24/10/2013 The View

In Tonight: Widespread collusion. A former RUC Special Branch chief

disputes the claims. Allegations of conspiracy are very easy to make but

hard to disprove. Sinn Fein's Alex Maskey and the

Ulster Unionist Party's Danny Kennedy join me live to debate the

allegations. Also tonight: What now for planning

as the Environment Minister changes tack because of legal concerns?

It's the biggest change in the benefits system for decades, but

where's the legislation for welfare reform? The Treasury are serious in

their threat. I don't want to play Russian roulette with that sort of

money. And with their view on the political

week that was, I'm joined by commentators Paul McFadden and Alex

Kane. And you can, of course, follow the

programme on Twitter. Northern Ireland's bloody past

dominated politics here again today. A new book claims that 120 sectarian

murders in the 1970s were carried out by a loyalist gang based in

County Armagh, which included members of the RUC and UDR. Deadly

Allies is written by Anne Cadwallader, a researcher at the Pat

Finucane Centre. She says it proves collusion was systemic. Earlier, I

put her findings to a former head of the Special Branch in Belfast,

Raymond White. I asked him if he accepts collusion was as widespread

as the book claims. I don't believe it to be the case. There was police

involvement and security force involvement in a number of cases,

but certainly, it would be massively surprisingly 120 cases had direct

security force involvement. Yet the author's conclusions were reached

and backed up by HET evidence as well. One extract says there was

indisputable evidence of security forces's collusion. Her point is it

is much more than individual freelance acts. It is orchestrated.

I don't accept the orchestration. Alarm bells were wrong in the 1970s.

And that is why cases will rigourously investigated. HET's

information is entirely based on that information already in police

archives. If the information was there, it was known at the top level

of both police and government. What's been the reaction amongst

your colleagues about the fact this book has been published in some

allegations are in the public domain? The thing is, they were

talked about when the court cases took place in respect... They would

talk about when prosecutions occurred. There is nothing hidden

there. What you have now is a correlation of all this.

Investigators in the 1970s will be well aware of the murder Triangle in

a vast number of killings taking place on a daily basis. There is no

doubt that there was security force involvement in a number of murders.

Can I ask you specifically about the three steps bombing which killed two

people in August, 1976? The book claims before the attack, the RUC

new A-bomb was in place. The surveillance operation was ended and

the bomb was used in the attack, and the book claims the RUC special

Branch knew the identities of four people involved in the bombing. I

don't know that specific mark, so I am not in a position to comment on

the issue. But if that's true, that is very serious. All we have is what

is stated in the book. I can't add anything to that statement, but all

I'm saying is that if it is true, it is worthy of further investigation.

Is it possible that it be true? Given the capacities we had in the

1970s, the RUC did not have any surveillance capacity. It was... If

they supplied surveillance, we need to look in detail at the records to

see what was said in respect of that incident. The form it 81st Minister

has now weighed into the debate, claiming members of the gang were

protected by some members within the special Branch. -- the form yet

Deputy first Minister. I would like to see him develop his accusation. I

am not aware of anybody being protected in any shape or form.

Those murders and murder gangs were viewed in the same way. We abhor

what they were engaged in and abhor the fact that members of the

security forces were actually engaged at the same time in helping

terrorists to uphold the law, when in actual fact, they were losing

their own lives. Do you think this increases the need for finding a

proper mechanism for dealing with the past? I think it does. We are

engaged in helping the existing mechanisms work. In that sense, we

are the only show in town. We will continue to do so. That is provided

those investigations are done to a professional standard. Allegations

of conspiracy are very easy to make that very hard to disprove.

Raymond White talking to me earlier. With me now are Sinn Fein's Alex

Maskey and Danny Kennedy from the Ulster Unionist Party. There we saw

a former assistant chief constable who accepts there were isolated

incidents where security force involvement was proven in murders,

he refutes allegations of systemic collusion. The special Branch were

one of the most hated organisations. That's part of our history because

people in the meat community I represent knew what was going on and

unfortunately, in this book, information comes from police

themselves. The anybody to suggest this was not going on, was not

systemic, should be really embarrassed. The me, the important

thing here... And I speak of a victim of collusion. That deal was

struck by the then Attorney General, got the dealer around the

Cabinet table when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. That's all fact.

