04/02/2016 The View

Two Chief Constables, one major issue - how to deal

Hugh Orde says the Historical Enquiries Team should never have

been wound up, while the current man in charge, George Hamilton,

rejects the criticism and calls for more money

Tonight on The View we hear from both men.

The failure to deal with the past is a political failure not

Tonight two Chief Constables unite in their criticism

So what do the politicans make of that?

I'll be hearing from the DUP's Emma Pengelley and Sinn Fein's Gerry

Also on the programme, with May's election looming,

it's a four-way battle for the six seats in Upper Bann,

where women candidates are leading the charge.

Rick Wilford and Deirdre Heenan are back together in Commentators'

There's been deadlock over the outstanding issue of the past

for many years, and several leading politicians have told this programme

recently there's no chance of agreement on the issue

But tonight one former Chief Constable tells this programme

legacy has to be sorted out as a matter of urgency,

and the politicians have to face up to their responsibilities and secure

When I spoke to Sir Hugh Orde, who retired as Chief Constable

in 2009, I began by asking him if he believed then

that the politicians would have agreed on how best to deal

Well, I was naive enough to believe early in 2003 having just taken over

that there would be a determined effort by politicians to deal with

this very difficult and challenging issue. And sadly, of course, that

still has not happened. I said at the Historical Enquiries Team and my

ambition was to be part of the wider process. But is why we set it up but

sadly no one came in behind us leaving the team to be the only show

in town and now sadly even that has gone, so I think we have gone

backwards, not forwards. You say sadly that has now gone. You

established the HET. It's a remix was to look at mode -- murders. You

will of the view that should not have happened. I think it was a very

sad decision. I understand why the Chief Constable made that decision.

I do not think it had much choice bearing in mind the reports written

by Her Majesty -- majesties established, which in my thinking it

was flawed. I think it is a complete failure of leadership. I was

extremely angry when I heard it had gone and of course, the real reason

I was angry was it meant David Evans of the past now had absolutely

nothing -- the victims of the past. Nothing had been put in its place.

It was a travesty of justice and based on very bad and very flawed

thinking. Just to talk a little bit more about that report which you

have just criticise, it said the Historical Enquiries Team risked

undermining the confidence of those who died in the troubles. -- the

families. Do you not accept any of that? It was based on trying to do

something fundamentally different to what police services did in the

past. It was trying to understand what the victims wanted to know and

then doing our absolute and level best to give them some form of

resolution in terms of what had gone on when their loved one was killed.

What we have now of course is a vacuum because we do not have the

Historical Enquiries Team, nor do we have the other bodies that were

supposed to the established under the fresh start agreement. We do not

have any yet anyway. You said you think this issue has gone backwards

rather than forwards since you moved on and returned as Chief Constable.

What do you make of the political effort to try and actually deal with

this difficult issue? When the deputy chair of the pleasing board

set up a review with some very, very sensible thoughtful people who

undertook what can only be described as a con presence of review --

policing board. I thought it was an excellent way forward because it

recognised how complex the issue was and one size would not fit all. I do

not think politicians need to do any more than show some leadership, work

together, com offensively together, to say we really need to look at

that report again, take the best bits, there were some issues when it

was reported and see if we can use that to actually drive this process

forward -- comprehensively. At the moment, I am certainly not seeing as

a casual observer of the issue any real determined leadership from

across the political spectrum to make something happen before

tragically the next generation will all be dying without understanding

better what went on to their loved ones doing the troubles. You

mentioned in the past it was hijacked by one recommendation and

left on the shelf to gather dust. I refer the macro suppose you are

referring to the one-off payment of ?12,000 to victims and a lot of

people, a lot of politicians, were not happy about bad recommendations.

