15/03/2018 The View

As the fallout continues

from dramatic claims about political

transparency from Northern Ireland's

most senior civil servant.

We ask: have our politicians been

keeping us in the dark?

Tonight on The View:

What price transparency?

I'll be asking MLAs past and present

if there really was a culture

of secrecy at Stormont.

Gareth Gordon has been assessing

the odds of a return

to a devolved Assembly.

I don't know. I wouldn't want to be

the bookmaker to take the odds on

that at the moment, now.

It's a

cert. You could put your house on.

We'll hear from Shane Harrison,

who's been running his eye over

the form guide in Washington ahead

of St Patrick's Day.

And just to prove there's

nothing new in politics,

we unearthed one of the classics.

So what is your problem?

Well, the

minutes aren't written yet.

I see.

So, what should I do?

Write them,

dear man.

And finally, with the inside track

on all of the above,

columnists Alex Kane

and Fionnuala O'Connor are in their

very own winners' enclosure.

Hello.

Not keeping records of meetings

between Stormont Ministers,

their advisers and officials

was this week described by the Head

of the Civil Service as "safer".

The reaction to David Sterling's

comments disputes that.

So where does that leave

the reputation of Stormont,

in the shape of both the former

political incumbents,

and the senior civil servants

who now run the place?

With me to reflect on Mr Sterling's

comments are two former Ministers -

the Ulster Unionist Danny Kennedy

and the Independent Claire Sugden,

and the former Sinn Fein chair

of the Assembly's Finance Committee,

Daithi McKay.

Thank you for joining us tonight.

Claire Sugden did David Sterling's

comments about an absence of

note-taking come as a surprise to

you?

Yes because certainly the

department was always keen to be in

the room with me and take notes.

Some circumstances I nearly had

civil service on top of me. To be

honest, I felt that almost ruined

the dynamic in meetings I had. I

think again David needs to clarify

his comments because there's some

situations where it's maybe not

appropriate to have as many civil

service in the room as would want to

be.

Why would that be the case in

For example, as Justice Minister I

was meeting with victims and they

were telling me personal stories. To

have ten people sitting behind me

was intimidating.

I had a note taker at the least in

the room with me to give me cover or

something was said or I said outside

the room we had a record of that.

Was there an occasion when a senior

civil service said to you, minister,

it might be bet are for all sorts of

reasons not to put everything down

on-the-record because the last thing

you would want would be an FoI

request or inquiry application which

would then reveal something that you

might not want to be in the public

domain. Did that conversation ever

happen?

Not a senior civil service,

no, but a low grade civil service

into my ministry reminded me that

any comment I made in submission

papers or anything I said would be

subject to FoI. I don't think it was

to encourage any secrecy or lack of

transparency. If anything it

encouraged me to be more thoughtful

about what I put down in those

submission papers. We have to be

mindful around this, the debate on

the FoI when requests are asked for

they are very much asked about

specific pieces of information.

Policy a long development process. A

piece of paper can be taken out of

context in terms of the wider debate

around that. . Reflecting on it now.

Do you think there was ever a

circumstance when you as a minister,

in a meeting, that you knew was

being noted, held back from saying

something which you didn't want

subsequently to be on the public

record? No. I wouldn't have felt

that I held back in anyway. I didn't

really feel I needed to. I had

nothing to hide Serge as a minister.

I uphold that value of transparency.

No, certainly, I'm not perfect. I

rely on my civil servants to give me

information and my perspectives may

not have been correct. I wouldn't

have say everything floating around

in my head.

I was mindful about what I was

trying to do. That was trying to do

a good job and be as diligent as I

could be not to discourage

transparency.

David Sterling said

that in his experience it was fairly

common across all departments that

notes would not necessarily be

taken. So that they were not

recoverable at a later stage. Was

that a surprise to you to hear?