People are well aware of these revelations. This one particular

case, this book, identifies 120 cases. This week alone, we have an

inquest of an old lady shot dead in a house when there were surveillance

cameras trained on that properly. -- trained on that property.

Unfortunately, people tried to deny that happened in a systemic way.

They are not doing the peace process any good. Is this evidence of a

climate where the authorities were prepared to fight terrorism by any

means? I don't believe it is. It is evidence of the ongoing Republican

objective of forcing a narrative saying, things were so difficult for

Republicans, that they had to take forcible arms when the truth is

entirely different. Based on evidence contained in this book,

though, there is evidence of collusion at the highest possible

levels, and sheep quotes up to 120 murders. I don't believe collusion

was systemic or anything like that. I think she has it wrong. There is a

blurring of the lines here. It is wrong and unfortunate. I agree

largely with the comments of Raymond White, who himself was a very fine

police officer. He says, as far as the three steps cases concerned, he

said, if it's true, it's very serious and worthy of further

investigation. What's undeniable was that a lot of innocent people died

tragically. I condemn murder and always have done. But I do have to

say that I don't believe it was systemic. I believe that people were

operating in difficult circumstances. I come from South

Armagh and know what life was like to live there, and I also know the

challenges. Sorry, this is important because I know of the challenges

that this -- that the security forces faced in South Armagh. But

that would not have justified systemic collusion, would it? I

don't believe it existed. This book is largely based on HET reports.

Another point that Raymond White made. For any senior RUC figure

today saying they did not have access and could not join the dots I

think is shameful. The evidence has been brought to them. They did not

join up the dots do not believe that... The other point to want to

make is this. The HET claimer rubber can conspiracy. -- claim a

Republican conspiracy. Why don't people actually listen to the truth

for once? You are picking and choosing here tonight. You have

criticised the HET in the past don't like the way it operates in certain

circumstances. You like tonight. The evidence in this book comes from the

HET reports, which comes from the RUC. These were the reports produced

by HET, not me or any Republican. The point of it is people need to

get the truth. Let us get it all out there. Seamus Mallon, the former

Deputy First Minister believes there was evidence of significant levels

of collusion. Surely you have to take a man like that seriously? Alex

is being selective, as Sinn Fein have been throughout this process.

We have heard again selective wire graphical details from Alex tonight.

-- biographical details will stop. I would like him to admit his actions

within the Republican movement. Either he did not know it existed

like his party leader... You have made that point. Answer the question

on Seamus Mallon. A former Deputy First Minister. Not a member of Sinn

Fein, not a member of the Republican movement, he hasn't raised serious

issues. Should you not taken seriously? Are member accusations

made by nationalists, including Seamus Mallon. They have caused

serious hurt to the families of the security forces for the allegations,

will weather made by Seamus Mallon or the Republicans or Sinn Fein, or

people through a book, allegations require evidence. Had I died of my

gunshot wounds, would I have been an innocent victim? You are talking

about interpreting the past. Would I have been an innocent victim? Are

you willing to admit your activities... Would I have been an

innocent victim or not? I have absolutely conveyed my borrowings of

innocent victim or not? I have violence of -- my cup abhorrence of

violence. You should be able to give a simple yes or no. Thankfully, he

did not die, but too many did die. A final sentence. Republicans are

looking for answers from others when they will not give answers

themselves and stop what my party have been clear about, let us have a

truth process that we can all subscribe to. I look forward to

that. People should not be afraid of the truth. I do very much to both of

you. Now, are our politicians playing party politics with planning

legislation? On Tuesday, the Environment Minister said he

wouldn't be proceeding with his Planning Bill. Mark H Durkan told

the Assembly he was withdrawing it because of legal concerns

surrounding the DUP and Sinn Fein's proposed amendments setting up

so-called economically significant planning zones in certain areas. Mr

Durkan came into The View studio earlier today.

