01/02/2018 The View

In the ongoing political vacuum,

victims of the Troubles continue

with their struggle for truth.

Tonight on The View,

we hear from two men who drew up

a legacy blueprint which -

almost a decade later -

is still gathering dust.

In 2009, the Eames-Bradley report

was meant to resolve

many of the issues around legacy,

but now in 2018 what do Lord Eames

and Denis Bradley make

of our changed political landscape?

I'll be asking them if the prospect

of Brexit has altered relationships

here and if the ongoing problem

of the past is now having an impact

on our view of the future?

Also tonight - she's been described

as the most powerful woman

in Westminster and now she's

on her way to Stormont.

There is something fundamentally

wrong which is happening in Northern

Ireland and I have no doubt she has

been brought over to help sort out

problems.

I do not believe she has

been parachuted in, I do not see how

that could have happened.

that could have happened.

Plus MPs vote "leave",

but this time it's to get out

of the Palace of Westminster

while billions of pounds

of renovations take place.

I'll be asking the MP Ian Paisley

why he thinks it's good

value for taxpayers.

And staying put in Commentators'

Corner - we'll have the thoughts

of Professor Deirdre Heenan

and Newton Emerson.

It's nine years since the Eames

Bradley report was published -

and we're still, it would appear,

no closer to finding a solution

to the legacy of the Troubles.

Tonight I'm joined by Lord Eames

and Denis Bradley in

what is their first major joint

interview since unveiling

the controversial recommendations

of their report into dealing

with the past.

Welcome to you both.

We'll come to the issue of legacy

shortly but first to Brexit -

a debate that both men have

also become involved in.

You have both engaged publicly

in the debate over Brexit recently.

Lord Eames - you've expressed your

reservations about a potential

'knowledge deficit' in certain

quarters regarding what Brexit

could actually mean for how

people live and work here.

How concerned are you at the lack

of awareness you've come

across at Westminster?

There is a confused attitude to what

is happening in the devolved

nations, Wales, Scotland and

ourselves. When the negotiations are

going on, Wales and Scotland have

elected representatives speaking for

them, searching out for solutions to

those particular areas. For Northern

Ireland, we have got dedicated civil

servants listening and speaking for

us but the impression that

Westminster is very much, where is

Northern Ireland? Why are we not at

the table and pulling our wheat?

Particularly over the question over

devolved rights and duties after

Brexit, how will they affect

Northern Ireland? We think of

farmers, fishermen is, education and

hospitals. The confused attitude to

this in Westminster is very marked

because last night we too could the

act which will allow us to look

after our situation in the whole of

the United Kingdom when Brexit

comes, it has reached its next

stage, it has gone to committee

stage. Time and time again we were

asked, what is the position of

Northern Ireland? Houses the

devolved administration in Northern

Ireland going to be cheated

alongside Wales and Scotland?

We

have MPs and peers in the House of

Lords and Commons but are you saying

we do not have a functioning

Executive which is causing a problem

over the problem of Brexit?

Undoubtedly. When Milik at the role

of central government, the role of

devolved administrations, how will

they have the relationship what

happens at Westminster and

especially ten Downing St, how will

we relate that to the particular

needs of Northern Ireland? Even

today, the EU were saying to the

Northern Ireland select committee,

nothing has been agreed about the

border. After all we have talked

about, it is a devastating remark.

Do you agree that is the democratic

deficit at the moment on this

critical issue?

That is always a

democratic deficit when people are

not talking to each other and Brexit

is huge. Sir Keir Starmer was here

during the week and he had a look

around. We taken the place which

overlooks and Donegal, it has been

there for 1400 years. You can't see

the border but at this moment in

time, this whole constitutional

issue is back on the table in a way

I do not think any of us foresaw.

