Spotlight Special Spotlight

Hello and welcome to this Spotlight special when our studio audience

has a chance to put questions to our panel, some of whom take

decisions which affect our daily lives. We had Sinn Fein's education

minister. The rights campaigner Chris Morgan. Justice Minister and

Alliance leader David Ford. The national media lawyer Paul Tweed.

The DUP MLA for North Antrim, Ian Questions tonight come from members

of our studio audience that it is just as important that you contact

Calls cost up to five pence per minute from most landmines, calls

from mobiles may cost considerably more. Text messages will be charged

at your standard rate. Our first question is from a CAA her from

Belfast. Are we expected to believe that welfare reform is about

encouraging people back to work, then there are no jobs?

Assembly has been debating the Welfare Reform Bill, a Westminster

Bill which has the aim of making it easier for people to work than on

benefits. We have to start this one with you. The question is, can it

work? If the jobs were there it might work. The problem is the jobs

are not there and additionally, quite a lot of the reforms affect

people already working, so some of the benefits let disability living

allowance, these are benefits that people in work actually get. So the

idea that it is really just about encouraging people into work and

not about cutting costs... But they will continue to get those benefits.

It is not that simple at all. For example, in the case of Disability

living Allowance, which will be replaced by the universal credit,

we really do not know yet, from Britain and not just from here, how

that will work. We have been told that people with mental health

difficulties and perhaps even people with learning disabilities

will not be looked after in quite the same way, and this is from

Britain, by the personal independence payment. Campaigners

would hope that the Assembly would actually look clause by clause, not

just this all or nothing approach, to throw it out or go back to

Westminster, whatever, but actually do their jobs as elected

representatives and draws applause go through the bill and say, what

is there when -- go through it clause by clause and say, what do

we want for Northern Ireland? party wants to defer it. Why?

those exact reasons. It also needs a clause by clause informed

negotiation with the British Government and we have had several

discussions both at a party level, an Executive level, we have had

platitudes today. There has been no change in the fundamentals around

the bill. This is not about putting people back in employment. It is

about cutting money. It is about an attempt to bring us out in -- out

of recession. We are saying, send a clear message to the British

Government that the Assembly will not introduce a flawed bill that

will not meet the needs of the people here. All the Executive

parties showed a determined voice to the British Government that we

will influence policy. Your party has accused Sinn Fein of breast-

beating, but there are no jobs for people to be encouraged into, are

they? We have to separate these matters into their proper areas.

Yes, there is a recession. There is a complete lack of jobs and funding

opportunities. But we are dealing with welfare reforms. Let's deal

with that. The facts of the matter of this, I do not like the welfare

reforms being introduced by Westminster. That is why I voted

against it in wealth that -- in Westminster. That is why I did my

job there. It is unfortunate that other members and other parties

elected to Westminster did not do that as well. They could have

played, Sinn Fein in particular, a more active role in addressing this

issue where it ought to have been addressed. In terms of where we are

now in our Assembly, which was passed to implement Parity issues...

It does not matter whether... are a crown minister, you will be

implemented in these measures no matter how much you beat your chest

tonight. No, we don't have to... We can shape the legislation... John,

you will have your turn again. will be implementing these changes.