Are you saying they should be a degree of cherry picking? The big

that make sense to most people should be commended and the bits

people do not like should be left out? Once you start that process,

you will get no agreement. The only reason that recommendation was in

there was because so many people that gave evidence to the review,

many of which were of course held privately, indicated that would be

some thing that would -- that was important. It did not suit anybody

to acknowledge that fact. I recommendation put in all the right

reasons was then used to not implement anything. My sense is a

short, sharp focused review would deliver a starting point that is

decades ahead of anything else currently on the table. And we have

not got time to stop at again. That would just be another political

manoeuvre to keep this on the very long-term sort of agenda, rather

than facing up to the issue, showing some leadership, getting the bulk of

the shelf, having a quick conference around it, what do we drive forward,

what do the families need and doing it quickly. It looks like the

sticking point at the moment is disclosure by the British government

and Republicans at the Northern Ireland Office do not seem to be

able to reach agreement on how that should the and could be managed. Do

you see a way that could be resolved? The only way is that

politicians collectively show some joined up leadership in how they

want to deal with this issue. It is not for an ex-police officer to

advise them. Disclosure is a hugely complexes you but these processes

are around what people can see and what they cannot see, they need a

political solution rather than a legal one. If we hide behind the

law, all we will see in the future will be more and more demands for

more inquests, more public enquiries, more reinvestigation is.

There simply are not the resources for any of that to happen so it is

the sort of reality check and political leadership will resolve

that issue if they wanted to be resolved. It is not look like the

British government wants to engage with the notion of disclosure. It

was made clear that the MoD is not the main forward with the kind of

information that it should be coming forward with. It is not making any

kind of commitment to give information to victims families that

it has an obligation to do. Exactly. But is why it needs to be dealt with

by political leaders and the leaders of those organisations that hold the

information. I think there will come a point where this just needs to be

put out on the table. Of course there will be issues of balance and

concerns about putting far more resources into the actions of the

state than the actions of terrorists and all those sensitivities will

emerge, which is widely politicians from all sides who represent all the

communities need to sit around the table and come up with a solution.