Certainly the party season Northern

Ireland did not foresee it. It is a

state of limbo where they do not

talk to each other about these

issues. They talk about smaller

issues, about definite rights and so

on for specific groups of people but

at the same time, that is major

debate going on. We are caught in

this weird situation whereby I have

never seen nationalist and more

contented and settled and confident,

certainly in my lifetime. Northern

nationalism, and yet, in the form of

Sinn Fein, it does not seem to be

able to get past the organs which

take responsibility for problems

here in northern Ireland. I have

never seen Unionism more fearful,

more tetchy in the sense of somebody

like me on an Irish prime ministers

cannot say they are Irish and they

want a united Ireland. It is time we

got past that childishness and

re-engage in proper debate. We need

to get into rooms together and be

capable of engaging in mature and

creative conversations. We will not

solve everything overnight, this

debate will go on for years and no

one knows where it will end apart

from the fact that what will be

different will be different from

what we have at the moment. What is

certainly true, Lord Eames is

correct when he says that we need to

get this act together. I should stop

calling him Lord Eames. We need to

get the institutions up and running

for the sake of all of our people.

We have succeeded in getting rid of

violence but not in staying with

each other in the same room to talk

to each other.

We just heard from

Denis Bradley his view of the impact

of Brexit on the nationalist

committee and -- community and on

the unionist community, are you

concerned there is a real danger at

the age old argument of orange and

green will fall out all over again

over the new issue of Brexit?

There

have been many assurances we have

been given that the Northern Ireland

situation has been taken seriously

but negotiations are based on

compromise. Discussions can lead to

conclusions that were never imagined

when it began. My worry is that once

we get to the next stage of the

Brexit negotiations, some of the

assurances that we have been given

about looking after Northern Ireland

and its needs can be lost sight of

if the bigger plan has to move

forward. The impression I have at

the moment in Westminster is that

you have to wait until you see what

the final plan is but it is now that

we need to produce the arguments and

now that we need to make the points

as the devolved administration and

that is why I am trying to emphasise

to Westminster that the ordinary

people of Northern Ireland are

absolutely tired of what is not

happening. They are wondering who

will be responsible, who is going to

listen to what is happening and who

will make the special issues of

Northern Ireland accepted at the

highest level of the Brexit talks.

He had said that the Prime Minister

needs to re-engage with Northern

Ireland and quickly?

Symbolism is

very important. It has always been

important in Northern Ireland. The

symbolism of the Prime Minister

being seen to take a particular

interest in breaking the deadlock at

Stormont cannot be missed. That is

why I use that as an example on the

float of the house, that is where

people here would feel they have

been listened to.

That's their needs

are being met. So she needs to come

over here and directly take part in

that talks process?

There are other

ways of showing that importance but

it is important that people see that

the very top of the British

government is taking this seriously

what is happening in Northern

Ireland.

Do you agree?

I do but I

also think the Taoiseach should be

with her in the room. The only thing

which works in Northern Ireland is

when the two governments lead. I

think it is shocking that we have

been handling these talks, they do

not want to declare themselves as

joint cheers of these talks. They

may produce a paper and get all

parties in the same room. But they

should have been producing a paper

on the first day because they have

had a year of talks and they know

exactly the issues. They should have

all the parties in the same room and

thirdly, we have a democratic right,

to know what is going on. It is

grand to see we need some of these

negotiations should be in secret,

some should be in secret but after

one year or two, it is time we knew

exactly what the situation was and

the two governments should be

telling us. Stop pussyfooting to all

of our parties. When the two

governments act with authority and

determination that is when you get a

Good Friday Agreement and get the

end of conflict and you begin the

possibility of breakthroughs in

relationships.

Politics is also

being played out against the

backdrop of legacy issues. We had

the divisive Kingsmills a few weeks

ago and upset this week to the

families of victims with a reduced

sentence handed down to Gary

Haggerty, where it is legacy issue

is bigger in the wider debate, nine

years and after your joint report?

