16/01/2014 The View

Tonight, tough talking the Haass proposals. Sinn Fein says unionist I

don't think of June over extremist, while the DUP Plains Republicans are

wallowing in the field of murder. Have relations between the parties

hit rock bottom? We will hear from Martin McGuinness. I am fed up, fed

up hearing that the public deserve better, are disgusted with their

politicians who believe that we can't agree on anything. With more

than 50 new councillors appointed by their parties since the last local

council election, is the process of co-option and abuse of democracy?

I think of the co-option system, because it means that these

relatively unknown new councillors now have a leg up for the super

council elections in May. Rival plans for a new law on organ

donations will stop why can't the DUP and Ulster Unionist Party agree

on a single bill? And backing commentator's corner this week, the

professors. You can of course join the debate on Twitter, lots of you

are. That is on the screen. Relations between the five main

parties and the DUP and Sinn Fein in particular are as strange as they

have been in a long time. On the face of it, there does not seem to

be a lot of common ground on what to do next to progress the Haass

proposals. The Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has been given me

his unvarnished thoughts on the current state of play when he came

into the studio earlier. I ask them first how useful Tuesday's meeting

between the five party leaders had been. I thought it was useful. I

thought it was a first opportunity for the five party leaders to sit

down and not just reflect on what had happened over the Christmas and

New Year period, but to consider whether or not it was a way forward,

and that's what I was trying to establish, whether or not we were

going to be involved in a serious efforts to explore how we can move

forward. I say that against the backdrop of they're not being a lot

of confidence in where others are coming from. For example, it was

said at one stage that we should set up a mechanism to explore 340

elements of what was in the Haass documents. I made it clear I was not

interested in dealing with that, that what we needed to see where

those parties who had objections to the Haass document, lay those

objections on the table so we could explore whether or not there was a

way forward. What I am trying to avoid , what I think is important to

avoid, is a time wasting exercise. We have had a previous experience

during the discussions on these issues, which was down for three

years without a resolution. If it was a useful meeting, if what was

said in there was help all, and that's what you have suggested, why

did you come out to the great hall afterwards and accuse Unionists of

listening to extreme elements within their community? Because the

elephant in the room at the extreme elements within the loyalist

community. Those people who have been fermenting complex on the

streets. They have been involved in riots on the street. They have been

in Belfast trying to manipulate the situation for their own purposes. I

say that as someone who has stood foursquare with my colleagues in the

assembly against those people who killed two soldiers, who killed

Stephen Carroll, David Black. I expect politicians on the unionist

side, whenever the police are being attacked, they were in Belfast city

centre with 350 police officers injured, to stand with me in

outright unreserved condemnation of the activities of those who would

try to drive us back to the past. The . The difficulty is, what you

said provoked a response from Nigel Dodds, who hit back, saying that

Republicans continue to wallow in the filth of murder. It has been

downhill from there, so people outside looking in wonder if you are

ever going to be able to resolve the issue whenever you just keep

knocking lumps out of each other. I don't consider what I am doing

knocking lumps out of anyone. Unionists are very annoyed at what

you said. They say they are there as elected representatives, they have a

mandate and they are not looking over their shoulder. The macro I

tell it as it is. What I say to you, what I said to the media the

other day, I have said to the faces of my Unionist colleagues. White

macro how did they respond? What did they say? I am not going to respond

in the context of what they said, but I absolutely know that within

the political ash alums of unionism, they absolutely agree with my

analysis that for example, in the city of Belfast, the EUV F, the PU P

and the Orange Order are one and the same thing. -- the UVF. And they

have been hostile to this process over recent years. They deny that. I

also say that as someone who met someone who was involved in the flag

processed on at least three occasions last year. I come at it

from a position of knowledge of where I think people are coming

from. The reality of the situation is, the comments that were made by

Nigel refer to a situation in Cassell there, a situation where

everyone can learn lessons. But there was no one injured there.

There were no stonethrowing, no police officers injured, and a huge

attempt was made to have a parade there which would pass peacefully.

What I am talking about is, for 18 months, we have seen a situation in

the city of Belfast where there has been a deliberate attempt by a

extreme elements within loyalism to try to drag us back to the past.