It will certainly not happen without clear joined up political

leadership. But we have got a new First Minister, Arlene Foster, who

in one of her first remarks suggested that outstanding legacy

issues will have to wait until after the election. Does that demonstrate

to you the kind of political will and drive that you say we need to

see? One thing I learnt in Northern Ireland is there is no such thing as

good timing. If something happens, you have to deal with it. You cannot

wait. And I think dealing with the troubles absolutely fit that

category. It cannot wait any longer and the reason for that is not some

legal process or some legal intervention is that the families

who want to know what happened are getting older by the day. I remember

very clearly right at the beginning of my time there, one case, the case

of Hegarty, a young lad killed way back in the 70s, we got to a point

where we felt we could give the family some really important

information but by then a degree, they had passed away. I do not think

that is the right way to look at it. We need to give people some peace as

they get older Randall passing away. And that challenge of delivering a

resolution is still dominating the agenda for the current Chief

Constable, George Hamilton. I caught up with him just

after today's meeting of the Policing Board,

and I began by asking him if he agrees with Sir Hugh that it's

time for our politicians to show The pasta such a strong and toxic

political issue. Has that strong predictor leadership been absent,

honestly, in the last of months or years as a mark I'm not good to make

any progress on this, we are not going to collectively make rollers

on this by pointing a finger of blame at each other and saying where

the good leadership is and the bad leadership, what I would say is what

make sure that the police of its makers latest role in helping this

delivery solution but I think we all know that a criminal justice

solution to dealing with the past is less and less likely as time goes

past. So what I am keen to do is see the likes of the infrastructure that

was proposed in the Stormont House Agreement actually made real. And I

accept we need to get political consensus and agreement around bad

for it to happen but I think that is the best hope for is for the future

and actually bringing some closure and finally -- finalising the herd

and trauma and Rosyth people are suffering. Is there not a response

with the only politicians to get on with it now and get this issue

resolved because you have said yourself it is a toxic issue. Well,

Beagle good we get to a resolution the better. Significant progress has

been made. It has been listed in for us and it must be even worse for the

families and for victims. And of course we need to get a political

solution to this. Police service, the Court service, the judiciary and

not gone to resolve this issue because there are many facets to it

and I think there is a well articulated in the infrastructure

that is proposing the Stormont House Agreement. In the absence of that

agreement, it must be hugely frustrating for you just as it is

fascinating for the families but hugely frustrating for you to be

caught like a piggy in the middle. The past is the present for those

that are suffering and grieving so we cannot dismiss it as it is in the

past. But for me there is a huge challenge, Ada Lanner around

balancing resources between policing yesterday and policing today and

tomorrow. OK, what makes this pedigree difficult of courses your

critics might say that you are at least partly responsible for the

vacuum that currently exists. Hugh Orde clearly not happy that the HET

was stood down. That is a decision you took. The vacuum is your fault.

I think the institutions within the Stormont House Agreement form the

basis of what he was talking about in terms of sending bigger to

actually deal with the past. It started off in the right fitting but

there were problems as we developed, public confidence in the work of the

HET. Hugh Orde said in his piece that this was a different approach

and I think that was to be welcomed at the time. There was to be victim

centred and answer questions for families. All of which is important

but actually under the police act, my responsibilities to collect

evidence, conduct investigations and to bring offenders to justice.

Clearly in doing that we want to do it in a way that is sensitive and

informative for families but that was the problem. The HET did not

have a firm grounding of what its purpose was and it moved over time.

You think you were backed into a corner and had no choice? In my

view, the confidence in the HET as a result of the report was ebbing

away. Not just within the nationalist and republican community

but with the Unionist and loyalist community. Even police families who

have lost loved ones during the Troubles. We have replaced that with

a more clear focus on the review and investigation. Your request for a

special committee was refused to investigate the activities of the

agent Stakeknife. They will not set up a specific committee but they

will deal with it as business as usual. My view is that it is bigger

than that. What do you do? Hopefully negotiate with a fellow police

constable from England or Wales to oversee and set the direction in the

control of this investigation. It is so controversial and toxic that I

think it needs practical independence of external leadership

and indeed the investigators and teams working on it must be at arm

's length from the PSNI. There has been speculation that the

investigation could cost ?25 million over five years. I think that is

probably conservative. Probably about ?7 million per year. When it

gets up and running at full tilt. More than ?30 million. Where does

that money come from? The policing resources are a matter for the

politicians saw it either needs to sit with the Department of Justice.

David Ford said it is not his responsibility and it is an issue

for the Secretary of State. I have a significant budget that is reducing.

If I get to the point where I am unable to staff, there is a

responsibility on politicians to meet that gap. I am asking for

underwriting rather than a check up front. When we get to a point with

an operation of this scale, costing this much money, I will need some

political cover around the reason sing. Between various bodies, it is

a matter for them to sort out the politics, not my job to referee it.

Can we talk about the issue of disclosure. The Secretary of State

has a problem of onward disclosure with national security. Her concern

is seen to be at odds with Republican demands. Can you see any

way of that being resolved sooner rather than later? I have serious

considerations to make around disclosure and I often get

criticised for taking time to do it or sometimes not disclosing

material, but that is because lives are at stake, and other sensitive

information is at stake that is not suitable for release. There must be

a way to work through this with some sort of arbitration which does not

diminish public confidence in the institutions and infrastructure

being built. Can you see there could be circumstances where information

needs to be in the public domain, which could be embarrassing for

yourself or predecessors, but is part of a bigger victory that

resolves these huge outstanding issues? It would be the right thing

to do. I think embarrassment is never a good enough reason to

withhold information. That is a given. I wouldn't have wanted to

withhold information because it would be personally, professionally

or organisationally embarrassing. Not a good enough reason. Hopeful,

confident that before your time is up as Chief Constable, this issue

that you have described as toxic, will have been resolved and that

toxicity will have left of the wider political landscape? I hope so but I

can't say that I am confident or 100% certain. It is interesting that

the first Chief Constable on your programme tonight thought it would

have been resolved earlier. I hope that we can get resolved in the next

few years but it has been an intractable problem and it will need

a lot of compromise and brave decisions on all sides to move it

forward. Let's hear now from two

of the politicians who are both involved in trying to resolve

the outstanding legacy issues, the DUP's Emma Pengelly

and Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly. On the programme tonight we've had