That is the bottom line. You should not treat your electorate and the

people at their like... Are there are three issues... Address the

jobs issue. We do not change the issues by killing the bill, even

though I do not like it. We change it by amending it, by negotiation

and by talking to the public. That is why our minister has been back

and forward on these issues and why, during the negotiations that the

Assembly will go through, we should try to get three changes. We should

try to make sure that direct payments are made not to the

individual who has to claim the benefits, but to the landlord Stott

-- but to the landlord... Let me stop you there. These are key

issues that affect the individuals. The other key issue is... You have

been talking for a long time. Let David Ford answer the question. You

have had a long answer. You may say they are tinkering. The reality is

we do not have the choice to set up our own welfare system. We will be

spending in excess of �2 million a week do not have. We would have to

set up our own computer system. We simply cannot do it. It is a

fiction to suggest that in any meaningful sense we could change

the welfare system. What we can do is what has been described as

tinkering around the edges, which is finding things like direct

payment to landlords, looking out weekly payments rather than monthly

payments. Buyers are areas where we do have some latitude. -- those are

some areas where we have some latitude. Blocking the bill will

result in all our constituents on the 1st April losing their benefits,

losing access to things like the Social Fund as they currently exist,

and we will all be the poorer for it. You do not get anywhere

negotiating with the current Government by saying, we will harm

our constituents. You are a chief Executive officer, you presumably

create jobs at some level. Do you think the politicians are talking

about the right issues? I work across west Belfast and Shankill on

employment policy, trying to get people into employment. The

underlying concern I have is that if we are to move people into the

employment, you have to have jobs there, but all the evidence shows

the jobs are coming at higher levels requiring higher skills

levels. The areas I work in, you are talking 70 to 80% of the

population have low or no qualifications. What am not seeing

are the back-up policies and the programmes that are going to help

those people get the appropriate levels of skills to get jobs in the

future. Given that this is the opportunity for us all to work

together rather than mud-slinging, could we not join in one common

cause to work for each one of the population in this country, and two

were positively and constructively, instead of this clause by clause

more time-wasting? Whip are not only at the 11th hour, but the 12th

hour. Can we just move on instead of being negative, and why can we

not see this as an opportunity? I have had mental health needs for

things myself, so if I had not had a hope all these years I would not

be able even to speak about it. What is your perspective, Paul

Tweed? I think this legislation will inevitably be passed in

Northern Ireland. We have to focus on two core issues, employment and

jobs, and secondly, on ensuring that the most needy get the benefit

of money that is going to be available after all this. In

relation to jobs, I am an employer and I am absolutely depressed with

the number of young students coming in looking for training contracts

with us and we are just having to say no, there is no prospect at all.

It has been a major challenge for my firm to keep people in work. We

have managed to do that during this very difficult recession and I

think it is lightly important that we do not waste time trying to

fight of legislation. -- righty important. It is important that we

try to look at how to get jobs. I spent two months in the United

States this summer trying to encourage people to come to Belfast,

open businesses in Belfast. We have a lot going for us at the moment,

particularly with the good feelings that the golfers have produced for

us and we have to concentrate our energy on getting jobs into the

What about this mud slinging? of the things we are united on is

that we want to see corporation tax, a reduction, brought to Northern

Ireland. The power to reduce that tax. That will give the ministers,

that will give the Executive, that will give the Assembly the ability

to woe and attract new potential employers to Northern Ireland on

the basis that there will be a lower tax take from them. They will

be able to put that money back into resource and development and create

more employment. We do need to generate more employment. Everyone

knows around here, the world is going through a recession. It's

hard on everyone. It's particularly hard on us because we are on the

edge, of the edge of the periphery. Sir. No-one has mentioned what a

lot of people feel this could be, an attack by a Tory government on

the working-class and the poor. If they are trying to save �10 billion

of the welfare reform, it's the most poor and most vulnerable

people in society who will suffer. That is the latest round the �10

billion? The banks caused the recession, we should be taxing the

banks and tack taxing the rich and having a fair distribution of

wealth within the society. You, sir. I find it interesting listening to

politicians in the Assembly wringing their hands about job

creation when they wasted an amazing opportunity with the green

new deal to create 2,000 real jobs that would have made warmer homes

for some of our poorest people and saved us money in the winter

payment, �12 million was spent on boilers. That is major job creation

wasted by your party. You did nothing to stop it. Neither did you.