It

was an interesting contribution. My

initial take on it was that David

was trying to create a distraction

to ensure the focus of the session,

in terms of his involvement with

RHI, that wassic taen away. But I

think I agree that he has to clarify

what he means. He said a culture

developed. Was it by ministerial

direction or was it the senior civil

servants acting in response to the

political situation? This is an

important point because the public

has to remember as well that the

performance of ministers doesn't

only reflect on the ministers and

their parties but the senior civil

servants and their future career

prospects. It may be the case that

civil servants took it upon

themselves to do this rather than

the politicians. We don't not know

at this stage.

What about Sinn

Fein's involvement. David Sterling

said it was common across all

departments, in the evidence he was

giving he said it was particularly

the case with the two main parties.

The DUP and Sinn Fein?

His comments

are aimed towards the two main

parties. I think it's important now

that he follows through on this. The

Information Commissioner is also

wanting to hear further

clarification from imhad. I don't

think it's good enough for David to

hide behind the fact there is an RHI

inquiry going on his comments have

wider ramifify cautions.s if

ministers need to be named he needs

to name them.

People were surprised

how upfront he was in the comments

that he gave. If there was a

criticism or a surprise expressed it

was at the fact he was quite so

open?

Yesterday on the other hand

today there have been many questions

in regard to this. He hasn't come

forward clarify.

He is in America at

the moment.

Given the level of

public importance on this, I think

there is a duty on him to clarify

this as soon as possible.

Of course.

He is due to appear before the RHI

inquiry again in due course. If you

were surprised, Mr Sterling made

comments be quite openly this time.

During the Finance Committee's Nama

inquiry in 2015, you were the chair

of the committee at that time, you

will recall no doubt that he

admitted civil servants, "need to be

more consistent in our approach toic

itting notes of meetings." He said

it all before?

He had said it before

at that time. At that time Nama in

the South were taking minutes of the

meetings with DFP, but DFP were not

taking minutes. Because there were

so many questions about the Nama

issues at that time it got lost in

the undergrowth. He made reference

to the fact that his minister at

that time, I think it was Arlene

Foster, had actually made the

proposal that further minutes should

be taken. He actually agreed with

that. I think there is still so many

questions around this, it just needs

to be clarified before we can point

the finger at anybody.

It opens a

whole can of worms. A lot of people

were very surprised at what David

Sterling had to say even though he

had suggested it, it was the case in

certain circumstances before, as

we've discussed, back in November

2015. You were a minister for some

time in the Executive before. Were

you a ware of civil servants not

noting minutes you were involved in

for fear of subsequent recovery?

No,

my clear recollection is I neither

sought that records would not be

taken, nor did at any stage nicenor

civil servant or any civil servant

of any rank suggest to me it might

be a good idea that people stop

writing.

Was it ever pointed out to

you, as it was to Claire Sugden, you

needed to be mindful of the fact

anything you write on a paper could

be recoverable under an FoI request?

Of course. I think it's important to

distinguish between any discussion

that is are held within a meeting.

But discussions are discussions,

they are not decisions. I think when

we talk about minutes I think we

more properly describe them as

records of meetings because they

would normally reflect outcomes and

actual decisions which I think is

altogether different to having

widespread discussions.

Well, it's

just interesting, if you read the

civil servants guide "meeting notes

are intended to record accurately

any decisions taking or undertakings

made by the minister." Reagreed by

that "they may summarise the main

facts and arguments used during that

meeting" that's the critical point,

isn't it?

Yes. That would normally

have happened through submissions

which would have been written up and

brought to the minister for his or

her consideration. Mindful of the

earlier discussion, those sub

missions would reflect either the

minister's view or, in certain

contentious issues, an alternative

view, leaving it clear for a

minister to make the ultimate

decision. So there's nothing wrong

with that. I think the concerns that

we have, that I have, with the David

Sterling's remarks are that it

strikes, or it seems to query the

independence of the Northern Ireland

Civil Service and also the openness

and transparency of a local

administration. Of course we... The

Westminster conventions should be

the one that is are followed. That

is that whilst governments come and

go, whilst politicians are

transient, the civil servants are a

constant. They have to reflect, not

only the will of individual

ministers, or even government, but a

consistency across and an even

handedness. I think the suggestion

that David Sterling indicated

certainly there may have been some

type of control freakry at a senior

level within the Executive needs

further exploration.