a former Chief Constable and the current incumbent making it

clear that these outstanding issues have to be resolved

by the politicians. The DUP are determined to build a

better future. We have to have compounds of way of dealing with the

past. I believe we have a set of proposals on the table further

negotiations of the Stormont House Agreement and the first start deal

that can do that. But you have failed so far. 13 years after, it

has not been resolved. There is a great deal of agreement. The DUP

went into these negotiations with key principles, no amnesty for

terrorists, no rewriting of the past, just as must be available to

all victims and survivors and we believe those proposals do add.

There she is not between Sinn Fein and the DUP. The issue of disclosure

is between Sinn Fein and the Secretary of State. Has the DUP

dealt with this matter properly? No question of political failure on the

part of the DUP. We negotiated detailed proposals with better

investigations, for a new body to be set up, and we negotiated additional

funds from the British government to do that. It is ready to go as soon

as we get the green light. So it is over to Sinn Fein to get the issue

resolved quickly. So it is your fault, Gerry Kelly? No. What is

missing from the discussions as Theresa Villiers. When you say a

plague on all your houses, it doesn't deal with the political

difficulty. The DUP stayed out of that part of the argument the whole

time. They said it is discussion between Sinn Fein and the British

government, but they came back into it at the end when the issue was

around Theresa Villiers having a veto. She said publicly that the

British government would give full disclosure, then when the

legislation came, there is a veto that she has. This is like pass the

parcel. She said it is your fault and you see it as Theresa Villiers'

fault. I said what is missing here is Theresa Villiers. The point I am

trying to make is that if you want to understand the problem then

understand. We went through negotiations, a litany of stuff, and

all parties made substantial advances. We have the architecture

and everyone is agreed. A number of times one of the issues was around

Article two of the EC HR, the risk of life. No, everyone is in

agreement. It has never been an issue. A number of people have said

that. Theresa Villiers hides behind it. She is saying she wants a veto

to say what can and cannot be given to families. Let me give you an

example. You don't have to theorise are anything. The person in charge

of public records has tried on multiple occasions to take public

records and give them to the families. But as Theresa Villiers

done today? She is trying to prevent that. We didn't ask Theresa Villiers

to be here. What she has said repeatedly is that she has taken the

time to sit down and talk to victims to try to find out how they want to

see this issue resolved and she says it is perfectly possible that the

outstanding disagreement between herself and Republicans can be

resolved. I agree but where is the resolution? She is talking to

victims and survivors. We have been doing it all along. We put forward

an absence paper which said clearly why not give the same power that the

ombudsman has two the director? Or if you're not happy with that, and I

think George Hamilton mention something similar, put up a panel

which can decide what is in the interest of national security or

not. You suggested it is the fault of the Republicans. They have heard

Gerry Kelly. He says it is the fault of the Secretary of State. But we

are still sitting with the same problem unresolved. One thing

suggested was bringing Eames-Bradley from the shelf and having a review

to see if the best parts of it could form a mechanism to drive us

forward. I think those comments show that perhaps Hugh Orde has not been

entirely engaged throughout the Stormont House Agreement. There is a

great deal of agreement. There is an unreasonable position by a small

number of families in terms of the definition of full disclosure. It

was mentioned that the party leader said this would not be resolved

before May. That is not from a lack of commitment from the DUP. You say

you want to see it resolved now. She said this on a number of occasions.

A small number of families. In saying that she is dismissing the

nationalist and republican families who have suffered death from state

forces. It is quite erroneous that there are a small number of

families. We spoke to those families and we did not come up with these

issues on our own. They have to be represented. You must take them into

consideration and Theresa Villiers will find this out if she is going

to see all the families that if she dismisses them, she dismisses...