They are indeed making us depressed

and depressed people with one thing

on the agenda, our news headlines

are full the past. We warned about

this, this could become the dominant

feature which will destroy a lot of

things in Northern Ireland. It could

destroy politics, social life,

reconciliation. We needed to get

past and beyond that. Reading the

sign of the times at the moment, it

is becoming a bit clear, well this

is my reading of the situation, that

the British government are thinking

of introducing a statute of

limitations. That has some great

difficulties with it but it was in a

report to a degree. We said the work

she be done in five years and then

it should stop. That is when the

amnesty should come into being. The

British government are thinking of

doing something similar at the

moment. I think they will not be

able to do it just the veteran

soldiers, they will have to do for

everybody to make it constitutional

and make it get the courts. If that

happens, and other things will

happen. Internationally it will be

seen as probably against breaking

international rules but I think the

British government will probably

face that down. The political

parties here will jump up and down

but behind-the-scenes they will be

released. I think that will go,

especially for Sinn Fein and DUP.

The victims here will feel betrayed

but the victims also need to face

something perhaps, that if they are

not going to get justice and truth

which I think is becoming less

likely as the years go by. As it

dominates and darkens our lives then

I think the victims need to also see

there are a lot of other ways of

dealing with the past and they may

have to settle for dealing with

things like pension and welfare in

good health facilities, all those

other things which are also within

our report. That there has to become

part of our discussion.

Thank you.

If you're saying the UK Government

will create an amnesty. Would you

welcome that. Would you agree that

is now necessary to break the

logjam?

No, I didn't welcome it nine

years ago and I wouldn't welcome it

now. But it is better to tell the

truth about it. It is important to

be truthful with people who have

lost loved ones. If it is we are not

going to get to the mechanisms of

justice and truth, let's be truthful

about that and not doubly hurt

victims and then get on with the

rest of it and do the things that

are doable and helpful and creative

to people. Many people live without

pensions and many people live in

trauma and all those things. It is

better to be truthful if that is the

road we are going down and be

truthful now.

Do you agree with that

analysis?

Hold on, the point I would

put in addition to what Denis has

said, which I largely agree with, is

people cannot come to terms with the

fact that a new generation that's

going to inherit the mistakes that

were made in our generation is a

generation that's reading about

these things in history books. They

didn't come through the Troubles or

the tra ma. That generation is

inheriting what we are not doing.

That is why I think it is important

that we talk about the truth and say

what is a victim looking for. I have

been concerned for years with many

of these victims and time and time

again I have to remind people, it is

to do with ordinary people. It is

not just about politics. It is not

just Westminster or Stormont. It is

about people suffering in their

lives, because of what they have

come through. When you go to the

generation that is eventually going

to take over from us, that is a

generation that only read of these

things in the history books. That is

post-Brexit.

You also just to

complicate this further, have had, I

think its fair to say, a slight

change of heart on the definition of

victim and you're not entirely happy

the the statutory definition.

It is

not that I'm uncomfortable with the

moral question, but the fact I don't

believe it is telling the whole

story. A generation were victims of

Troubles. There were particular

cases and those were devastating

cases, but we have got to take the

longer view as we move on towards

Brexit. I'm sorry but the two things

are linked. We can't put them into

little boxes of their own. The

Brexit generation is bringing to the

surface not just about devolution

but how we have come to this point

of major decisions for the whole of

the United Kingdom and that

generation I'm referring to in our

schools, growing up, they're the

ones who are going to interpret what

we are talking about tonight.

Denis?

Well, I mean... My fear is that we

are going to continue this battle.

We said that if you dealt with

the... If you dealt with our past

within the criminal justice system,

it would wreck us financially and

emotionally. To some degree I think

that has happened. The amount of

money that has been spent in the

criminal justice system is shameful

and it hasn't delivered great

results. The second thing is that it

results in an emotional blackness,

because it's... The criminal justice

system doesn't feel with themes,

doesn't deal with looking and

analysing. It is about guilt and

innocence. And that is if way we are

dealing with it. That is the way we

appear to be condemned to deal with

it. Because our politicians couldn't

get our act together and the two

governments never got their act

together. I wouldn't fully blame

your local politicians.

How do we go

forward? The victims are not getting

any younger or getting any answers.

How do you help them?

The reason I

talk about the signs of the times is

that the British Government are

still talking about national

security or are now. When myself and

Robin did a formal interview with

the British government nine years

ago there was never any mention of

that. They talked of article 2 and

8, but that has come on to the

agenda. The second thing is the

statute of limitation in that narrow

sense for British soldiers. That

can't happen unless theres is a

statute of limitation for everybody.

