

We need to look at the fact that the circumstantial situation today

between the two countries is better than it ever has been and it is

improving. I give you one illustration. UK trade with Ireland

is greater than UK trade with China and India combined. They have a

population combined of two and three quarters billion people. And yet our

trade with Ireland is bigger. That tells you something about the

importance of Ireland to the United Kingdom and the importance of the

United Kingdom to Ireland. Let's put these past arguments behind and

build on what has been achieved by so many people over the last 25

years. The former Prime Minister, Sir John

Major, talking to me in Dublin earlier today. During that interview

we touched on the issue of dealing with the past. Truth and justice

usually go hand in hand - but what if you had to choose one over the

other? One proposal being discussed as part of the Haass talks is

limited immunity. Under such a scheme, former paramilitaries'

confessions wouldn't be used against them in court. In a moment the

former Police Ombudsman, Baroness O'Loan, and the Alliance MP Naomi

Long will give me their views. But first, this report by Martina Purdy.

Although the Troubles have long since ended, there are still more

than 3000 unsolved killings and the more time that goes by, the less

likely it is that anyone will be brought to justice. Indeed, the

recent conviction of this man, Sheamus Q, for the 1981 killing an

RUC reservist is a rare result. Kearney Gun down John Proctor,

moments after he visited his newborn son in hospital. But his family,

justice was slow. As a family we were strong, this last 32 years,

waiting patiently and our day has come. He was convicted on DNA

evidence and sentenced to 20 years, serving only two under the Good

Friday Agreement, but for John Proctor's family, it is some kind of

justice. He will not get his Christmas dinner, and we will. The

case come as politicians grapple with legacy of the Bath, along with

US diplomat Richard Haass, working on the report over Christmas

including dealing with unsolved killings. He is not short of ideas,

one is a truth commission where there is still a chance of

prosecution, but it is limited. Whatever model it is, it compel

someone to give information. And when that person provides testimony,

or gives written documents, any information in those documents

cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Prosecution would only

result if the prosecutor did not tell the truth, or any other

evidence, such as DNA, was found, which is unlikely. 1800 cases have

been reviewed, with three prosecutions resulting, so anyone

entering this process will know there will not be much more

evidence. What has been coming out? Tales of bloodshed, told the

reporters, not judges. We were not there to act like an army unit, but

there to act like a terror group. This BBC panorama programme was

shown last month, featuring the case of Patrick McCarthy, shot dead on a

West Belfast feet in 1972 by an undercover army unit. Although the

soldier who killed him was not interviewed. How does his daughter

feel about the notion of a commission focusing on truth more

than justice? We expect justice. My father died, he was innocent, and if

you could talk, he would be looking for justice. You cannot take

someone's life and not pay in some way for it, otherwise the Jewish

people looking for Nathalie war criminals, should they stop? - and

Mark -- Nazi war criminals. This women is against any that gives

criminals even any shield from justice. Her sister was killed

leaving Mass. Her father was wounded. Only this women, briefly a

form an adviser at Stormont, was jailed for her part, but there were

others involved. You cannot separate truth and justice. Both of them have

to go together. But truth has come first in other cases, such as the

recent Smithwick enquiry into the IRA killing of two RUC officers in

1989. IRA witnesses gave statements under limited immunity. It was

interesting how the judge said that he could not trust what the IRA

witnesses had said. One of your concern about, such as your room

keys, the gunmen coming forward, about getting the truth. -- what are

your concerns? It would be trusting completely what they would say.

Anyone coming forward with information about the murder,

something they are involved in, they will want to dress it up so they can

look all right, that they felt they had to do it, that they were right

to do it. It is very hurtful. And it is very traumatising. Paul Gallagher

was riddled with bullets in 1993. The men to cover his family home.

Personally, he has no interest in a truth commission and views

prosecution as unrealistic. I know the truth. It was any Catholic will

do, and it happened to me. I know my truth. It is finding out why

somebody else did what they did to me. That will not give me any help.

