19/11/2015 The View

A week of major political developments -

Peter Robinson announces he's to retire, while the agreement that

should save Stormont has led to recriminations and accusations.

On The View tonight - is the "fresh start" more of a false dawn?

Peter Robinson prepares to say goodbye to the DUP at this weekend's

conference with the ink barely dry on his deal with Sinn Fein.

So, has it been tough at the top for the First Minister?

It is a rough trade, and the further you get up that greasy pole, the

more people are wanting to bring down.

There is a certain amount of sensitive information that could

have assistance to terrorists. And on such a dramatic week,

we've boosted the cast After four decades in politics -

and the last seven years in the top job as First Minister - Peter

Robinson is stepping down after, in He said it's been 'difficult' to

find the right time to go, but following this week's deal,

now seems 'appropriate'. Our Political Editor,

Mark Devenport, spoke to Mr Robinson and he began by asking him

when exactly he plans to give up I have left the exact timing with

the party officer. Either at the end of this year or the beginning of

next would be the appropriate time. The rest is really up to the

electoral college. If they pick somebody from outside the Assembly,

then the position has to be divided. If they choose somebody from the

Assembly, that is an option where they hold both posts. We are a

Democratic party and we take those decisions based on the interest

shown in standing for the post. Would complicate decision-making if

the DUP leader is over in Westminster? -- would it complicate?

We have a system where when we appoint somebody to a position, we

entrust them to start -- carry out various functions. I don't breathe

down the neck of my ministers, if I had to, I have appointed the wrong

people. There will be time when they, as is the case at the present

time, will want to consult with colleagues, and all of that will be

done collectively. You have always been known as a

24-hour politician. How will you cope with retirement? Will you give

up full top? -- stop. I am not the kind of person who will

sit and idle around the house and get in my wife's way.

I suspect it probably won't do politics, but we will see as time

goes on. I am probably not at a position where I will take those

decisions at this point. You have had your crosses to bear,

there was the controversy... You are talking about the press

office! Yes, and more recently controversies

involving Nama. Have there been times when you thought I can't be

bothered carrying on? Yes, it is a rough trade, and the further you get

up that greasy pole, the more people want to bring you down.

The notice by gift to whoever takes over the position, don't expect the

honeymoon to last too long. -- the notice I give. The cross hairs will

be on your back straightaway. Your predecessor had some harsh

words for Europe -- about you after he left. Did that hurt at the time

and is it something you will learn from?

I simply wouldn't find myself in the position where I am going to turn on

friends and colleagues who have supported me throughout my lifetime.

I will be there to give support, to encourage those who follow, and if

the party wants me to give advice, I will give it, but I am not going to

stick my nose in and interfere in future decision-making. I will be

there to encourage and support. Will you endorse any successor?

I will endorse whoever the successor is. But you will not enter into any

sort of competitive race's it is wrong for an outgoing leader to try

and shake that. What I do know is that all of those who might be

considered are friends of mine, people who have served me lawyerly,

and they can accept -- expect the same from me.

Peter Robinson's thoughts on moving on.

Let's get the thoughts of our guests - Sinn Fein's John O'Dowd,

the SDLP's Mark Durkan, the Alliance leader, David Ford,

We did ask the Ulster Unionists to take part, but they declined.