So the possibility of justice is

ruled out F that be the case, it is

better to say that rather than not

telling the truth. They will

probably have a consultation and

send that out to the public after

the number of reports that have been

done and the amount of study and

consultation that has been taken

place. Then they will decide it is

complicated. For God's sake they

were told that ten times within the

last ten years. And then probably

what they're going do is introduce

some kind of narrow statute of

limitation. If that be the truth,

let's face it and the victims and

particularly for the dignity and

welfare of victims, let's do the

other stuff we recommended - story

telling, welfare, pension, all the

aspects of the past are not

contained there and there are issues

that be paid for and implemented.

You can sense the frustration. Do

you share it.

The problem with his

frustration, whip I share is that in

fact when our report came out, nine,

ten years ago, we now know that

society wasn't ready to think of

those issues.

Do you think it might

be now? I think that the climate has

changed. And I to. It is not just

that we wrote the report. But time

and time again over the last ten

years, people are referred to some

soft principle -- of the principles

we put forward. But they couldn't

accept it then. It haze changed. Do

you think it should be reexam

minuted if Karen Bradley is

watching, or other advisors, what

are you saying to them.

It is not a

question of flattery that we wrote

the record. But we took a wide

consultation before we made the

proposals. The fact it got the

reception it did was because society

hadn't got to the points where they

wanted to face up to those issues.

But now, when people talk to me

about what we said then, the

attitude has changed and says

perhaps we should look at it again.

Denis, just a final sentence to you.

What is your message to Karen

Bradley and others who could change

the course of this debate if they're

watching?

Be honest. Be a little bit

courageous, work with the Irish

Government. Encourage them to be

honest and courageous. Tackle us all

in a fashion which has some dignity

and maturity, challenge us, make us

grow up. And get us out of the

depressive state and the negativity

we have allowed ourselves to become

and make sure that you drive our

local politicians back into power.

And remember how far we have come

and the fact that we are living

still with those memories. Don't let

us sink back.

Thank you. It has been

fascinating to hear your thoughts

nine years on from the publication

of that report and what will be the

public reaction of what you have

said tonight.

Now, she's been dubbed the woman

who really runs Britain.

Sue Gray is a civil servant

with enormous influence right

at the heart of Westminster -

so how come she wants to run

a department at Stormont?

Her appointment as Permanent

Secretary at the Department

of Finance here has led to a tsunami

of theories, including one that it's

a sign the Government is getting

ready for direct rule again.

But could the reality

be much more mundane?

Gareth Gordon's been investigating.

This is Sue Gray. She has been

described as the most powerful woman

in Britain. As deputy God. And as

the most powerful civil servant you

have never heard of. Although that's

changing. Unlikely as it may seem,

Sue Gray used to run a pub outside

Newry. Today it is a creche. But

once it was a pub and locals

remember her. Adrian was one of the

regulars.

A good laid y. Top class

land lady, run a good show.

Basically a good mixed crowd. Both

sides of the community drank in the

pub. Good way with her. Very good

way with her. The time we knew her,

we knew she worked in the, well a

Government or civil service job and

then could be somebody who worked in

the dole office. I only heard

recently what she has come back to

lead the department of finance.

As

Permanent Secretary of the

department to be precise. .

I'm head

of...

Here she is giving evidence to

a Westminster committee. Head of

propriety and ethics in the Cabinet

Office is a very seen your position.

She led the investigation which led

to the resignation of Damian Green.

Why would she leave this post for

what many see as a back water in

Northern Ireland? Well, her husband

does come from County Down.

# You

got my number!

got my number!

Bill Connellan is a

country singer. Could the couple

want to return to his roots? This

politician doubts it that is simple.

No, I think and I think many other

people would think she has come

across to sort out the Northern

Ireland civil service. Let's talk

about the reality. We have a

political Crisis and a crisis in the

Government machine and each day when

we hear more information from the

RHI inquiry and what is going on

with our energy market, what has

been going on with everything from

ratings to everything else, there is

something fundamentally wrong and I

have no doubt she has been brought

to help sort out the problems.