They saw Cassell the is very provocative. Let me make this last

point. During the course of that 18 months, I never heard one MLA bought

one MP -- or one MP from the Unionist side point out who was

responsible. It was left to the former Mayor of Belfast, Gavin

Robinson. So are you saying there is an absence of leadership within the

unionism at the moment? Is that what you are accusing Peter Robinson and

Mike Nesbitt? Let me put it like this. I have stood against the

activities of so-called republican dissidents. My house has been

attacked my wife has been verbally abused in the streets. Slogans have

been written all around my house, and my life has been threatened from

commemorations that these people have held. I will not be put off by

that. I will not bow the knee to that. I will continue to oppose

those who continue to try to drag us back to the past, even at the cost

of my own life. IUCN Unionists do not recognise that back two della

McKerr I am saying we need to see similar leadership from those who

have stood back and watched what everybody knows within the media and

indeed, within their own parties, is extremism. A truism is that in

Belfast, the Orange order, the UVF and the PU P have paid a very

negative role in the course of the last few years will stop Unionists

watching this will say several things. You cannot say, the UVF, the

PU P and the Orange Order are the same. They have made that point time

and time again. Secondly, they will say Unionist leaders in Belfast and

the young have repeatedly condemned violence when it has taken place

from loyalist and have urged those involved in flight processed over

the last year to take part in peaceful, lawful process. For a

start, Unionist leaders have told me that they regard the UVF, the PUP

and the Orange Order in Belfast as one and the same. Which leaders? I

am not going to say. But I have been told by Unionist auditions that the

UVF, the PUP and the Orange Order are effectively one and the same

thing in the city of Belfast. Do you mean leaders of mainstream Unionist

parties? Yes. Not minor people on the periphery? No, not minor

figures. I take that very seriously indeed. You could challenge me on

the basis that I made my own assessment, and I am well capable of

making my own assessment through the work that I do, but that assessment

that I have made has been confirmed by conversations that I have had

about two people believe on the Unionist political leadership side,

to be involved in these attacks. So you are telling me these are figures

from within the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party? Mainstream elected

Unionist representatives have told me they accept my analysis and in

the city of Belfast, the UVF, the PUP and the Orange Order are one and

the same. What do they propose to do about it? I believe it needs to be

challenged, just as I have challenged the so-called republican

dissidents who are trying to drag us back to the past will stop that's

come back to Haass. . You see this policy now as one of limitation. But

you can't implement something that hasn't been agreed and that

Unionists haven't agreed. Where do we go from here? We need to get

agreement, and that is what I am trying to do. It is hugely important

we recognise that politics is the art of the possible. To make the

possible a reality, compromise is a central theme. If you look at the

three areas we were talking about, the whole issue of the pass, parades

and flags, symbols and emblems. Let's take them one by one. On the

issue of the past, the Sinn Fein position was that we wanted to see

an international, independent truth commission established. We did not

get that. We got something that we could live with, so what did we do?

We compromised. On the issue of parades, the Orange Order's demand

was that they wanted to see the end of the present Parades Commission. I

argued for parading powers to be devolved to our administration in

order to try to facilitate the difficulties they were facing. I

compromised. On the issue of flags, symbols and emblems, we wanted the

national flag and the tricolour in discussions. What was happening to

the Union flag npower was being abused all over the place. We wanted

that dealt with. And we did not manage to deal with that, but we

managed to establish a commission. If there is a mature debate, that

can allow us to have a very sensible discussion about Irishness and

Britishness and how we should respect each other. So you had a

meeting this Tuesday, you have another one between the five party

leaders next week. Is that the way to deal with this process? Is Sinn

Fein committed to moving forward on that basis for however long it

takes? Sinn Fein is totally and absolutely committed to fighting a

solution -- finding a solution, but what I not going to do is allow the

establishment of a working party down from Peter Robinson, other

party leaders and myself, which will repeat the failure of two or three

years. Has to be party leaders? I have insisted that if this is to be

taken forward, it has to be done by ourselves. Have a agreed? We are all

going to meet again next Tuesday. That is the only way forward. It

might not be successful, but I am absolutely dedicated and committed

to finding a way forward, because to be quite honest, I am fed up, fed up

hearing that the public out there who deserve better are disgusted

with their politicians who believe it cannot agree on anything. Even

though a lot of good work has been done outside of these issues in

terms of first, unemployment, direct investment, trying to ensure people

get the services they deserve, but all the time, whenever the North has

talked about -- is talked about in terms of conflict and violence

mystery, we have a duty as politicians to end that, and this is

the best opportunity. The Haass document is the best opportunity we

will ever have all The Secretary of State Theresa Villiers said she is

ready to step in and Chair discussions. Is that an option that

you're looking at? Would that help? It is not an option I would favour.