It will not help me sleep any better. His priority is getting

support services, including financial, for victims. He wants of

risks for victims in any truth commission which could do more harm

than good. We have to take a chance and Gamble, really, with what they

want. Than thinking, well I get the truth and that will open the door

for me? In a lot of cases, it will make it worse. Martina Purdy

reporting. Naomi Long, one victim, Paul Gallagher, seeming to suggest

limited immunity could potentially do more harm than good. It is a very

complex area, but something we cannot write off in terms of

approaching the issue of recovering truth and information for those

victims who do want to have that opportunity. It cannot replace

justice. The justice system still has to continue as it would, people

still have the right to pursue justice, but we need to be honest

about the likelihood of justice being obtained. And for many, it is

remote. In that context, some might choose to enter into a process to

obtain information and truth that would lead to limited immunity for

those who give that information. That might be an opt in process

people could consider. It will not suit everyone, but not something we

should take off table as part of a wider package of measures to deal

with the Passmore comprehensively. So it could work in some

circumstances? And it will have to be the choice of the victims, which

is even a complex area, because someone being murdered, the family

might not all agree on how to take the case forward. There are

complexities around this, but at the moment, many people will get neither

truth or justice. And if we have a more comprehensive process and

deliver justice for whom that is attainable, and for them for whom it

is not attainable, deliver some measure of truth, accepting some

will get neither, that will be better than neither foremost. Do you

except that is a point worth making, Baroness O'Loan, that it will not

suit everyone working every circumstance, but in no

circumstances will it could work, it is worth pursuing? The experience of

the truth commissions across the world has been that, we have people

do give evidence under these limited immunity provisions, it very often

transpires that they gave limited evidence as well as seeking limited

immunity for that they were saying. And the truth is not told.

Therefore, there is a risk sacrificing both truth and justice

by going for limited immunity. But I am not ruling out limited in you did

-- limited immunity for limited information. I would not accept

immunity for murders, for people committing murders, I do not think

you can allow immunity. If you are going to build a society based on

the rule of law. We cannot have the situation, for example, in which

those who marched down a street in breach of a Parades Commission are

convicted, and those committing murders 15 - 20 years ago are not

convicted. That would be a society not based on justice. Do you think

it could work in murders in certain circumstances, Naomi? It already

has. In terms of recovery of remains of the disappeared, for example,

committed immunity from prosecution was given to those who cooperated

with the recovery body, in order that they would be able to locate

and recover remains, meaning some of those people may have been involved

in the torture and killing of those individuals, as well as the disposal

of the bodies. We have already accepted that in that very

prescribed set of circumstances where the victims chose that route,

because their priority was the recovery of remains. And we have to

keep the victims at the centre of this process and we need to look at

ways of facilitating what they want. I understand the point that Nuala

makes in terms of not corrupting justice. And I accept the point that

people should be able to pursue justice, which is why I do not agree

with John Larkin that we should draw a line under the past and not

prosecute or investigate. We should do all of those things. But we're

people know they may not get justice, they could bus you truth as

an alternative, -- they could pursue truth. The Alliance Party, and Naomi

Long, and not alone. You will have that expressed by others, not least

the DUP, which seems to be warming to the idea. Sammy Wilson made that

clear today. That he would support an agreement, if it is what the

victims in certain circumstances one. Does that surprise you? It does

not, and Naomi is right, the immunity does not rest with the

person who gives the information, it rests with the information. That

cannot be used as evidence. So it could take place in other

circumstances? We had that decommissioning of arms as well. We

already have certain circumstances. I am not saying that there are not

categories of evidence which the politicians might agree should be a

footage from any future prosecution. But if we are to have a state based

on the rule of law, and adhere to Article two obligations, the

European human rights obligations as a state, we have to say there is the

possibility of prosecution where the evidence is available to allow it.

The victims have many views, many of them knowing they will not get

justice, and the reality is they will not. But that is not a reason

for this date to say there will be no justice. They are two separate

things. But victims, whilst needing to be part of the equation, society

has ruled it is the politicians we elect that make the decisions. If

they agree on a decision with Richard Haass, we have to respect

that. But there was a truth commission in South Africa, and

Desmond Tutu and Mandela involved, and terribly influential, but it had

a limited effect. And a lot of people in South Africa will tell you

it did not work. Even now the politicians may decide something, it

does not mean it will solve the problem. And we have to find the

best possible way to bring some healing and justice to the past,

enabling people to move on in their lives without feeling betrayed by

the state. How do you do that, briefly? If this is not the least

worst option, what is? A combination of factors will allow truth telling,

limited immunity, but only very limited and in limited

circumstances, the possibility of prosecution, undoubtedly very few of

those, and the fact that even if people are convicted there will only

be two-year sentences before 1998. A lot of murders happening since then,

which we should not forget. Those are still part of the Troubles

history. And lastly, what about England and Wales, and the bombings

there? Will those be covered? Or will we have two sets of standards

operating in the United Kingdom, one saying in Northern Ireland there is

no real right to truth and recovery, that in England and Wales, if you

were blown up by the IRA, we will proceed. Is that something Haass

will look at, if that is limited immunity, there will be legislation

in here, GB, or the United States? I will not go against their process.