No great surprise that Peter Robinson's going. Is it because the

party now sees him as an electoral liability? No, the DUP is the

powerhouse it is because of what Peter Robinson has done. He has said

himself that he feels this is the time ago, it is not easy to bring a

career 40 years, he has helped to bring the party from nothing to the

powerhouse it is today. They got us our best electoral result ever in

the 2011 Assembly elections. -- he got us. Over the last few weeks he

has got is a deal that stabilises storm on, and it is up to him to

take his decision and now is the time to go and we wish him very

well. -- stabilises storm. Mark, how did you get on with him? The first

dealings would have been way back in the Brooke and Mayhew talks. I saw

he wanted to see a deal done but wouldn't want to do the deal. In

1996 he adopted a position of enabling opposition but then

attacking the very rules themselves and attacking people who agreed on

to that. But he has his own discipline view of things but is

pragmatic enough about letting things flow sometimes. Martin

McGuinness said today he regards him as a friend wants to take him

fishing when retires. Not the kind of relationship the public imagine

they had. Martin and Peter come from different political backgrounds, but

they have managed to hold the Executive together through a very

difficult period for politics in this society. To do that requires

trust, and also a degree of friendship. It may not be the

friendship your viewers recognise or others recognise, but to make that

work, to secure the deal we have secured over the last number of

days, there has to be trust and a friendship. Do you regard him as a

friend? I don't know him as well as Martin, but I don't regard him as an

enemy. He led the DUP through a very challenging time, and was prepared

to take risks in terms of his political leadership and his

approach to society. For that, I respect him. David, you clashed many

times down the years. What has his contribution been to local politics?

He has played a very significant role in recent years in embedding

the arrangements since 2007. I have seen time when he has been getting

on well with Martin McGuinness, time when the two of them were not

getting on. There has been a certain brittleness around certain issues,

whilst at other times there has been that willingness to go ahead and

compromise. Simon, finally, are you backing the dream team that

everybody is talking about, Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster? Today is a

day to reflect on the positive legacy and positive impact Peter

Robinson has had on the DUP and politics in Northern Ireland. The

party officers will discuss this in the coming days and set a process in

motion. It is testimony to the strength of the party that Peter has

developed, but we have so many people but have the ability to step

in as leader. Sammy Wilson refused to leave himself out, some people

are touting you as the Deputy Leader. It is deputy -- testament to

the strength of the party that there are so many people who at capable of

stepping in. Thanks very much indeed.

And now for the second big political story of the week.

On Tuesday, after ten weeks of negotiation, the "Fresh Start"

With it came a way forward on paramilitarism

and welfare changes - but continued deadlock over legacy issues.

I've been speaking to the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers,

and I began by asking her how she'd managed to find

an extra ?500 million for the deal, when she'd always maintained there

We have shown that when a credible case is put to us that the specific

issues with which Northern Ireland needs extra support as a result of

the unique circumstances it faces, we will stretch ourselves it -- if

it is possibly affordable. It has been immensely difficult to find

that support, given this is the most difficult public spending

environment we have had in this country for many decades. But we

were determined to do all we could to play our part to try and get a

successful outcome to the talks. The victims of the Troubles are

disappointed that legacy is not part of this latest deal. You know the

victims commissioner is deeply unhappy, victims' groups feel pushed

to the side under down once again. Failure to get that as part of this

deal appears to rest with you. -- feel pushed aside.

We were very clear that we would provide the fullest possible

disclosure to the new historical investigation unit, but in order to

safeguard national security, we had to play some consider -- place

constraints on the information that unit could put into the public

domain. The reality is there is certain information that is too

sensitive to be put out into the public domain, and we would be

taking risks with the security of the people who it is our first duty

to protect, the people of the UK. But some of these

to protect, the people of the UK. killings took place almost half a

century ago. One victims' group has asked repeatedly,

century ago. One victims' group has a 45-year-old killing can possibly

be a threat to current national security? The Technics, capacities,

capabilities of the intelligence services, which were being used all

those decades ago, have still been kept secret. And putting them out

into the public domain with not only assist dissident republicans in

their efforts to kill people, they would provide help

their efforts to kill people, they terrorist groups who watched the

Internet assiduously looking for any means by which to foil the

Internet assiduously looking for any prevent terrorist attacks. But I

have heard representatives say they don't want that kind of disclosure.

