:00:07. > :00:37.Coming up: The time has come to think about putting a line set at
:00:38. > :00:42.Good Friday in 1998 with respect to prosecutors, inquests and other
:00:43. > :00:47.enquiries. He has provoked a storm of controversy with victims and
:00:48. > :00:54.politicians, but is there merit in the Attorney General's proposals in
:00:55. > :01:01.dealing with the past. The people who say they want truth do not want
:01:02. > :01:02.to tell the truth. Tonight I will be talking to the victim 's' group and
:01:03. > :01:09.a former senior RUC officer. We have talking to the victim 's' group and
:01:10. > :01:16.added two new signings to Commentators' Corner, the journalist
:01:17. > :01:24.Liam Clarke and the author Susan McKay. You can also follow us on
:01:25. > :01:28.Twitter. It has been a week in which Northern Ireland's past has
:01:29. > :01:33.dominated the present. The Attorney General's call for an end to the
:01:34. > :01:37.Troubles prosecutions and public enquiries caused uproar. But is
:01:38. > :01:43.there any merit in his proposals for dealing with the past. Martina Purdy
:01:44. > :01:47.has been investigating the challenge of letting go and what happens if we
:01:48. > :02:02.do not. This report contains flash photography.
:02:03. > :02:09.The Good Friday Agreement was our road map out of conflict, but what
:02:10. > :02:15.about the past? How do we escape that particular maze? Bring truth
:02:16. > :02:19.and justice and acknowledgement to victims and we as a society can move
:02:20. > :02:26.on. Looe we have to have a process in place that is all encompassing
:02:27. > :02:32.and is victim and survivor centre. If we say and we find that one thing
:02:33. > :02:38.to deal with the past? I do not think we will find it. We have to
:02:39. > :02:43.find a genuine way of telling you about the past, not a way of seeking
:02:44. > :02:49.vengeance, but to be honest about what happened. But what is the truth
:02:50. > :02:51.and who is a victim? These issues continue to imprison as in the past
:02:52. > :02:57.and threaten the health of our continue to imprison as in the past
:02:58. > :03:01.society and our politics. It is cancerous because one group won the
:03:02. > :03:06.truth, they want to know the British Government were as bad as the IRA,
:03:07. > :03:10.that they did bad things. Other people want to make sure that the
:03:11. > :03:15.IRA were the real baddies in this and the UDF were not good either. We
:03:16. > :03:20.fight around those issues and we have thought about those issues
:03:21. > :03:25.constantly. If we can get past that, both at an individual level
:03:26. > :03:31.and at a commune level, then we could get on with things. Can we do
:03:32. > :03:37.that? I do not know. Our politicians want to solve it in their way that
:03:38. > :03:43.suits their constituency. You cannot do that. You can only solve this if
:03:44. > :03:47.you solve it for everyone. Denis Bradley along with robbing a must
:03:48. > :03:51.try to solve it, to end the piecemeal approach to the past, but
:03:52. > :04:02.their report was overshadowed by rows. We are the victims. You cannot
:04:03. > :04:06.intimidate me! So we never got the legacy commission they suggested as
:04:07. > :04:11.an alternative to public enquiries, a body that would probe unresolved
:04:12. > :04:19.cases, get information and still allow for the possibility of
:04:20. > :04:23.justice. What is the solution? Myself and a few other people did a
:04:24. > :04:27.major report five years ago, which would have been finished by now and
:04:28. > :04:34.we would have moved towards this famous amnesty. The other thing
:04:35. > :04:36.people tell lies around all the time either people who want an amnesty
:04:37. > :04:41.keeps saying they do not want an keeps saying they do not want an
:04:42. > :04:45.amnesty. The people who say they want truth do not want to tell the
:04:46. > :04:49.truth. Even a hint of some kind of amnesty
:04:50. > :04:53.for those who have killed as one means of getting to the truth is
:04:54. > :04:59.controversial as the Attorney General found when he suggested not
:05:00. > :05:04.an amnesty, but a new law that would end all prosecutions linked to the
:05:05. > :05:10.Troubles. Despite what you might think from my organisation's game we
:05:11. > :05:13.are opposed to blanket amnesty is. The fundamental tenet of
:05:14. > :05:17.international human rights law is that victims should have access to
:05:18. > :05:22.justice and that must be possible to allow us to proceed in Northern
:05:23. > :05:28.Ireland. In many cases that is not going to be possible. But it must be
:05:29. > :05:35.a possibility. Anything else would let down the victims. While most
:05:36. > :05:44.victims oppose the Attorney General's suggestion, some former
:05:45. > :05:49.RUC officers lorded it. One does have to consider the challenge that
:05:50. > :05:55.for some victims they will die before they get justice and for us