Failure by the Executive to stand up to a shocking decision by the

DUP. Absolutely shocking. Lots going on here. Address this

question. These welfare reforms are coming in very soon. The jobs will

be a long time in the pipeline? Paisley Jr told this audience and

the listeners beyond this studio that he does not agree with the

Welfare Reform Bill. I voted against it. Shefrpblgts prepared to

introduce the same Bill even though he opposed it. So will you? We will

not support the bill as currently framed. We have brought forward

reasonable amendments and we are involved in negotiations with the

British government. The DUP are saying, we are negotiating with it

and accused us of a sham fight. With serious consequences. They are

involved in a sham negotiation. They are sitting here saying, we

don't like it... If it costs us �200 million... You are shaking

your head. That is pulled out of the air. If the Welfare Reform Bill

is introduced it will remove �500 million of spending power from the

economy here over two-and-a-half years. �500 million will be

withdrawn. You have the facts and figures. DUP says it will cost us

�200 million if we don't go-ahead and retain parity, the same

benefits all over the United Kingdom. It is possible for us to

maintain parity and yet have some differences. There is no way, for

example, we can stop universial credit coming. In I would like to,

we would not be able to. Thank you. You will support. It I was going to

give some examples where we could make difference s. We could decide,

for example, to exclude the most vulnerable, the people who are

severely disabled from the assessment procedure for the

personal independence paymept. We would not bring in the bedroom tax,

the under occupancy until we have a housing stock that is suitable for

our families. If we did those things and costed them I believe

the politicians that they are looking to see what changes we can

make and how... Some of those changes... We have to go to the

audience. Ian Paisley Jr cut about cutting corporation tax. Many

companies show that handouts to big business don't provide jobs. We

should be using the money wasted by Invest NI to create decent jobs and

stimulate the local economy. lady in front. I think this lady

has made great sense because, yes, welfare reform is necessary and I

think we would all agree with that. The timing is probable wrong. I

think, I suppose, there is no such thing as a good time. We don't have

the houses. We don't the facilities. We don't have the jobs. People are

dealing with huge levels of anxiety. I work in the voluntary sector.

They are distraught at the minute as to what their future will look

like with the potential of losing work and not knowing what way their

benefits will pan out. They can't budget. The whole thing is

catastrophic at the moment. The idea that something else is coming

in is detrimental to everybody. need to move on. Thank you for that

question. Second question is from Mr Bell a student from Bangor.

Doesn't the defeat of equal marriage at the Assembly last week

send out the wrong message to young people suffering from homophobic

bullying? The Assembly or the motion did not pass the Assembly

because the DUP made it a petition of concern. It meant it needed

cross community support. You said in the past you are repulsed by it

you voted against it? I am not a member of the Assembly. Your party

didn't support it. You would have supported that position. I believe

that marriage is, as the law defined since 1866, between one man

and one woman. I think that people should respect that. That is the

law. I think, more importantingly, that to change that so fund

mentally and to turn around and say, we will change it to a man and a

man and a woman and a woman, that attacks my rights and the rights of

hundreds of thousands of people in society who believe that marriage

is between a man and a woman. are entitled to retain that belief?

I think you undermine something which is for a whole host of

reasons has deep seated respect and honour across this society. If we

do that, I think that we will undermine the rights and liberties

of a host of people. I think that if people want, for example, and

they are entitled in law to get into civil... Giving people more

rights would undermine rights, I don't understand that? They are

entitled to get into civil partnerships. Why has the notion of

marriage have to be taken away and polluted in that way? I think that

is wrong. I think we should stand up for marriage, Champion marriage

and protect marriage. Goretti Horgan? I'm not into marriage all

that much myself. As a socialist I support the right of anybody who is

in a loving relationship to get married if that that is what they

want. I think a bigger issue for Northern Ireland is the issue of

gay adoption. I have friends who are bringing up children together...

We must try and stick to the question, if we can. It is only

fair. As we speak, our Attorney- General, I don't know on whose

behalf he is doing, is intervening in a case on the... We are going

down a road we are not ready to go down. I support the right for

equality for everybody. I don't believe that Ian is right in saying

that giving rights to one group of people undermines everybody else's

rights. Why should it? As far as I'm aware we live in a democracy.