But

this civil servants is not buying

it.

It far-fetched. There are

stories she has been parachuted in.

I don't see how they could actually

have happened. There is not the

legal power or the means of doing

it. I think she is coming to do... A

very interesting and challenging and

worthwhile job.

A journalist who has

followed her career has another

theory.

I think the likely reason is

nothing to do with the state of

Northern Ireland politics, but she

has an odd CV and has become seen

your without having experience of

running large teams. So it is

difficult to go from her current

very senior job to the next layer

and become the Permanent Secretary

of the department, because her CV is

thread-bare. Going to a smaller

department, that is a way to get to

the next rank despite the problems

in her CV that would stop her taking

over the department of work and

pensions.

A spokesperson said:

As for the notion that her

appointment is a a forerun, Steve

Aitken doesn't believe that

I

thought they were getting ready for

direct rule. But I don't think that.

I think they realise there is

something wrong that needs to be get

sorted ow. Regardless of whether we

get Government back up and running,

she is there to sort out the

problems.

Who ever is right. It is a

long way from running the Cove Bar.

We thought she was the most powerful

woman when she run the pub too,

because she was the land lady

scomplam

MPs are to move out of

Palace of Westminster. It is for

improvements. There are problems

with asbestos and collapsing roofs.

MPs voted for a decant. But there

was some emotion.

This building is

not just stone and marble and

stained glass, it is not a

structure. This is a home, a

statement, this is a place of

democracy. This stands for something

in this nation and beyond. Far more

than mere bricks and mortar. This is

the place where democracy lives and

if this, it is so easy to say we

could move elsewhere and it would

still be a Parliament. But it

wouldn't be the building that has

survived bombing fire and yet we

have come through. I think it is

crucial that that foot print be

retained.

Stephen Pound at his oratorical best

there in the Commons.

The DUP MP, Ian Paisley,

is with me now and,

unlike Stephen Pound,

he's keen to leave

the Palace of Westminster.

You voted to leave again.

It is a

very serious matter. I don't think

Stephen said anything I disagree

with or I said anything he disagreed

with. We love that building, we love

the history and cherish what has

happened there because it is so

significant but if we make sure

we're good custodians for future

generations, we have to do something

now because 70 years ago people

failed to do something for the

building so we must make sure it is

properly refurbished. A special

committee should be setup to look

this issue. They just want us out of

this building and I want to stay.

The evidence is so overwhelming that

the building needs to be

refurbished. There are options and

each one is more expensive. Would it

have people working round is the

next 40 years which would cost

billions more than the proposal to

move out for a short period of time.

This is the cheaper option and best

for the taxpayer?

It is the best

value option. We looked at all the

options, it is not feasible. When

people are having their whole

kitchen pulled out in the Roman

homes, the last place they want to

be is trying to live and work in

that environment. How much more up

with the building of that

significance were about as asbestos

and fire hazards. Three people have

to walk grind up building 24 hours

every day, every week. -- walk

around. Not to look for a fire spot

to put them out.

Some Tories think

there is a subplot, to get you out

of the building and never get back

in again and turn into a museum,

what if is true?

We decide when we

go out. We decided through a special

purpose committee and we decide when

to go back in. Further into

Whitehall that is plenty of space.

There is a building in East Belfast

doing nothing.

There is.

Maybe you

should go to purse or Stormont.

The

seat of power has to be in the

capital city of our nation, that is

London and that is whether it should

be.

Stephen Pound referred to the

young thrusters who want to get this

under way as soon as possible, do

you see that as yourself?

As a

51-year-old, I'd take that as a

compliment.

But daily Telegraph

today was talking about the idea

that you begin the campaign and you

will never get back again. It might

be your son who finally makes the

decision and maybe he will be

persuaded to go somewhere else. You

think that is a false argument?

Yes.

We are the politicians elected by

the people and we will be in charge

when you go back into that building.