:05:56. > :05:59.to be dishonest about that and not deal with that, whatever that is in
:06:00. > :06:08.whatever form, needs to be talked about. Indeed, truth has trumped
:06:09. > :06:12.justice before in our peace process. In the search for the disappeared
:06:13. > :06:17.were those who gave information are immune from prosecution. But even
:06:18. > :06:24.then there are problems facing up to the past. People do not want to
:06:25. > :06:34.engage for a variety of reasons. How far do you take somebody down. They
:06:35. > :06:40.cannot give very practical answers. Some people say, we do not want to
:06:41. > :06:48.go back there. Most agree the status quo cannot continue. There comes a
:06:49. > :06:53.time when the denials, truth and lies will not cut the mustard.
:06:54. > :06:59.People do not want vengeance, but they want an acceptance of what
:07:00. > :07:05.happened and that it was wrong. What are the consequences of us not
:07:06. > :07:10.facing up to our past? Unless we face up to our past in a
:07:11. > :07:15.constructive and healthy way, we are destined to have a society which is
:07:16. > :07:20.divided where there is violence around the edges and potential for
:07:21. > :07:24.bad things to happen. As a human being it is impossible to draw a
:07:25. > :07:28.line when you have suffered terrible hurt. Somebody who has been killed
:07:29. > :07:37.will not come back and you cannot just forget about it. The issue is
:07:38. > :07:48.whether the Haas Talks recommend the soft option or the harder option,
:07:49. > :07:54.there is no pain-free option. Martina Purdy reporting. Let's hear
:07:55. > :08:01.the thoughts of two men who have been deeply involved with dealing
:08:02. > :08:04.with the legacy of the past stop Paul O'Connor, is there any merit in
:08:05. > :08:11.what John Larkin has proposed? I Paul O'Connor, is there any merit in
:08:12. > :08:15.not think there is. I think it is unfortunate in the way he released
:08:16. > :08:22.his statement. We have dealt with a lot of families in the last 24 hours
:08:23. > :08:24.who are deeply upset. They have not separated John Larkin the citizen
:08:25. > :08:32.and his views from John liking the Attorney General and they believe
:08:33. > :08:39.certain issues are not going to go ahead. I think the one thing about
:08:40. > :08:43.what John Larkin has said is they are not proposals for dealing with
:08:44. > :08:49.the past. He said it was a proposal to draw a line under it. We saw that
:08:50. > :08:54.happen in Spain after the Civil War. It bubbled to the surface 60 years
:08:55. > :09:00.later. You do not deal with it by drawing a line underneath it. Do you
:09:01. > :09:12.see any merit in what he had to say? First of all I spent a 30 year
:09:13. > :09:15.career chasing people and the rule of law is pre-eminent and without
:09:16. > :09:19.that we do not have anything. We have spent all this time trying to
:09:20. > :09:25.get the society back to that, a society based on laws. I think to
:09:26. > :09:30.say to draw a line and walk away is contrary to that. The other issue is
:09:31. > :09:36.practical. I do not think the Attorney General's proposals would
:09:37. > :09:39.even stop what he is talking about. He is talking, for example, that
:09:40. > :09:45.there would be a protection against libel for people who came out with
:09:46. > :09:52.things from the past. What we end up his trial by television. We end up
:09:53. > :09:54.with television programmes analysing various issues and making
:09:55. > :09:58.allegations about people and it various issues and making
:09:59. > :10:03.would be a festering boil that would continue to run and run. Unless we
:10:04. > :10:08.solve the injury and the saw, we are not going to fix it. John Larkin
:10:09. > :10:13.says he is making a logical, practical, pragmatic argument
:10:14. > :10:20.because the chances of securing prosecutions are diminishing. Anyone
:10:21. > :10:26.convicted of a terrorist offence would only serve a minimum amount of
:10:27. > :10:32.time in prison. He says he is dealing with the realities of where
:10:33. > :10:36.we are. There is some merit in discussing about how the criminal
:10:37. > :10:41.justice system deals with our conflict. How do we deal with it in
:10:42. > :10:44.terms of prosecutions and inquests and investigatory processes. ? We
:10:45. > :10:51.are at that and investigatory processes. ? We
:10:52. > :10:56.longer functioning. There is merit in having that discussion, but he is
:10:57. > :11:01.saying, we are not going to have a discussion, we should shut it down
:11:02. > :11:05.and close it down. Not only would we have trial by television, we would
:11:06. > :11:10.have countless challenges in the courts, judicial reviews and appeals
:11:11. > :11:17.to the Hugh Ash European Court of Human rights. Some half of the
:11:18. > :11:22.families that have been bereaved have received reports, good or bad.