Everyone should have the right to choose how they live their life. My

concern on this is that Northern Ireland does not want to give the

impression to the outside world we are some form of backward or

intolerant society. We are doing a good job of doing that. This would

be another scenario where we have to move with the times. People

should have the right to choose. The man in the front row there.

pointed out there that you said "your rights and hundreds of

thousands of people's rights would be affected" a person's right to

freedom ends when you encroach on the civil liberties of other person.

What makes you different from me? Your civil liberties aren't

affected by choosing the term marriage. Can you have a civil

partnership? That's not marriage. Why have a two-tier system? The law

is 1860 is a man to a woman. Change it? There is a definition of

marriage. Change the definition. And say you are a woman. You are

clearly not, you are a man. The definition of marriage is a man to

a woman. That is what the law says. We are saying relationships can

change. Let him speak. My point is you are saying, you are basing it

on the biblical sense of one man and one women. If you believe in

the biblical sense of slavery. You cherry pick what is right to

your own argument and use them to your own ends.

APPLAUSE I will let you answer. There is a

lot of people to get involved. didn't introduce the issue of the

Bible into the conversation. Ian. Will you have plenty of an

opportunity to talk. No, I won't. This man. My question is Ian

Paisley Jr is speaking about our society and what our society is

built upon and undermining our society... Ian. This is not the Ian

Paisley Show. There are a lot of people who want to say something

here. Would you allow me to conduct the debate. My question is, Mr Ian

Paisley Jr is speaking about our society and what our society is

built upon. We have a situation where in the Scottish Parliament is

looking like it will pass this motion, David Cameron today in fact

said that he is still dedicated to making sure equal marriage goes

through in England and Wales am we are looking at a situation in

Scotland, England and Wales there will be full equal marriage quality

and in Northern Ireland there won't be. Once again, we will be behind

the times on that. It will be a ridiculous situation. Whereas the

member and citizen of Northern Ireland I could go to England,

Scotland and Wales and get married and come home here and find the

unionist government has ensured my marriage is not recognised what so

ever. David Ford your party said same-sex marriage was a policy.

Half your party didn't turn up on the vote and one allegedly voted

against it. What message is Alliance sending out? It is an

issue that is very difficult. We had a good question about jobs that

got hijacked. We had a serious question about homophobic bullying

we are having a spat about the marriage issue. I have to deal with

it in the context of hate crime. There is also issue about

homophobic hate crime which gets swept under the carpet because

people don't want to talk about. It it's an issue for John in terms of

schools and in terms of further and higher education. We need to

address the issue of how all our citizens are treated in that

respect. Not happened with your party having a split personality on

it? Those who took the same line as Ian has just put forward, because

they have a particular issue about marriage, are not necessarily

supporting homophobia. questioner has linked the two?

not sure the link entirely works. I will give you an xarm example, one

of my MLAs who abstained because of his religious beliefs about the

word "ministerage "wtion who made an issue on the ban on gay blood

donation. There are issues about how we provide equality across

society. There are particular difficulties with some people that

need to be recognised in the term "marriage." We have a society that

is changing to recognise the rights of all. Why is it a party policy if

the party is not going to follow it? The majority of our represent

ifs will. In the motion that came forward in the Assembly we did not

have more than half of us. You have been waiting. It's interesting that

Ian used the legislative definition. He didn't use the Bible in that

debate. That call noose question, legislators are elected to make

laws and change laws. If he is relying on the legislative

definition of marriage that can be changed. In my opinion, it should

be changed. It won't be. Well, we have been told that around these

islands it's changing all the time. I have sat in numerous studios with

unionist politicians who told me something won't happen and it does

happen. Like welfare reform? believe that given the debate in

the Assembly, given there was a narrow vote on it and changing

public opinions in regard this matter, a more openness in our

society to think differently to we once dead that marriage equality

for homosexual relationships will come into play. The gentleman here.