They are being badly advised about what is doable. If anybody believes

that the British governed or any national government will simply say

they are handing over national security issues to a third party,

that is unrealistic. If the ombudsman has the power, why do they

not trust the new director to have that sort of power to make those

decisions? If the Secretary of State has a problem she can take it to

court. Martin McGuinness said last week that the trick is to find a

resolution which the victims' families can live with. Can Sinn

Fein change its position on national security and still meet the needs of

the families? That might be the solution. From the families' point

of view when we look at it, national security cannot be used as an excuse

not to bring forward information about any criminality connected.

From the British part of you, they argued that they couldn't give out

anything which will endanger life. We agree. The third one is from the

British point of view, being able to show the techniques we use now, and

I there is some way of dealing with that. We asked them to tell us what

they meant by that. Your party leader has said on this programme a

few weeks ago, the issue will not be resolved on this side of the

elections in May. Why not? We don't believe Sinn Fein and the Secretary

of State will resolve it. We want them to. Arlene Foster is trying to

be realistic. We are not in the business of giving victims and

survivors false hope, but we want this to get resolved, and now. Sinn

Fein need to get this thing resolved. The DUP are not outside of

this process. They are agreeing with the British position, so you cannot

wash your hands. So release the money. We are involved in it and so

are you. At least we have aired the issues.

During this year's Assembly election we'll witness a whole series

of fascinating political battles - none more so than in Upper Bann

which includes Portadown, Lurgan and Banbridge.

The seat encapsulates the battles within unionism and nationalism.

The constituency's also notable because the four largest parties

have all selected women candidates, as our political correspondent,

Stephen Walker, has been finding out.

It is a constituency that takes its name from the river but politics has

never float quietly here. The area contains place names that were once

associated with conflict. Those who represent this place at Stormont

Arriva unionist or nationalist and the battle for power here has often

been quite heated. Upper Bann has six MLAs, to DUP, Ulster Unionist

Party one Sinn Fein and one SDLP. This year the parties have all

selected high profile wearing. Dolores Kelly is an SDLP MLA.

Jo-Anne Dobson sits in the assembly for the UUP. Carla Lockhart is

running for the DUP with Catherine Seeley Stannington Sinn Fein. Carla

Lockhart works for the sitting DUP MLA Stephen Hunt tray but she

defeated him in a selection process and now wants his job. Was it odd

being selected ahead of your boss. Stephen has decided at this stage to

take a look at his own business interests and I therefore will be

putting my best foot forward and delivering for the people of Upper

Bann. How does Carla Lockhart view her female rivals? Men should be

there on capability and not just on a token female but I figured is

quite trailblazing for two. Catherine Seeley is hoping to make

history by taking a second seat for Fein. We are very much focused on

getting two seats, not allowing the other parties to get on. Do you

think a second seat is there? Absolutely. I would not be sitting

here otherwise. We came so close in the previous assembly election. That

was back in 2011 when two of Sinn Fein 's candidates outpolled BS TLB

on the first count but the party only took one seat. Sinn Fein will

have two manage it very carefully. We got quite a good first preference

but the transfer did not come to them the last time. They will have

two split their vote 50-50. In 2011, Sinn Fein came close to taking

Dolores Kelly seat. I know that Sinn Fein through the kitchen sink at

this constituency five years ago. They brought canvassers up in their

droves from the South of Ireland and said there would be a third

nationalist seat which is not the case. I think people are now astute

and know that Sinn Fein 's real intent is to topple the SDLP from

this constituency. I will not be the candidate that allows that to

happen. We'll Sinn Fein did -- succeed or can the SDLP Triumph? The

last time people here went to the polls was last year 's general

election. Then the DUP secured 33%. The Ulster Unionist Party 28% of the

vote. Sinn Fein got 25% and the SDLP got 9%. Dolores Kelly was the SDLP

's candidate in last year 's general election. She admits the results

were not good. People came out to vote for me last year knowing that I

was not gone to win that election. I have a lot of experience in this

constituency. I have been proud to represent this constituency now for

over 13 years and I intend to serve the people of Upper Bann for another

five years. Vote management is not just an issue for Sinn Fein. It

isn't the Ulster Unionist Party consider. Are there three Ulster

Unionist Party scratchy Mark know, there are not. There never were and

there never will be. I think we are offering the electorate choice, a

fantastic choice and I am much looking forward to taking to the

doorsteps. Is there really room for a third Ulster Unionist? Absolutely.