:11:23. > :11:29.We are turning to the others and saying, you are not going to get
:11:30. > :11:33.one. You may not be happy with how it is conducting itself, but it is
:11:34. > :11:40.still an entity in existence. Is it not part of the difficulty that
:11:41. > :11:45.people want the truth? You say John Larkin will prevent any discussion.
:11:46. > :11:49.He is going to draw a line under prosecutions and enquiries, but he
:11:50. > :11:53.is not going to stop a conversation about truth recovery. He is drawing
:11:54. > :12:03.a line under investigation processes. Storytelling has a role,
:12:04. > :12:08.but families need to know what story they are going to tell. What stories
:12:09. > :12:20.can the family of Pat Finucane tell? Those families still do not
:12:21. > :12:24.really know what happened. Is truth and injustice indistinguishable in
:12:25. > :12:31.this process? Can you have one without the other? It is difficult
:12:32. > :12:35.to have one without the other. Taking up the issue of story telling
:12:36. > :12:39.is that different victims have radically different approaches.
:12:40. > :12:43.Different victims have different stories. Some of them are true and
:12:44. > :12:48.based on fact and some of them are not and have grown and have been
:12:49. > :12:53.embellished over the years because of the process and the emotional
:12:54. > :12:56.impact as they have gone through it. Storytelling is an element in this,
:12:57. > :13:03.but the problem is finding the truth. As Denis Bradley said, some
:13:04. > :13:08.of our people, including people in the security forces, in politics,
:13:09. > :13:14.perhaps in organisations that were doing things, do not want the truth.
:13:15. > :13:21.They will not commit to the truth. Why do you think John Larkin has
:13:22. > :13:25.said what he has said now? I have no idea, it was unhelpful and at the
:13:26. > :13:35.wrong time. It may well be linked to the discussions that he has had with
:13:36. > :13:41.the talks. The Panorama programme has shown we have only found out
:13:42. > :13:49.things because of an investigatory process. John Larkin has succeeded
:13:50. > :13:53.in one thing, uniting the main political parties against him. The
:13:54. > :14:02.Deputy First Minister said he should have kept his proposals private
:14:03. > :14:05.within the Haas Talks. I do not believe he has stepped outside the
:14:06. > :14:11.terms of reference he has. There was nothing to stop him from making a
:14:12. > :14:19.political comment, albeit on legal matters, but I think there is a
:14:20. > :14:24.review under way that has been undertaken by an expert and the
:14:25. > :14:29.report will be made available to us as to what the role of the Attorney
:14:30. > :14:34.General will be and this will feed into some of the thinking. I am not
:14:35. > :14:38.sure anything other than an apolitical role is suitable for the
:14:39. > :14:43.Attorney General. A lot of people will agree with that. I do not want
:14:44. > :14:48.to take away the rights of any individual who has strong views on
:14:49. > :14:53.matters to express them, but there are certain positions in society
:14:54. > :15:06.where people have a self-denying ordinance in terms of making
:15:07. > :15:15.political comment. The position of attorney general is an independent
:15:16. > :15:27.position. Someone chat with the responsibility of advising, it might
:15:28. > :15:33.be more appropriate if he had come to the executive. The thoughts of
:15:34. > :15:44.Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson. We can hear more from our