It is essential the work is done

correctly, it is the most iconic

building on these islands and for us

to allow it to go to rack and ruin

and foolishly putting off this work,

probably for about four years. Then

we get back in.

Just to pick up what

Lord Eames and Denis Bradley talked

about, what is needed no is

truthfulness and openness to deal

with the legacy which is a running

sore, nine years after the

publication of their report. Is

there any merit at that report being

dusted off the shelves and looked at

again?

The basis of what Dennis said

is that someone is not telling the

truth. I think people are being

honest but truth hearts. It is

difficult to get a solution. They

both need to get back into Stormont

and run the government of Northern

Ireland to deal with these serious

issues instead of hitting minor

issues in the way of progress.

Compromise on all sides? My party

has a track record of doing the

difficult stuff.

We will leave it

there, thank you very much for

joining us.

Over now to Commentators' Corner

where Deirdre Heenan

and Newton Emerson will no doubt

have plenty to say about tonight's

discussion with Lord Eames and Denis

Bradley.

Welcome to you both. Let us dive in,

there was a lot of passion in what

Denis Bradley was talking about,

dealing with an issue which has been

sitting like a festering sore?

A lot

of passion and frustration,

understandably. There seem to be

intractable issues regarding the

past, a solution has eluded it as

Ford two decades. What we have at

the moment is an ad hoc situation,

we have the coroners Court and

private prosecutions which is

causing harm, it is eroding

confidence in our political system.

It is causing harm to victims and

the system of governance. We could

bring and academics from across the

world, with the say anything

substantially different from James

Bradley? It is in the Stormont

agreement, get on with it. --

Eames-Bradley report.

Eames-Bradley report.

Is there an

inevitability to some kind of

amnesty across-the-board?

Only if we

reach a conclusion before everyone

involved has died of old age which

is how it seems to be at the moment.

There was something in the

Eames-Bradley report is all nine

years ago... Look back on other

talks, they are sitting on this

fresh start agreement, whenever this

issue crops up, the same outline...

Although it is an extremely

complicated structure, the fact he

coming and people come back to it

means maybe it is an effective

cancer. It is hard to get your head

around what you need to back and

provides a comprehensive solution.

-- effective answer. Even though it

may be painful for some parties?

We

can work around the small details

but the principles are -- there and

they will not change. Will you get

truth and justice? All those other

ideas about oral history and

disclosing information are important

to people who want to know the

truth.

It is part of a package which

post Lord Eames and Denis Bradley

said, there may be parts that some

individuals preferred to others but

you have to take it as a whole.

Different combinations of truth or

justice depending on what you as the

victim want or expect but in the end

it is all wrapped up under themes by

a panel of experts to reach a

conclusion. It is important the

process reaches an end but at the

moment, we are waiting for time to

brush it under the carpet.

Lord

Eames brought the conversation

brought -- brought the conversation

back to Brexit to see you cannot see

it without the context of Brexit

happening, as far as not having

devolution in Northern Ireland is

concerned, do you see where he's

coming from?

I think he's talking

about the withdrawal bill, there

were huge discussions in the House

of Lords and no discussions in the

Northern Ireland. The Secretary of

State Kimmel said she could not

discuss broadband because it is

devolved issue. These issues will be

taken back to London and no one has

batted an eyelid. Yet Scotland and

Wales have said we do not want those

powers return to London.

Lord Eames

thinks it is a big problem?

That is

because we are not talking about it.

There is no possibility of dealing

with this huge issue in the future

when we can do with the issues of

the past.

It is very interesting, do

you think people will look at it a

fresh?

I think they will have to.

How many times do we need to go out

to consultation, as he said? We have

the answers, it is about having the

will to move it on.

That's it from The View

for this week.

Join me for Sunday Politics

at 11.35 here on BBC One.

And we leave

you with a reminder of one

of the big stories of the week -

the return of Sir Kenneth Branagh

to receive the Freedom of Belfast.

He may have left here at the tender

age of nine but we've unearthed

a little gem that shows he never

lost his ear for Belfast humour.

Good night!

MUSIC.

Holy