We are the political leaders. We have been through the Haass

Proposals. I want to put on record my deep appreciation of the

contribution made by Richard Haass. They spent six months dealing with

these issues, they are experienced diplomats, they are people who knew

the ins and outs of the situation here, and I think we should record

our thanks and appreciation for what they have done. That is finished

now. What I would like to see is we, as party leaders, finally cracking

this ourselves. For example, if we do, I can ring Richard Haass, Peter

Robinson can ring him and say, come back for a ceremonial handover of

the document that you have produced. If you saw his reaction last

Thursday when asked if he might come back, he laughed in an enthusiastic

way. I do not blame him. No intentions of coming back. I have no

intention of asking him back short of us telling him that we have

reached agreement and we would like him to come back because of the work

he did producing the paper. Witty back in those circumstances? I do

not have any doubt about that. -- witty comeback. -- would he come

back. Every year we are invited to the

White House to meet with the president. They have taken a huge

interest. A lot of foreign direct investment comes into the North and

we have been hugely successful over the course of the past 23 years, the

politicians of any sense of themselves, any respect for our

community, we will do this, crack this, in the course of the coming

days and weeks, not months. We will leave it there, Martin McGuinness,

thank you very much. Since the last council elections in 2011 we've had

more than 50 new councillors. That might surprise you, because, of

course, not one of the new intake has asked for your vote. Instead of

having to fight it out in by-elections, they've simply been

put forward by their parties to fill the empty seats of colleagues, in a

practice known as co-opting. Our Political Correspondent, Gareth

Gordon, has been investigating. There comes a time in every game

when a player either needs to come off, or the busting city is time for

a change, but in football there is a limit on how many substitutions can

be made. But not, it seems, in politics, Northern Ireland style.

The co-opting system was designed to allow parties to replace councillors

who had to retire through ill-health without an expensive election, but

at Mourne council, Sinn Fein has been accused of manipulating the

system by getting rid of six councillors in one else will. Most

of the councillors were highly spirited and represented areas of

South Armagh. The replacements are much younger and relatively unknown.

This former Sinn Fein councillor said that it is a move that is

without precedent. It is a clever manipulation of the co-opting system

because these unknown new councillors now, to the council

elections in May. It is not against the law but it is against the spirit

of the law, as I understand it. Local councils survive on people

willing to work for local people in their areas and it does not

automatically mean that a sitting councillor gets a vote and that

whole automatically transfer to the new co-opting councillor. Sinn Fein

totally rejects that allegation. This is if they begin phase of

transition in local government arrangements. I think we have a

responsibility to manage that transition in a smooth way, and that

is what we have done. We have a talented pool of people coming in.

We are losing significant experience and hard work with those councillors

who are leaving but they will be there to assist the new councillors

as well. The DUP has replaced 26 councillors since the last elections

but it is who the party has chosen from the substitutes bench that has

led to allegations of nepotism but at least three sitting councillors

replaced by their sons, and to buy their wives, leading to this

headline in the local paper. In Antrim Council, there was one

jarring comment from a rival councillor. We see, not only an

Antrim but white across the province, family members coming into

these seas. -- right across. How the Ulster Unionist party ever done

that? I am not aware of it. I would be on shaky ground if I use this as

something that in the Ulster Unionist party, so I am unaware of

this happening and it certainly has not happened in South Antrim. The

DUP says that all of its co-opting processes are competitive. Sometimes

it can be a family member who is the best person, who understands the

duties of that local area. We have two councillors replaced by their

wives, three by their sons, and another case, a brother-in-law.