:15:45. > :15:52.guest. The John Larkin get it wrong, Naomi Long? First of all, I didn't
:15:53. > :16:02.think it was his role, and I don't believe he did it in a particularly
:16:03. > :16:04.sensitive way. His intervention was done without any intervention with
:16:05. > :16:08.victims, without discussing done without any intervention with
:16:09. > :16:17.perspectives. I think that was a mistake. I also think the substance
:16:18. > :16:23.was wrong. I do not believe the general amnesty is acceptable. He
:16:24. > :16:29.says it is not an amnesty. He says that, but if you are saying people
:16:30. > :16:34.are immune from prosecution before a certain date, I think it is an
:16:35. > :16:46.amnesty. It turned out a very questionable message. People still
:16:47. > :16:59.engaged in violent acts may not be challenged. We have used limited
:17:00. > :17:10.immunity from prosecution. It is a different prospect. Given the
:17:11. > :17:16.torrent of criticism directed against him in the past 36 hours,
:17:17. > :17:21.should he be considering his position as Attorney General? I
:17:22. > :17:26.think that is a matter for John Larkin. I do think he has undermined
:17:27. > :17:34.his credibility in his mishandling of the situation. It would've been a
:17:35. > :17:49.curtsied to advise the executive that he was to intervene. I think
:17:50. > :17:59.that misjudgement does call into question his judgement. I think to
:18:00. > :18:02.suggest that can amnesty process has undermined his credibility. Alex
:18:03. > :18:05.Attwood, do you think his credibility has been undermined? Do
:18:06. > :18:19.you think you should consider his position? I think about support fit
:18:20. > :18:35.terms and survivors. - - I think about survivors and fit terms. What
:18:36. > :18:49.does John Larkin have to do? I think he has two act knowledge - - I think
:18:50. > :18:53.he has to acknowledge that what he did, when he did and how we did it
:18:54. > :19:01.has caused great hurt and offence to many, many people. In human terms,
:19:02. > :19:06.he has to consider that situation. I think John Larkin and the Minister
:19:07. > :19:16.responsible have to ensure that never again does Attorney general do
:19:17. > :19:21.this kind of thing. His job is partly to give advice to the
:19:22. > :19:27.Executive and partly to comment on other issues. He made it very clear
:19:28. > :19:39.he did not mean to offend anybody. He is merely started a political
:19:40. > :19:51.debate. He is a lawyer, a chief legal adviser. Highwood ferociously
:19:52. > :20:18.defend his independence. - - I would ferociously defend his independence.
:20:19. > :20:22.I think it was ill judged and ill timed. Isn't it the case that what
:20:23. > :20:26.the attorney general has done is highlight, to the embarrassment of
:20:27. > :20:38.many politicians, where they have failed to agree on a way forward on
:20:39. > :20:41.an important part of policy? I think anybody who's been talking about an
:20:42. > :21:01.amnesty will have Avenue closed down now. The wider victim sector has
:21:02. > :21:06.ruled as out. With respect, John Larkin is absolutely clear, this is
:21:07. > :21:11.not an amnesty. He said time and again. If you are not been to
:21:12. > :21:17.prosecute people who have committed murder and serious crime, to me,
:21:18. > :21:19.that is amnesty. It isn't. He said the crimes would remain on the
:21:20. > :21:25.statute books. It is not about wiping them away. It is simply not
:21:26. > :21:32.prosecuting people. So if you don't prosecute people, it may be
:21:33. > :21:40.different to John Larkin, but for the wider public, it is an amnesty.