Claire Sugden,

one former senior civil servant told

this programme the practice was

widespread and very prevalent on the

part especially of the DUP. What do

you make of that?

I can only speak

for the Department of Justice, which

I will say is perhaps a

differenclure to the other

departments because it we was

devolved later than other

departments. The practices in

Whitehall were practiced there

better than in other departments. I

didn't interfere from the DUP or

Sinn Fein work in other departments.

It wouldn't be appropriate to do

that. When we came together was at

the Executive table there were notes

taken there. I think we need David

Sterling to clarify his comments

here because it's quite a sweeping

statement to make and I'm not sure

it's applicable to all meetings we

had. As Danny has explained, it is

absolutely important to take a

record. For your own cover, more

than anything else. I certainly

wouldn't want someone I met saying

toe m that I said something I

didn't.

I do say Mark, I don't agree

with Daithi's earlier contribution

that suggested that David Sterling

was in some way starting another

fire in a different part of the room

to distract on any other issue

regarding RHI. I think David

Sterling is an experienced civil

servant. A senior civil servant. The

acting head of the Northern Ireland

Civil

Service, further clarification is

required, I would stay well short of

accusing him of trying to cause any

kind of real distraction.

It will be interesting to

It will be interesting to see what

comments or clarification he makes.

I am sure he will dispute the

suggestion you just said. He said it

was prevalent from the two main

parties, Sinn Fein has said that it

is not the case as far as it is

concerned, Mairtin O Muilleoir said

it was claptrap, so were you aware

of the DUP being involved in this?

Do you think the former civil

servant who suggested it was

prevalent on the part of the DUP has

it right?

My sense of the DUP during

my time in the Assembly is that they

were defensive about issues, they

didn't try for street processes with

the office of First Minister and

Deputy First Minister so it isn't a

surprise that they haven't clarified

their position, but there is a

suggestion that freedom of

information legislation is being

interfered with because they are

fundamental to political culture

here and transparency, so what this

flag is up for me is that the

Freedom of information legislation

needs to be strengthened.

David

Stirling pointed the finger at the

two largest parties. Short of

further clarification, there are

issues to be addressed and there

presumably is an opportunity for the

civil service to get its act

together in advance of Stormont

being resumed, however unlikely that

is.

I think it is an issue we will

return to. We would have liked to

have been able to put these issues

to a representative of the DUP but

the party declined to take part in

this discussion. A spokesperson said

it is inappropriate that the DUP be

asked to comment on issues that are

subject to a live public inquiry.

Thanks for now, we'll come

back to you again later.

Now, a former Irish diplomat has

said the British-Irish

Inter-governmental Conference

will only be brought back as a "fall

back position" and would be a sign

that Northern Ireland

is in for a period of direct rule.

Nationalists here and the Dublin

government have called

for the return of the body,

which last met 11 years ago,

to allow the two governments

to plot a way forward

in the absence of devolution.

Gareth Gordon has been looking

at the odds of Stormont coming back.

For the British and Irish, the race

to restart devolution in Northern

Ireland runs without end. Just when

they think they are in the final

straight, they are dragged back to

the start.

My powers as Secretary of

State for Northern are and are

limited. The scope of this house to

pass legislation on devolved issues

is limited.

Compared to that,

picking a winner at Chaston seems

easy. People who know about betting

think Stormont is ably conducted.

I

think it's dead in the water, they

need to bring the other parties in

to help negotiate.

What are the odds

of Stormont coming back?

I wouldn't

take the odds on that.

It's not

something to bet your house on, it

will never work with that crowd.

The

options available to Karen Bradley

appear limited. Some form of light

touch direct rule appears to be the

front runner, in front of a shadow

Assembly. A British-Irish

Intergovernmental Conference seemed

to be a safe bet although odds may

have lengthened after remarks by the

Taoiseach. An Assembly and

full-blown direct rule remain

outsiders. Whichever option Karen

Bradley puts money on, someone will

attempt to put a in her way. Let's

look more closely at the options. A

shadow Assembly would keep the

political class is busy until the

real thing comes back. It's been

tried before, most notably in the

1980s. It did not end well after

being dissolved by the government

against unionist wishes.