There should be a ban on people who should be relations question mark

you had a situation across the board between this and other replacements,

and I think there have been in the region of 30 co-options, and in six

of those there has been a degree of relation, but are you going to

penalised someone because of who they have married? Is there any

alternative to the co-opting system? In Europe they have a system that is

not quite the same as ours, they just take the next name off the

list. They could use by-elections but they would be relatively un-fare

in party distribution and they are expensive, costing ?30,000. This is

expedient. It keeps the intent of democracy in the sense of, if you

elect a certain number of councillors, your are sure that that

balance will be maintained by co-opting. All the proposals have

merits and demerits. No matter what happens you will get people saying,

that is unfair, or that misrepresents the views of the

Is the DUP trying to scupper a new law designed to promote organ

donation here? One high-profile campaigner says he's suspicious

about the timing of a bill from the MLA Alastair Ross, which will

conflict with another bill promoted by his Ulster Unionist counterpart,

Jo-Anne Dobson. The Dobson Bill, which is due before the Assembly in

months, will work on the basis that people want to donate their organs

after death, while the Ross Bill will maintain the current opt-in

system. The campaigner Joe Brolly says he believes the new DUP bill is

designed to "torpedo" the Dobson Bill. Jo-Anne Dobson and Alastair

Ross join me now. Alastair Ross, is your private members bill and

attempt to tip Edo Jo-Anne Dobson's? It is a minor amendments

to existing legislation. If it was past it would not block Jo-Anne

Dobson's bill in any way. Myself and Jo-Anne Dobson both want to see more

organs are available for transplant but we disagree on how we get there.

We start from the idea that few people ever have to take a decision

about it. There are two different ways that we can deal with that.

Jo-Anne Dobson effectively wants the SMB to take that decision for

people, so every adult is then considered as a willing organ donor.

My preference is that decision should be made by the individual

about how the organs are donated upon death, and that is very

important. That is why I felt it necessary to bring forward the

amendment bill to make sure that that informed consent and individual

choice is maintained within the system. You support an opt in? Yes.

But your colleague, Edwin Bruce, said that an opt out scheme would

fully maximise the number of organ donations that we have in Northern

Ireland. You are out of step with the senior minister. I don't believe

that presumed consent or the opt out system is the magic bullet that some

believe that it is. If you look at other countries, it has not worked

and it has been counter-productive. I do not want anything that could

potentially jeopardise the number of organs available and the amendment

I'm offering the Assembly would present a decision that would

encourage people to voluntarily sign up for the organ donor register and

ensure that there is informed consent. Alastair Ross says you both

want the same outcome but want to go about it in a different way. I am

disappointed. As a long-time campaigner for organ donation, all

the charities involved are behind my bill. I watch the Bill in November

2012, and then I wrote to every single MLA last June asking them to

come and speak to me as the Bill progresses. Alastair Ross did not

come to speak to meet unlikely. I have been meeting with you every

month... He did not respond to my direct letter to come to speak to

me. Other MLA for Mike Pocock that offer. -- other MLAs took up that

offer. We want to get the right Bill. We do not want to confuse the

public. I am making a plea to Alistair tonight, work with me. Can

I give an example? His party colleague, Lord Morrow has brought

forward a bill on human trafficking. This, I would do

Northern Ireland are courtesy of knocking his door, speaking to him

about my concerns about this, not putting in something that is

counter-productive. Why didn't you knock on the door and have a chat

before you table John proposal? It is disingenuous to say that. Two

years ago we debated this and my position of a presumed consent, I

have been meeting with Jo-Anne Dobson over the last number of

months and the all-party group. What is your motivation for the way you

want to go? I do not think that it is ethically right. For example, the

bill would mean that the Assembly has decided that every individual in

Northern Ireland has decided that they are willing organ donors. I do

not think that is right or appropriate. They have the option to

opt out. I do not think that the refusal of someone to opt out is the

same as them opting in. You cannot consider the do things the same.