:21:41. > :21:46.The victims have rejected it. Anybody who wants to bring up the
:21:47. > :21:49.issue now is on difficult one. Some thick tomes have disagreed with it,
:21:50. > :21:57.but others have said, actually, he has articulated their view. Somebody
:21:58. > :22:01.on the radio said yesterday he does not want the people responsible for
:22:02. > :22:05.the murder of his mother to be brought before the courts to be
:22:06. > :22:10.prosecuted and sent to prison. He was very clear about that. You will
:22:11. > :22:15.find there is a significant difference in victims, even within
:22:16. > :22:19.farmers. By and large, the vast majority don't want to see people
:22:20. > :22:31.that can't be prosecuted. Another thing John Larkin did get right, he
:22:32. > :22:44.said it was almost focused entirely on their state. Dennis Bradley said
:22:45. > :22:48.politicians need to be prepared to embrace a solution that serves the
:22:49. > :22:53.wider community, not just that owns partisan constituencies. Do you
:22:54. > :22:57.agree with that? There has to be aware of politicians representing
:22:58. > :23:10.the broadest possible view. That is a very big challenge. I think there
:23:11. > :23:14.is a need for us to see the whole process. The principles we establish
:23:15. > :23:22.for dealing with the past, for example, I think need to be
:23:23. > :23:27.underpinned. My problem with the proposal is it undermines the rule
:23:28. > :23:32.of law and after that is unhelpful. I've met truth, justice and
:23:33. > :23:48.reconciliation need to form part of that process. In the proper context,
:23:49. > :24:00.it should be possible, like the families of the disappeared, where
:24:01. > :24:04.they make choices. People might be able to explore different options.
:24:05. > :24:10.It is important we look at the past in terms of how we try to heal those
:24:11. > :24:34.differences. A lot of the time when we talk about victims issues, we use
:24:35. > :24:38.those issues like weapons. Since this report has a lot of
:24:39. > :24:53.well-received recommendations. Some have been overlooked. This is the
:24:54. > :24:59.most important thing. The last two months have been characterised by
:25:00. > :25:04.this very powerful messages and stories from victims across our
:25:05. > :25:15.community. Every, every week, there that narrative. The last two days
:25:16. > :25:20.has seen the issues of the past been front and centre in our discussions.
:25:21. > :25:33.What we now have to do is gather ourselves as politicians, he'd what
:25:34. > :25:38.the victims and survivors are saying, truth, justice and
:25:39. > :25:44.accountability. If we do not take this moment, we were let down all
:25:45. > :25:48.those people who have spoke so powerfully in the last 24 hours and
:25:49. > :26:02.the last two weeks. Is that possible? The vast majority of
:26:03. > :26:06.people are not going to get truth even if they have the opportunity to
:26:07. > :26:14.tell the truth, Martin McGuinness would not tell all that he knew. We
:26:15. > :26:23.had information held back. It is quite clear we will not get the
:26:24. > :26:29.truth. Thank you all very much for joining us. Let's get the thoughts
:26:30. > :26:36.of two new faces in Commentators' Corner tonight. Thank you for being
:26:37. > :26:40.here. Susan, you have taken a keen interest in John liking in recent
:26:41. > :26:47.months and years. You have written about it in a newspaper article
:26:48. > :26:51.today. What did you make about his intervention? It was inappropriate,
:26:52. > :26:58.tactless and very typical of the man. The way in which he intervened
:26:59. > :27:04.has obscured the fact there is some truth in what he has said. There has
:27:05. > :27:07.been hypocrisy amongst the politicians and their reaction to
:27:08. > :27:11.what he said. Under the Good Friday Agreement we agreed to things which
:27:12. > :27:18.made prosecutions extremely unlikely. We did destroy the
:27:19. > :27:21.weapons, we did release prisoners who had only recently been put in
:27:22. > :27:29.jail and we said people were only going to serve two years. We have
:27:30. > :27:35.seen them trying to review cases in which prosecutions could be brought,
:27:36. > :27:39.but they have only had two successful prosecutions, so there is
:27:40. > :27:44.some truth in what he said. It is interesting in that there was a
:27:45. > :27:49.furore over the word amnesty, very similar to the full Rory over the