When you say that, you are in fact introducing a red herring

When you say that, you are in fact discussion. You could only want to

use this feed to discussion. You could only want to

business of discussion. You could only want to

by state agents. -- veto. They not interested in current security

information. That is not true. We not interested in current security

want families to have as much information as possible, but there

is a certain information as possible, but there

information which if it was publicly known with potentially give

assistance to terrorists. We simply could not compromise on that. The

Chief Constable has made it clear supports full disclosure. He is

happy supports full disclosure. He is

relating to death but supports full disclosure. He is

the Troubles to be made available in the public sphere. Does he not

understand national security? I am not sure which comment you are

referring to but I am sure he would agree with me... He says records

should be thrown open, he was crystal clear about that. I am sure

he would agree with me that where information, if revealed, would

jeopardise national security that it would be inappropriate. The victims

commissioner and an assortment of victim's group have asked to meet

you urgently. Will those meetings take place shortly and who do you

intend to meet? I have said I want to see the commissioner and

representatives from victims groups as soon as I can. We have not

scheduled those meetings yet but I hope they will take place shortly

and I will certainly be taking the victims Commissioner's advice on key

groups to meet. I think we can find a way forward. We have found common

ground between five parties leading to the legacy bodies. With further

work we can find a way forward that will get legislation into Parliament

or the Assembly and get these bodies set up. Let's pick up on the issue

of victims. We are hearing that the victim's form is demanding a meeting

with the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.

It's also seeking 'an unreserved apology and explanation from those

Will you apologise and explain why Sinn Fein insisted

There are a multitude of views in the victims's groups as to how you

approach the past. There are also many victims's groups, families and

survivors who said we quite correct not to sign off on the legacy

aspects of the deal as presented to us by the British government. There

is a multitude of attitudes and approaches to this. You are not

bothered by the victims? No, we are not dismissing them. We are seeking

full disclosure. The reason given by the Secretary of State, and I am

sorry she is not in the studio, but would have been helpful, the reasons

given by the Secretary of State do not stack up. During the talks

process, the Secretary of State was issuing certificates against the

DCAL minister opposing the publication of public records out of

the office. Public records. That is an important point. Sinn Fein could

have included elements to do with victims and continued to have your

disagreement, your conversation, your debate, discussion with the

British government about national security. You could have gone down

that road and you didn't. Victims feel very disappointed. We could

have gone down that road, however, with the use of certificates by the

Secretary of State, the other structures could not have worked

properly. The Secretary of State is the person issuing certificates. She

is the person insisting on using national security as a blank cheque

to stop disclosure. Simon Hamilton, never signed up to be doing, but

Sinn Fein has not allowed legacy to be a part of the deal. Can you

explain to the audience White the British government is insisting on a

national security detail concerning troubles related deaths which took

place decades ago? There is a risk in dwelling on the past and legacy

issues which were not agreed, but we forget the good bits in the

agreement. We have agreed welfare reform. We will talk about that.

There are lots of things that are positive. On this issue of legacy,

yes it was not included in the deed, we did not get it over the line

completely, but that takes away from the fact there was a lot of work and

progress made on these issues and it was this final issue of national

security that caused problems. Clearly the Secretary of State has

given her explanation. It is the position we agree with and I think

the government has got to protect its national security interest. We

are concerned the disclosure that others are wanting is not available

to victims of terrorist violence, IRA violence, UDA, EDF violence.

That level of disclosure is not available to them. Can you see why

victims are concerned that it is the British government using the excuse

of national security to cover up, potentially cover up, criminal acts

by state agents? The Secretary of State has given her explanation, I

do not think that this motivation. It is about protecting national

security interests in terms of what can be divulged that might have an

impact on terrorism and paramilitary organisations like dissident

republicans here and now. There are others out there in the world who

are looking to find creeks and gaps and so forth in British intelligence

services and how big other information. Clearly, in the time we

are in, we do not want to risk that. The failure of the deed to resolve

legacy issues has had a huge impact on your brief as justice minister.

It has an impact on the justice system, on victims. It has risen in

difficult circumstances. It does not matter whether you are British,

French, Spanish, steps up to be taken to protect national security.