The police

say 21 officers were injured, more

than half required hospital

treatment. Police in the building

were asked by the clerk of the

Assembly to clear the chamber. They

cleared in and politicians were

thrown out.

It was mainly a DUP

protest although I youthful Jeffrey

Donaldson was one of two Ulster

Unionists also evicted.

I have two

members of my family murdered by the

Provos and what do you do in return

for that? You throw me out of the

forum for which I was elected.

The

other Ulster unionist member

involved remembers it.

I remember a

police officer saying to me, do you

want carried out or would you walk

out? I walked out with two policemen

in front and two policemen behind

and they left me at the top of the

steps with members who had been

carried out and some of them didn't

do in a very dignified way but it

was an interesting experience.

An

experience missed by the SDLP and

Sinn Fein, who boycotted that

Assembly and didn't seem keen on

another.

The Secretary of State

hasn't made detail available but the

idea we go into a talking shop while

there is no movement on issues which

has caused the blockage is a waste

of everybody's time.

The

transitional Assembly fared better.

Its first day got off to a bad start

with an unwelcome visitor called

Michael Stone.

Michael Stone. The then Speaker

doubts the present government would

repeat the exercise.

They thought

they would try this to keep the MLAs

who were directly involved in

negotiations, to keep them thinking

of themselves as parliamentarians

and they would have work to do in

the Assembly, it would still be

alive thing. I think that is a good

idea.

Nationalists want the

British-Irish Intergovernmental

Conference, last held here 11 years

ago.

Devolved administration is the

number-1 objective and if they

achieve that by another method, that

is fine. I see the conference as a

fallback solution, it talks go well

then you wouldn't want to antagonise

local parties, especially the DUP.

If you had the conference it would

be a sign we are battening down for

direct rule.

Whichever ever or she

backs, the Secretary of State may

find that she cannot win.

Gareth Gordon reporting.

Let's hear what my guests

Danny Kennedy, Claire Sugden

and Daithi McKay make of those odds

for a return to Stormont.

Daithi McKay, if you were a betting

man, would you take a punt

on the Assembly coming back

any time soon?

I don't think so. In terms of the

pretend Assembly, I don't think

Nationalists will touch that with a

barge pole, as far as the main

nationalist parties are concerned

the only show in town is the

intergovernmental conference.

You

have come a long way. Danny Kennedy,

will you be pushing for a pretend

Assembly?

I'm still trying to come

to terms with the crowd by Daithi

McKay about John Tait. I think what

is more likely is more negotiations,

I think this suggestion I would have

is that they be made multiparty and

not just to parties because that

would lend some difference to it and

it might create a better atmosphere.

You were optimistic that the process

can be reinvigorated sooner rather

than later although it ended in a

complete shambles a few weeks ago.

I

think there will be one more attempt

by the two governments to achieve

that, whether or not it is in the

two largest parties' interests to

have those negotiations, to widen

them out to other parties or stay

where they are with the Westminster

influence of the DUP and the

prospect of an Irish election for

Sinn Fein.

Claire Sundin, do you

think the people will stand for some

kind of transitional shadow

Assembly? They want people to get on

with their job or clear off and find

another job.

I think anything short

of an executive and the Assembly,

anything else would normalise the

situation and allow the other actors

involved, namely the British

government in terms of their

interest around Brexit, to let

Northern Ireland to go on this way.

People speak to me every day about

how frustrated the art that

institutions are not running because

it affects them day-to-day so I

worry this is another stopgap so

they can get on with the other

politics distracting them, and

perhaps now that the budget has been

passed at Westminster, maybe there

is a chance for talks because it

means the DUP have had an input into

a budget so maybe now they might get

back to talking.

We will find out in

due course if you are onto

something. Thank you all for joining

us.

A St Patrick's Day

reception is taking place

in the White House this evening.