But victims who choose to reside in England and Wales do not available

the services provided in Northern Ireland for victims living here, so

there is already a disparity. But we should not focus entirely on limited

immunity, it is one of a number of tools available, potentially to try

to get the best outcome for the most number of victims. At the moment, we

are not serving that constituency well and it has to be the priority

as the politicians charged with a way forward to maximise that.

Briefly, in the next week or ten days, can Haass and his team go for

broke and find an overarching deal? Obviously an opportunity, the

question whether his solutions will enable the future, something we

cannot determine until we know what it is. Optimistic or pessimistic? I

do not know, so I am neither. You are one of them, optimistic or

pessimistic? I am realistic, this is an important

moment, and if we can do this, we can transform the context in which

we have conversations about a whole series of issues in Northern

Ireland. If we get it wrong, we may never get another opportunity and it

is important we do. What about the people so terribly injured in the

Troubles, not the victims of murders, but whose lives were

destroyed, but as in a wheelchair, like Paul Gallagher? We are not

providing for them. And they are in our minds as we are dealing with

this, they need to beef provided for. -- need to be provided for.

Thank you both very much. Let us hear the thoughts of our

commentators Susan McKay and Liam Clarke. Thank you very much. Susan,

your thoughts about limited immunity and Haass wrestling with these

issues in an apparently limited timescale? What Naomi Long has said

is critical, this is an important moment. The parties have got to be

very upfront about the importance of this, because we have bad history in

terms of, for example, the setting up of the Parades Commission and

other moments where it appeared we had reached some sort of decision.

We got that commission, but did not in act one when it's finished. We

need to be clear that if Haass has taken the trouble to consult

everybody, we will follow on from it and deal with this issue. There is

no doubt that the Good Friday Agreement put aside the victims. 15

years on, it is time that their situation was addressed. Liam, do

you think that Haass can square the circle? I think there will be some

sort of limited immunity. It has been talked about enough. But

something we have to remember is fenders who committed murders or

attacks during the Troubles, there is very little likelihood of them

being prosecuted. If you'd dole out immunity as a thin look, there is

not much immunity to come forward. There would be concerns about being

socially embarrassed. Some people would not talk about confessing to

murdering the man down the road, if evidence was handed elsewhere, and

not using the provides evidence to catch on. It will be less

effective. That is if we make it narrower. And we need victims to buy

into it. A brief word, Susan, do you think a deal can be done in the

timescale? I think it can be, and no reason for it to take so long. And

Haass has said getting a still a picture of what happened here is in

our interests. That is the point I constantly return to, that we need

to know what the history of the conflict was. That is not such a

thing as an overall victims' view. But what Dr Mallinder, and Keira

McEvoy has led, in their models has said that this is only going to be

part of a wider thing and we need to have proper services for victims, as

well as a truth type commission. Liam, what did you make of Sir John

Major's view their one loyalist and their concern about their

Britishness, their sense of British culture being eroded, which she

described as a phantom fear? -- which he. Even Peter Robinson said

it is unlikely the border would go in our lifetime. But in Northern

Ireland, the sense of Britishness has been eroded, which is maybe why

flags have been such an intractable issue. I think the loyalist

mentality is a paranoid one. And seeing the fears are phantom will

not help. I was taken by major's notion of Northern Ireland going

back to being a personally normal society. I do not remember it ever

being perfectly normal. Interesting to hear what he had to say, a long

time since he was in Downing Street. The two governments produced the

Downey Street declaration and broke both sides into line. The government

can do that with Haass as well. We can leave it there. Now to head up

to the hill for the view from our man with the inside track.

I have just been suspended. I do not know why. I think it may be because

of what happened after the security men's Christmas lunch. Apparently I

took a selfie of me and Peter Robinson during the discussion about

Nelson Mandela's legacy. Then I said happy Christmas in Irish and asked

if he was going to Mandela's funeral. And I said to Martin

McGuinness that getting money out of Gerry Adams was like getting your

money out of an Ulster bank. Some people have no sense of humour! I

was not even given Edwin Poots his Christmas present, Elton John's

greatest hits and and I love Tom Daley T-shirt. The perfect novelty

T-shirt! Merry business, everyone! -- Merry Christmas.

That is it from The View this week and for this year. We are back on

January 16. Until then, happy Christmas whatever you are doing,

have a good time.