I said in the chamber the other day, and I will say it again today. Those

amendments have made it a toxic piece of legislation. It was brought

with good intentions to speed up and improve the transfer of planning to

councils. That has been derailed by a those amendments. Derailed by your

decision not to proceed with the planning Bill. Because that is what

you have done is that the good elements that people were supportive

of and would have been keen to see on statute books I now lost. I

remain committed to bringing through the good elements of the bill by

different means. This bill was just an attempt to fast forward the

powers that were coming their way. As time moves on, we have run out of

road. That is why I felt I had to act. What we do need, what everyone

needs in the planning system is certainty. These amendments created

uncertainty. Had the bill progressed, I have no doubt that it

would have been the subject of legal challenge and that would have done

very little to speed up the transfer of these powers or to create a

certainty. Playing schoolyard politics here with this because

you're concerned fundamentally that part of your rig is being taken over

by the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That is

what it boils down to. This is about planning, not politics was a pit is

not my Department being disempowered here. Don't forget, I'm still does

ring powers to local councils. Two weeks ago, we voted to pass the

local government reform Bill which deal with the transfer of powers to

the local councils. Through the amendments, planning powers were

being taken away from them. Also, if we are talking about power being

taken away, one of the amendments is actually taking the power and the

Right away from people to judicial review against planning decisions

that they are not happy with. Can I ask you sought legal advice from. He

did not consult the Attorney General. Why not and should you not

have? My predecessor initially sought legal advice from one of the

top five QCs on these islands. I have no doubt on the validity of

that advice and indeed that opinion has been shared by any other lawyer

I have spoken to , any other planning professional aye has hugged

it. The only voices I have heard to contradict that legal opinion have

been those of the DUP and most recently that of the Attorney

General. I did not hear what he Attorney General said until after

the debate on Tuesday. I have every right... You must have heard what he

said to your predecessor? My predecessor did not receive advice

from the Attorney General on this either. I have every right to seek

legal advice, as any senior executive does from any source. That

is the good the evidence here of the success of some executive ministers

in court lately. Can I ask you a few things? Will you read use this bill?

Is that a possibility? Not that I am aware. I have a meeting next week

and I'm sure this will arise and I will be fully aware of the

imprecations at a possible way forward. What are the indications

for ordinary people who are interested in planning for reasons.

What about developers who want to bring major investment into this

What about developers who want to country? It came on the heels of an

investment conference which trumpeted the fact that your bill

was going through. The applications for both the man on the street and

big business are good. The response has been good.

The Environment Minister, Mark H Durkan. Now, it's the biggest change

in the benefits system for decades and Stormont is supposed to be

passing a bill to introduce the changes. These include a new

universal credit payment to replace Child Tax Credit and Housing

Benefit. But where's the legislation? Our Political

Correspondent, Martina Purdy, has been investigating.