Earlier the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar,

met Donald Trump for the traditional

shamrock ceremony in the Oval

Office.

So will a trip across the pond

help improve relations

between the parties after last

month's failed negotiations?

Shane Harrison is in Washington

for us this evening.

What's happening as we

speak, then, Shane?

The Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has

just left the White House after

presenting Donald Trump with the

traditional bowl of shamrock. There

is a reception on going, not present

are the current leaders and deputy

leaders of Sinn Fein or the DUP but

Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Fein

leader, and Ian Paisley, the DUP MP

for North Antrim. The two men met

earlier, they discussed our

hardboard and Brexit and the

American president said he would

like to visit Ireland soon and that

he had a great property there. The

Doon Bay golf club.

And that golf

club and the association with Donald

Trump and Leo Varadkar now causing a

bit of a difficulty for Mr Rudd cart

because of previous contacts he had

with the now president a couple of

years ago.

Leo Varadkar surprised

many people in his speech at Capitol

Hill when he went off script as if

his sudden memory about a previous

contact with Donald Trump had come

to him and he remembered that four

years ago he was in London for R&B

weekend when Ireland played England

and he got a phone call from someone

saying Donald Trump wanted to talk

to him about planning permission, to

object to planning permission for up

wind farm. Leo Varadkar said he

contacted Clare county council and

the wind farm was refused. He says

he wasn't responsible for that bit

of Donald Trump wants to give him

credit, he will accept that. Clare

county council say they have no

record of Leo Varadkar's

intervention.

What about the

appointment of a new US peace envoy?

There had been speculation that

perhaps to Donald Trump would

announce the appointment of at UN

special envoy. He didn't seem that

keen on it, American encouragement

but no need for an honest broker.

This was an issue I spoke too with

Congressman Richie Neal, who was a

Democrat and friend of Ireland, and

I asked where we stood with regard

to this.

In September I spoke to the

president who indicated to me he

intended Philippe to do that and

later General Kelly confirmed they

intended to do that. There has been

a delay with the process but I

understand they renewed their

interest and expect to go forward.

When do we expect an announcement?

The White House say every day is a

challenge, they seem to start with

intentions but get derailed by

another issue.

Might the fact that

Rex Tillerson is no longer Secretary

of State complicate it?

He confirmed

that it was the Trump

Administration's position that they

would appoint an envoy.

Leo Varadkar

it didn't seem too keen on envoy, he

said he was looking for

encouragement but not an honest

broker.

There might be an argument

that suggests differences between

the parties now are relatively small

compared to what they were 25 years

ago so he might be saying that

nurturing might be what they are

interested in, at the same time I

think getting those institutions up

and running in a representative

democracy are critical.

Who does

Irish America blame for this

impasse?

Irish America would

indicate the DUP is responsible for

the delay and I think Irish America

play an important role in offering

dimension to the success of the Good

Friday Agreement.

What happens over the neck couple of

days?

The Taoiseach will meet the US

Vice-President Mike Pence there is

Irish media interest in that. Mike

Pence is not noted for his support

of gay rights. Leo Varadkar has been

referencing his support for gay

rights, for same-sex marriage. There

is a lot of interest in that. Later

on in the day he will head to New

York where of course there is the

big

St Patrick parade on Saturday.

. You

very much .thank indeed.

Let's hear from tonight's

commentators, Fionnuala

O'Connor and Alex Kane.

Welcome to you both. Good to have

you back. Let's talk about

transparency in government first of

all. Fionnuala, how big an issue is

it that Davidster Sterling said what

had he said at the RHI inquiry?

It

seems to be a pretty big issue thchl

is the head of the civil certificate

advice behaving in a way that poses

as many questions about civil

servants as it does about

politicians. That is an easy

statement for him to make when he

suggests that the two main parties

were involved with no way of... The

two main parties suggested this

policy if they didn't actually

enforce it of discouraging minutes.

He didn't actually say - they said

you must do this. He suggested a

culture, I think that was the way he

put. It which leaves you to suppose

that civil servants decided off

their own bat that this was a way to

please the ministers. That they

would not go for minutes. Really,

that's a dreadful, very uncivil

servant position to take.