The draft bill add layer upon layer which suggested the Secretary of

State would interfere. The result of that failure to agree is that the

justice system still has mastered issues to deal with from the past.

The Secretary of State in the House of Commons about money being

available when the institutions are set up. The UK Government has

international obligations which it has to recognise along with the

moral obligation to the Executive to see that we meet those needs for the

ombudsman, for the legacy inquest, for the police, for the work which

must be done by them because we do not have the institutions. Mark

Durkan, discussed this issue in the house today. How would you move it

forward question mark Sinn Fein have said on less everything is agreed,

nothing can be agreed. TE agreed that that position was right? It is

hard to get a veto in relation to legacy issues. The Secretary of

State White finger at Sinn Fein and the SDLP saying there would not be

an agreement on the past and less welfare reform was done. We have a

deal on welfare reform and we do not have the past moving forward. We

need to make immense are not. All others in the political process will

stand indicted and criticised by victims that this has come about. We

need to move forward. We leave this to be sorted out between Sinn Fein

and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State cannot get away

with saying that what she is doing is consistent with what she said in

a stormy post. In a stormy post. About onward disclosure. In this the

national security thing is common in everywhere. Contrary to the

impression that Simon gave, the people being protected with some of

these national security vetting issues are people who were involved

in paramilitary killings. It is not just people involved in state

killings who are protected under the guise of national security, it is

people who were involved in paramilitary killings. It is a false

concern that Simon is expressing here. Do you want to respond to

that? It is not a false concern. There is a balance of those cases

that would be dealt with being those that involve state actors. There

isn't that level of disclosure, and this is a concern we have and have

expressed in the talks, that that level of disclosure is not available

to the victims and survivors of IRA violence or UVF were UDA violence. I

want to move on to welfare. John O'Dowd. You have managed to secure

less money for the most vulnerable here compared to the deal last year.

How exposed is Sinn Fein electorally by what you signed up to? We have

achieved more money over a shorter period of time for people on welfare

and the hundred thousand families who are watching this show tonight

will see their family tax credits and working tax credits cut. Sinn

Fein could have remained in its position and said we will not shift

from our position around welfare and we are going to ignore those 100,000

families, but in my opinion, we made the right decision, we changed our

position and we brought in a further round of people who would have

suffered as a result of Tory economic policy. What is your

message to those people who are not affected by tax credits but who are

the most needy in society you said you want to protect and who now have

less mitigation, less protection than they had last December? They

still have protection. We will see... There is less money in that

side of things. There is significantly more money in the pot

for a family tax credits and working tax credits. A large section of our

society... It is a separate issue. How is it a separate issue? The

people who will benefit from tax credits are different from the

people you promised to protect. We promised to protect the most

vulnerable, hard working families are fundable to cuts from Tories as

well. What do you say to your constituents, Sinn Fein voters, who

depend on benefits? Who are not as generously protected in this did as

they were in the previous two estimate what I say to all voters

and all people affected by welfare reform, because we did not go into

the talks simply around Sinn Fein filters on welfare, we went in to

the talks for all citizens affected by this policy. Let's be clear, your

post in Sinn Fein until September this year was that no claimant,

present or future, would lose out. Can you still say that? No, we

can't. George Osborne stood in Westminster and changed the

goalposts. 100,000 families were brought into the equation who were

losing out because of family tax credits and working tax credit

cuts. We refused to walk away and leave them behind. Last time it was

Theresa Villiers, now it is George Osborne. They are in the same party

and in the same government. You are shaking your head. This is

dishonest. Sinn Fein said nobody would lose out on benefits that were

under their control. They have simply handed control to somebody

else. To say people will be vulnerable to the Tories and then

give it control of that to the Tories, give them direct route

powers for 13 months at a key stage in welfare, because we know that

George Osborne, after what he said in July, will follow up with more

cuts. He has been forced into saying there would be more mitigation UK

wide. We do not know that the mitigations will be on a par with

what Sinn Fein and the DUP are seeing is part of their special day

now. Then the Executive will have more money to protect people. There

might not be a wider benefit the antibody. Let's be clear, Sinn Fein

said all along it would protect people they would not do anything.