In February last year, Parliament passed a welfare reform Bill,

spearheaded by this minister, Iain Duncan Smith. He says it is about

signifying a complex system, getting people back to work and ensuring

help for those who need it most. But with no sign of matching legislation

at Stormont, questions were being asked this week. Does the Minister

not agree that there is an urgent need to share with the people of

Northern Ireland the details of the package? Has your Department

conducted any analysis of the loss of income to the people and families

most effective by the welfare reform? Is the Minister to say when

he will bring the bill back to the House cost and Mike we decided to

opt for our own welfare bill but it has been plagued by delays. Three

ministers have dealt with the issue. The bill did not come to the

assembled floor until October 2012. It passed the committee stage in

February this share but in April the social development Minister pulled

the plug. It is perhaps no surprise. The Sinn Fein wanted more

negotiation with London. They're also complains about the so-called

bedroom tax. There are also concerns that parts of Northern Ireland have

a shortage of one-bedroom flats. An interview was given by Alex Maskey

in August when he talked about not introducing the bedroom tax for

existing claimants and just looking at that for new claimants. The View

asked for a comment from Alex Maskey come the head of the committee

looking into it. Sinn Fein declined, saying they are still looking into

the issue. The DUP has a different position. My understanding is that

Martin McGuinness did sign off on this. I cannot comment at all on the

internal machinations of Sinn Fein. Earlier this month, the Deputy First

Minister gave no hint a deal had been done on welfare reform. It can

be very difficult form many people who will be impacted by the

decisions that are being taken. The bedroom tax is obviously a critical

one. There have been claims Sinn Fein is blocking the bill because of

pressure from the SDLP or because the bill is a bargaining chip for

wider negotiations will stop others see Sinn Fein as having an advantage

in delay. Universal credit was not rolled out this month, apparently

because of computer problems. They have looked across the water and

seen that the timetable for universal credit has slowed down a

lot, which has emboldened our politicians to take this more

slowly. For those on the ground, there is uncertainty on what reform

or means financially, not least for those facing assessments for their

ability to work. This man had a stroke a few years ago and fears the

reforms will do more harm than good. Seeing that they are cracking down

on scroungers and the disabled may fall into the gap. He says there is

an urgent need to end the uncertainty. The delay is causing a

concern because people do not know what is coming. They don't know how

fast it is coming. A strategy of delay is unrealistic according to

the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. I think if they think they

can take advantage of it, they are in some strange world. It is

something that has been rolled out across the UK and the taxpayer will

be expecting it to be rolled out in Northern Ireland as well. Stormont

has warned that patients in London is wearing thing and if it does not

roll out the bill soon, the Treasury will withhold payments. It will rise

to ?200 million by 2017. The Treasury are serious in their threat

that they will take around ?60 million out of our Budget. I don't

want to play Russian roulette with that sort of money. Perhaps progress

does not just depend on the leaders agreeing. Sinn Fein has to take into

account its power in Dail. Martina Purdy reporting. Let's hear

the thoughts of tonight's commentators, Alex Kane and Paul

McFadden. Let us have a brief word on welfare reform. It's not going to

go away. We saw Hamilton talking about not being prepared to play

Russian roulette with this issue. I suspect Sinn Fein don't want to come

across as a party which has one approaching the public and another

in private. This is the most important piece of legislation to

come before a Northern Ireland assembly or Parliament since 1921.

It affects everyone. Here they are, for five years later, still tromping

over every little bit of it. It's actually a derogation. Let's talk

about the main issue on the programme tonight: These allegations

of widespread, systemic collusion. What did you make of that debate?

It's quite revealing the number ways. Revealing and an away

disappointing. Any law-abiding citizen would be disturbed by the

revelations contained in the book. The you have 20 former security

forces involved -- the claim that you have. Given the provenance of

the information and research, we're not talking... We're talking about

the HET. These allegations need to be taken seriously. Not so says

Danny Kennedy and Raymond White. The huge problem here, it's about the

truth process. To some people in Northern Ireland, it won't matter

what she writes. You believe what you want to believe in Northern

Ireland. What you saw between Danny and Alex, it was competing

narratives, a clash of what they want in terms of agenda. And

virtually no common ground. There can't be common ground. The both

sides, there are no grey areas. Everything is black and white,

orange and green. Even though deep inside they may believe it,

orange and green. Even though deep you have the state accused of being

involved in up to 120 cases of murder. It doesn't shock me. White

acknowledged that. What the clashes here, the minute you admit it was

orchestrated, how far did it go? Does this help us move towards

finding a mechanism to deal with the past, or does the debate we saw

tonight hinted that process? I don't think it advances us. Whatever kind

of mechanism we need to address, I don't see any evidence of that model

being in place. I agree. Both sides believe their own truths. When you

don't have agreement on a narrative, it's not possible to have truth.

Here is a tweet which called everyone at's attention this week.

-- which caught everyone's attention. I was astonished that

there were so many politicians willing to accept the engagement.

This day and age, it's not the way to go about business. They have had

the polygamy round this row. Paul and Alex, thank you. Just time,

then, for our insider's look at what's been happening up on the

hill. Planning Bill withdrawn, and now the

final straw poll on moving this a poster competition away from storm

on it! They do not care about the ordinary man. Meanwhile dissident

republicans firebombed a store. Do I smell a united Ireland? No, if you

shrivelled brains. Now, they have got Edwin's own piece of performance

art. Man urinating in the winter. -- in the wind.

That's it from The View for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics at

the slightly later time of 12:20 here on BBC One. For now, though,

bye bye.