:27:50. > :27:54.Bradley report and repayment. There is going to have to be some degree
:27:55. > :28:01.of immunity from prosecution. Were you surprised it was such a
:28:02. > :28:05.political furore? No, but I do not think we are getting the final
:28:06. > :28:14.reactions, we are getting knee jerk reactions. I do not think this idea
:28:15. > :28:19.of a stay on prosecutions will disappear off the agenda. I think
:28:20. > :28:26.there were other proposals which have got swept aside which he did
:28:27. > :28:31.not suggest drawing a line under. He suggested a much enhanced release of
:28:32. > :28:36.Government documents to victims and historians. That was tied to the
:28:37. > :28:39.idea of immunity from prosecution because you could not release
:28:40. > :28:43.documents implicating people in crimes if they were going to be
:28:44. > :28:49.prosecuted. It would prejudice the trial. He suggested the suspension
:28:50. > :28:58.of civil actions and protection from libel. That has been missed on this
:28:59. > :29:04.first day and that is wrong. Do you think he will keep his job? No big
:29:05. > :29:11.political hitters are calling for his resignation. Nobody in the
:29:12. > :29:16.studio was doing that night. He weathered a similar storm last year
:29:17. > :29:22.when he weighed in in a ridiculous way into the abortion debate, so he
:29:23. > :29:25.will probably weather it. But a lot of viewers will have watched the
:29:26. > :29:30.excellent Panorama programme and they will be wondering can we afford
:29:31. > :29:36.to draw a line under the past when we do not know the true history of
:29:37. > :29:40.the conflict at all? You saw a part of that programme and it is part of
:29:41. > :29:46.the wider debate we are discussing tonight. It is the uncovering of the
:29:47. > :29:50.past. And the soldiers would not admit to specific incidents because
:29:51. > :29:58.they would be prosecuted, so that shows the trade-off between justice
:29:59. > :30:03.and truth. They said a lot. Yes, they did, but not individually. On
:30:04. > :30:08.the question of John liking I think his contract comes up next May and I
:30:09. > :30:13.do not think he will be back. Do you think it was part of a wider
:30:14. > :30:17.choreography was it just an individual? He is not lacking in
:30:18. > :30:23.self-confidence in his capacity to put his views out there to the
:30:24. > :30:27.public. It is impossible to know, but he is representing a point of
:30:28. > :30:31.view which is shared by former members of the special Branch who
:30:32. > :30:39.have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Who knows? He
:30:40. > :30:46.certainly has a constituency. There are spirited theorists who see the
:30:47. > :30:49.hand of Richard Haass in this and then there are others who say, do
:30:50. > :30:56.not be ridiculous, this is him on his own. I think he put the cat
:30:57. > :31:00.amongst the pigeons and it was his idea of a
:31:01. > :31:04.amongst the pigeons and it was his debate, but I do not think he was
:31:05. > :31:12.acting under anyone else. Let's take a look at some of the comments that
:31:13. > :31:33.have come in over the past week. This comes from John Collins. Nobody
:31:34. > :31:40.speaks English more beautifully than Michael D Higgins. I am sure he will
:31:41. > :31:43.leave the rest of them speechless. Coming from Northern Ireland I do
:31:44. > :31:59.not think I can criticise any of this. It is remarkable those three
:32:00. > :32:06.people should have died on the same day. I suppose JFK did get shot live
:32:07. > :32:16.on television and the others did not. It is good to have you on the
:32:17. > :32:31.programme. Time for our inside view from the man on the Hill. I am
:32:32. > :32:38.bored, I need a job that is fun, like a Methodist minister. Paul Paul
:32:39. > :32:43.Flowers. The only job he can do now is move pronto. Of course, he could
:32:44. > :32:56.become our Attorney General. John Larkin said he needed opposition,
:32:57. > :33:03.then he eventually got one. And we have got a brand-new tourist
:33:04. > :33:09.attraction. A caravan. What celebrity is going to be next? They
:33:10. > :33:13.need a sign up there, no Pope here. Hang on, I think they have got that
:33:14. > :33:25.covered. Hey, Nelson, can you recommend a builder? That is it from
:33:26. > :33:30.us this week. Join us for a live coverage of the DUP conference on
:33:31. > :33:36.Saturday at 12. I will be back on Sunday at 11:35am. From all of us,
:33:37. > :33:58.thank you for watching and have a good night.