We have a situation for the DUP have been on a rollover in relation to

welfare reform and not Sinn Fein have engaged in handover in relation

to welfare reform. To hand but how to be Tories, to say we are putting

our faith and trust in the Tories, that is how we will protect people

from Tory cuts, give them the power directly. Why did the DUP agree to

hand ?240 million for tax credit mitigation back to the Treasury over

a 4 year period when this could be completely changed, the goalposts

could be moved by the Autumn Statement from the Chancellor next

Wednesday? We were keen to support the 105 families across Northern

Ireland affected by tax credit reductions so we are glad that the

deal covers ?60 million a year... We have no idea what the situation will

be. That is notional. The Chancellor could move the goalposts to the

other end of the pitch by next week. Let's see what happens. That is my

point. You have signed up to it and it is a notional deed. It is the

right thing to do. We were right to take into account that we needed to

do something in respect... You cannot know if it was the right

thing to do. We know the numbers in terms of tax credits and those

people will be affected by what ever George Osborne is in the next number

of days. Those are families who will be affected. There will be families

in Northern Ireland who are hard working families, families we want

to support, they will be affected. You cannot say things like that, it

is not right, you have not crunched the numbers because you do not know

what the numbers are. George Osborne will tell you next week what they

are. There are families in Northern Ireland who will be affected,

105,000 families, we will see what happens with George Osborne in the

next days. Whatever he does next week, there will be families,

hard-working families, relying on tax credits who are going to need

the support we have set aside for them and I am glad we have agreed

that. It looks likely to party did. You voted for it in the Assembly but

not the Executive. We voted for the legislative consent motion for

welfare because that was the least responsible thing to do. We did not

vote for the deal as a whole. It is a 2-party deed as far as you're

concerned? It is a 2-party and to government did. Is it a diminution

of devolution because the small parties are not happy with that? We

were supposed to start off with the two governments plus five parties

process but it became clear it was not just a matter of the document

being agreed everyone, it was a document prepared to be directed at

everybody else. Some of the issues in it, the point of finances, we do

not know what the outcome of the stand-off between George Osborne and

Labour and Lib Dems will be. We do not know what the Autumn Statement

is. We got no business case for dealing with issues like corporation

tax. It is a suck your finger, stick it in the wind and hope kind of

budget. I do not know if you regard that as a positive or negative note

to end this part of the programme. Not a great deal of agreement around

the table but we appreciate your time.

Let's hear what our super-sized panel of

commentators make of the deal and the departure of Peter Robinson.

Newton, you have been writing about about this as far as welfare's

concerned. Do any, on many of the numbers, stack up? It is a slightly

worst -- were steel for claimants. But reality had to be faced, Sinn

Fein has swallowed hard and excepted what had to be done. -- a worse

deal. I think in the future this greatly stabilises this toxic issue

about how to manage a sort of half devolved welfare system. I think the

reason they had to perform a U-turn so quickly is because they need to

start looking a bit or responsible for the southern electorate. What is

not playing well is the legislative consent mechanism. It smacks of

devolution a la cart. -- carte. When you look at the welfare package,

look at the issue of victims and survivors. Not only is this a deal

that is not dealing with legacy issues, but a significant portion of

disability living allowance claimants that they've in this

jurisdiction are victims and survivors of the conflict. They will

have to go through this working capacity assessment, there will be

looking at benefit cuts. The talk of putting in a victims' and

survivors' pension is part of a let -- Legacy package that isn't agreed.

Do you regard this as a glass half full or glass half empty deal? Some

people think it is just a bad deal, but others would say, adulation fame

and the DUP deserve credit because they have agreed on quite a lot and

they are still working apparently on what they haven't agreed on. There

was a broad move across civil society and a call for the parties

to make a deal. So I think we have to say, they have made a deal.