It could

equally be the case that it was the

ministers who decided that that's

the road they wanted to go down and

prevailed upon the civil servants

to.

Civil servants are supposed to

be masters and mistresses of clear

and logical pros. This was an owe

bake thing to say. It was also a

fairly shocking thing to say at the

moment we are told repeatedly that

civil servants are carrying

government. That we are lucky to

have them carrying government in

lieu of the politicians. I was taken

by the suggestion that might just

have been an intended as distraction

from the RHI inquiry, from David

Sterling's role in the RHI scheme.

It's a theory he floated. No

evidence to suggest -

What a weird

thing for a civil servant to be

doing.

The former senior civil

servant who we spoke to who said it

was indeed pretty prevalent

particularly on the part of the DUP

told us it's got a lot worse in

recent years. FoI began when the

government's position was to give

information. That turned around into

trying to not give the information

to members of the public.

What we

don't know for certain is how long

it's been going on. Certainly the

information seems to be that SDLUP,

and Alliance ministers are saying

they had no experience of it. They

didn't understand this. Did it

happen in 2016 when the DUP and Sinn

Fein cut their own deal.

Obviously

not. In the Finance Committee

inquiry into Nama in November 2015

David Sterling was then telling

Daithi McKay was a problem and they

needed to stop doing that.

I accept

that. It the doesn't seem to have

changed. The most extraordinary

thing about Sterling's comment was

that this seems to have been done to

spare the blushes of the Sinn Fein

and the DUP. That will they might be

doing or making unpopular decisions.

Thinking the unthinkable.

Given the

timing of this, Mark, two weeks

after Sinn Fein and the DUP falling

about over pieces of paper which

ended up being leaked. This man now

saying - we are keeping touch away.

. The whole idea is consist sent i

and continuity. We record this, but

won't bother with this. Say a new

minister comes in or disagreements

with the parties you need records.

If it will embarst ration a minister

further down-the-line, tough, that

is what politics is.

Let us tie it

into the other conversation about

whether or not transition/shadow

Assembly could be in the offing

sooner rather than later. If you

were a betting woman, would you take

a punt on that?

Oh, not for a

minute. It ties together in an odd

way, when you think of it. The

suggestion is that they we have to

have the Assembly back because civil

servants should not be left to run

government because this isn't right.

This isn't democratic. Meanwhile we

get this intervention by a civil

servants which makes us think, are

we so sure about the civil service?

What I do think is absolutely

unlikely is that there would be any

nationalist buy into this at all. As

again Daithi McKay said. Who would

will go back to that? This is

pre-Good Friday Agreement

proposition. No Executive, an

Assembly that is a talking shop.

Final thought on that. Nationalists

won't wear it, Alex

I don't think

anybody will wear it. The public

won't wear it. A real Assembly that

doesn't work. Even bring in a

pretend, that is crazy stuff.

We

will leave it there. Thank you both

very much.

That's it from The View

for this week.

Join me for Sunday Politics

at 11.35am, here on BBC One.

But we leave you tonight

with the observations of one

of Britain's finest civil servants

on what should - and should not -

be a matter of public record.

Good night.

What is your problem?

Well, the

minutes aren't written yet.

I see.

So what should I do?

Write them,

dear man.

The problem is, the Prime

Minister did try to suppress the

chapter, didn't he?

I don't know,

did he?

Didn't he, don't you

remember?

What I remember is

irrelevant Bernard. If the minutes

don't say he did, he didn't.

You

want me to fallify the minutes.

I

want nothing of the sort. It's up to

you Bernard, what do you want?

I

want to have a clear conscience.

A

clear conscience.

Yes.

When did you

acquire this taste for luxuries? The

purpose of minutes is not to record

events it's to protect people.

You

do not take notes if the Prime

Minister says something he did not

mean to say, particularly if it

contradicts something he has said

pub iically. But how do I justify

that?

You are his servant.

Oh, yes.