That is where the confusion can be. Have it as a soft option is that

family consent is still necessary, even in the case of Jo-Anne

Dobson's bill. I have spoken to people who have been in the most

tragic circumstances, where loved ones have been in a trauma unit in

hospital and have not had a conversation about whether or not

there husband or wife, mother or father, as they can decision about

what they want to happen to their organs. With Jo-Anne Dobson's bill,

those people will never have to come to a decision and make their own

notion about what happens to their loved ones public. I want to make

sure that certainty and clarity is present, giving people an

opportunity to make their decision. Alastair Ross's case is that his

proposal is clearer, and it deals with any confusion in the minds of

anyone who finds themselves in these difficult circumstances. I am

clear, I am focused and I know that I have a public and the charities

behind me. Everyone is fully behind the soft opt out. Family consent is

at the heart of it. This will actually, my bill, will strengthen

human rights because, for the first time, if you are against organ

donation, you have an opportunity to out, and if you're opposed to it,

then your wishes cannot be overridden. Can you to square the

circle so that you will be singing of the same song sheet? My door is

always open. Come to me and we will discuss it. Do not confuse the

public. I am drafting this stage of the bill. This can be incorporated

within it. The two biggest drivers of organ donation are public

awareness and I must commend Jo-Anne over that. But it is absolutely

important that we were bustly debate issues around the legislation. We

need to make sure that we have specialist nurses in place in all

hospitals, the countries with the largest numbers of organ donations

have transplant coordinators in hospitals and that will make the

biggest difference. It'll be interesting to see what happens

next. Thank you both very for joining us on the programme. Let's

hear from tonight's commentators. Back in the hot seat are Professors

Deirdre Heenan and Rick Wilford. good to see you back. Let's talk

about that Martin McGuinness interview. Rick, what did you make

of what he had to say? He he was quite close. The allegation he made

about the completion of the UVF PUP and the Orange Order was serious.

And he said it four times. He did. He seems to be saying he had it on

good authority from within mainstream unionism. I think no

doubt that will be denied, but I think the subject of all this, or

rather the super text, is leadership. He thinks the mainstream

Unionist party should man up, and say, we at the democratically

elected leaders, and we must make the decisions. But unionism is wary

of being too far ahead of public opinion within their heartlands. The

memory of Sunnydale and being so far read and what happened there, is a

lesson which has been hard-won by unionism. There will be counter

charges, and denials, no doubt. But this does nothing to help be

atmosphere, I think, in terms of the second-round thoughts which are due

to begin next week. Deirdre. I was struck by how forthrightly was. His

demeanour was so noticeable. He said he was angry, he was frustrated, he

wasn't hiding it as usual. He was basically saying, I am fed up. He is

happy to say he is fed up. He is a man with a clear idea of what he is

once and willing to put it on record. He said, I insisted that

this must be taken ownership by the leaders. They must push this process

forward. You were suggesting, for example, the Secretary of State had

offered his services. He said no, this is not the job of government,

it is the five parties who must come together and leave this process and

show, and I think he is also very aware that in the court of public

opinion, they are at a very low level. He noted he was angry that

the public were disappointed and dismayed by the politicians, and he

is showing he is aware of that and he wants to address it. He is about

the arbitrary deadline of St Patrick's Day. I think you mentioned

investment, saying you can't go to America expecting sympathy and

empathy when people can't agree with each other. There are other places

we can invest, and we need to have confidence. There must be a

deadline. It can be an open process. We have had this agreement, white,

happy Saint Patrick's day agreement, and down the road, the St Patrick's

in Saint Georges agreement to macro we would have a full house. Somebody

to eat it, why do all our agreements have to work around public holidays?

They are all patron saints. It cannot be going on longer, there has

to be a deadline. I was interested that he did dismiss bilious' option

to actually come and share or co-chair talks. It is interesting

because part of her role Secretary of State is to safeguard agreement,

so you can imagine is saying, you have a judge and I am to step in.

Really they don't want that. They fear she may take that decision, so

they are saying the five parties must lead this process, and as you

say, we need a clear timeline. Let's move on to the other big news of the

week, the Ian Paisley interview. We have seen part one. The second part

is to come next Monday. Were you surprised to hear him say among

other things, he supported civil rights, he was opposed to

gerrymandering, he was unhappy about bloody Sunday? Yes. It would have

been truer test of his leadership if he actually said those things at the

time and in that context, and the fact of the matter is, went with the

flow of some really quite visceral attitudes. The other thing that

struck me was, it was a remarkable exercise, I thought, in selective

memory and disassociation. At time and again, he said, I may have said

such and such, but he seemed to see no link between some of his public

statements and his inflammatory language and what then happened on

the streets. Extraordinary. Do you think he is attempting to rewrite

his place in history? He seems to be worried about his legacy, or else

why would he have agreed to this? I think it is interesting with older

were 40 hours of interviews. If this is the best we could get out of

them, it really doesn't answer many questions. I don't know from

watching if he was led by politics, or by religion, but I think it is a

case we have to acknowledge that there may be too little, too late,

but he is saying that civil rights was right, and that they have the

right argument. We need to leave it there. Good to hear from you. Thank

you very much. That is if this week. Join me on Sunday for Sunday

Politics. From all us, goodbye.