Devolution matters to us, and we still have it. However, then we get

into the detail. And all of this just has to be worked out and agreed

one way or just has to be worked out and agreed

can have everything they want, so we are glad there is something on the

page. As someone who was part of the are glad there is something on the

there is nothing are glad there is something on the

issues here, which are glad there is something on the

to say the least. We had an operational

to say the least. We had an Unfortunately it has not. How big an

obstacle to future progress is Unfortunately it has not. How big an

that legacy is so far raised -- unresolved? Considerable -- a

considerable barrier. Trying to deal with the past, you certainly cannot

do it. If you look at the deal overall, ?500 million of new money

is not a bad ill, it is not pocket money. But if you look at some of

the things that are not addressed, for instance parades, the is still

-- the fresh start deal says we want parades to be an Assembly manner

when -- matter when it is devolved. All this does is park problems for a

later date. I am less derisive about the financial elements of the deal,

I think they're quite substantial, but I think some of the other staff

that has caused problems was not addressed. You've written widely

about the DUP, and follow the career of Peter Robinson over a long period

of time. What you think about his decision to go at this time? A lot

of people are asking, has he jumped or was he pushed? Why stay on? The

DUP are or was he pushed? Why stay on? The

high water mark of 38 seats in the Assembly. And he has chosen his own

moment of departure rather than the moment of departure choose him. And

he does leave quite a set stature legacy. The St Andrews agreement, he

was the brains behind that. The devolution of policing and justice

and the fresh diet deal, but is quite substantial, but the biggest

single legacy is what he has done to his party. Peter Robinson, one in

five members joined the DUP after he became leader. He has got more women

into the party, and there is going to be this interesting dual monarchy

with Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds now. Nigel Dodds is on record as

saying that the party leader has to be members of the Assembly, so there

try to circumvent that if Arlene Foster is First Minister. What do

you make of the timing of Peter Robinson's departure? From his point

of view, was at the right thing to do? I think his political career has

been a study in contradiction. On the one hand you have a leader who

inherited very easily the mantle of statesman from Ian Paisley and was

very comfortable with the pomp and ceremony around Westminster, but on

the other hand you have had a career that has been plagued by a we say

concerns, starting with his involvement with Ulster resistance,

moving into the difficulties with his comments are Muslims last year,

and the most recent allegations about llama. On the one hand you

have as John said a leader who has resided over the electoral rise of

the DUP -- Nama. But he lost his own Westminster seat, so it is almost a

case now of the DUP saying here is your hat, what's your Harry? I heard

him described today as fundamentally chameleon-like, hardline progress

depending on what he needed to be at any moment? He was a tactician. Just

before the flag protests he was speaking about reaching out to the

centre ground, but when that was tested by loyalist problems he

backed down from a position. We will never know of the project he clearly

thought of as a good idea full of rising his party would ever have

come to fruition. -- liberalising. He has now left in -- an elaborate

structure that other people might find hard to work. What has his

contribution been? I wouldn't call him a tactician, I think the man was

on a very strategic trajectory, and that hasn't been easy so he has had

to manoeuvre around to keep himself focused on that trajectory. And I

think his public persona hasn't always convinced us of that. But I

do think there is a contribution here as John says in terms of

reshaping the DUP in particular. But we will see how successful he has

been as we go forward. John, will it be a dual monarchy, and will be

those two individuals? I'm fairly sure it will be. Members will get a

vote, and I can see a contest taken place. Sammy Wilson didn't rule

himself out. It is only the one MEP, the MLAs that can vote. The DUP

don't normally do internal contest. Join me for live coverage of

Peter Robinson's conference speech this Saturday at noon on BBC2

and also for Sunday Politics And, as the First Minister steps

down after 40 years in politics, and the biggest band

in the world returns to Belfast, Robinson, featured -- Robinson

Peter, 15,994. No smiling for the cameras, no

cringeworthy photo 1,400 years ago,

Europe was in crisis.