Upper Bann is steeped in austere and is and I am running alongside a

fantastic team. Like Dolores Kelly, Jo-Anne Dobson ran in last year 's

Westminster election where there was much tension between the Ulster

Unionist Party DUP will retain the seat. It is going to be an

intriguing battle. There will be two DUP, two Ulster Unionists and the

third one, win a ticket. -- winner take it all. I believe it will be a

dogfight between the last two women, Doris Kelly and Catherine Seeley of

Sinn Fein. This constituency is always worth watching. The election

may be three months away but Upper Bann is already making headlines.

Stephen Walker on what's shaping up to be one of several intriguing

And let's hear what our commentators make of the latest twists and turns

in the political world, and it's great to see two

old friends re-united tonight - Professors Rick Wilford and Deirdre

Emma Pengelley 's remark that it was a matter for the Secretary of State

and Sinn Fein to resolve and we will stand back is absolutely an

abdication of the leadership and political response ability. I think

that the remark you made about Martin McGuinness a week or so ago

saying that if it is families can put up with what is being proposed

then that is good enough for us. I think that may be a way of mediating

what may be a very difficult decision. We really are in a

quagmire and it will take the wisdom of Solomon to sort this one out.

This pass the parcel and point the finger. I do not worth the

intervention was helpful. He is not a independent -- independent...

George was quite measured in his response but quite clearly was not

pleased with what had been said and perhaps felt it was a criticism of

what he has been asked to do. What is clear is we need an integrated

coherent approach to solve this. It is not just a police issue nor a

criminal justice issue. It isn't in that needs critical leadership as

well. I actually think it is a fool 's errand. I think George Hamilton

said it himself. I think the most that people can hope for an believe

is achievable really is to have a set of truths from the various...

Over the period. There are lots of tributaries. Maybe people feel if

the risk or the threat of Colonel Justices removed, in effect an

amnesty, then those charities will be free to throw. We have talked

about a fresh start and we have to accept that the stories coming out

on a daily basis, scathing attacks on defence institutions, are eroding

confidence and be blah saying a plague on all our houses. Who can

you trust? I am not dispensing with the justice notion altogether

because I think if it could be created whereby perpetrators and

victims and families can come together in some sort of if you like

rest are true justice situation context then maybe the truths will

become more apparent and maybe people will feel free to speak. Is

it naive to hope for some kind of resolution this site of an election?

I think the answer you got is clearly that is not going to happen.

You can see why that is would expect that to be the case. If the

politicians are serious about is resolving this issue, that ought to

be a possibility. But if we say it will not be possible beside the

election, then we going to a recess. The victims are again saying they

are being used as political pawns coming up to an election. How

serious are they about resolving this issue? What we are doing here

is using the past... We should be using the past to remind us what is

happening. The past is defining us. Realistically, I think it is to ask

ourselves a very pertinent question which is what is achievable. And

acceptable. And if they ask themselves that question, rather

than chasing kites, I think that is the road to nowhere. Thank you both

very much indeed. That's just about it

from The View for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics

at 11.35 here on BBC1. But before we go, at Stormont this

week, Members had been practising their best puns

for a debate on pigeon clubs but, whatever it is about pigeons,

the MLAs weren't the only ones Today an amendment sought to include

pigeon racing... Come on. Passed by the assembly today and it will give

Mr Swanson then to tweet about. I hope he does not repeat that. He did

fly off to America and we do not hear a tweet about him since. It is

ridiculous. Wondering whether Communications in my old party are

by way of pigeon carrier. Really not very nice. We will let this one fly.

We think the policy does have wings and those clubs should get their

rates cheap cheap.