Because we can't examine the relationship because we don't have

transparency to financial donations it means we can't see who are

pulling the strings. We don't know if it is something they believe in

or something their supporters Surely you have a right to protect

your home without repercussions. Tony Martin was jailed for shooting

someone who intruded into his home. The question is, is your home

Newcastle and what should you or should you not be allowed to do?

am not sure exactly what the Justice Secretary his planning for

England and Wales but it seems to me what is going through is a

process in which having an established common-law definition

which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you are entitled

to use reasonable force to defend your property and to defend

yourself and other people. This has been put into law or ready for

England and Wales which simply codified what has been common law

for centuries, and now it seems they are going a bit further. It

has been done in the speech at the Tory conference. A different

question is what appears in legislation at Westminster. I am

not convinced it is anything more than a speech for the party

faithful. What we already have in Northern Ireland is about defence

and we do not need to codify it because the common law is clear.

The Tory party conference has been interesting. They have created

headlines around every think other than the rail issue, which we need

to be discussing. I think this has been on purpose. The law says you

can use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family home. I do

not see any need for anything more. Took -- two men went to jail for

defending their homes. One was jailed because he took unlawful

action. Do find that. The court decided whether he was in the law

or not. I am not in a position to qualify that but if a law is set it

is up to a gentle and jury whether the law has been breached or not.

But what should you be allowed to do to defend your home, Paul Tweed?

If you are in your bedroom and you find somebody there with a baseball

bat, you know it is not Santa clause. So you are going to react

whatever way were instincts tell you. That would be to defend

yourself, think of your family and at the end of the day, it is very

difficult for any clarification of the law to help you in that

situation because you are not going to start thinking, am are going to

go after this guy it with a baseball bat myself? And you do not

have time to think of that. People are struggling about whether we are

going towards the American way aware not only can you defend

yourself if you find somebody in your bedroom, but if you manage to

produce a shotgun while he is running out, is that right? That

cannot be right. There is a difference between defending

yourself and your property and seeking retribution. We mentioned

Mr Hussein who chased after people who had held him captive and beat

one of them with a cricket bat, leaving him with brain damage. He

was sentenced to jail but the sentence was reduced and suspended

because the judge said the call of Mercy had to be answered and this

seemed exceptional circumstances. am not to gone on vigilante law.

That is not vigilante law. He did run after them. To be perfectly

honest, I think what David has said is absolutely right. The judge and

jury can decide these things, but I thought that question was being

asked about people who were likely to be evicted because of a result

of the welfare reforms. I genuinely thought that! It is not just a one-

track mind. There are going to be many people facing this. A very

different issue. Ian Paisley. What do you think about it? What do you

think you should be allowed to do? I think you should be allowed to

protect yourself, your family and your property and you should be at

all to do that in a way that is acceptable and is proportionate to

the threat that his post. So for example, where does that threat

end? Does it end when they have let your house, been chased from your

house and gone to your yard and have stolen your property and could

come back, or of fleeing...? There are all the things that would have

to be balanced in the circumstances. You are entitled to protect

yourself, your family and property and you can use reasonable. The --

you can use reasonable force. The burglar has more rights than the

victim. There is clearly that feeling. Whether that is right or

not, that feeling is there. We have to racial society feels protected

enough and feels they have the right to protect themselves if they

are faced with that terrible intrusion of someone in their

property. It is only when you have been burgled that you have that

feeling that lasts forever. Gentleman in the second back growth.

I think it is a wider thing we think the law that people who come

into Croke seem to get more rights than the person who has been

affected by the crime. I do not think it is just to do with

burglary but other laws, too. law graduate who has been burgled,

I think that reasonable force, if you take it one step too far and

you make that extra punch, you can end up in court whereas, I do not

think of what is reasonable force gives you any comfort living in

your own home. There is already a law in regards this matter. It is

difficult to deal with these situations. When you buy it from

your sleep and there was a burglar in your hand, when do you stop

defending yourself? That is the difficulty in the law. But I would

favour changes in the law if it was to improve the law but this notion

from the Tory conference that we go towards the American way of

shooting them when they come in or go out of the door, it is not right.

If someone is going to cause serious harm to you, if they have a

baseball bat or a knife, you know they are going to cause serious

harm. It is whether they are stopped from being able to cause

serious harm and I think the law is on your side when you do that.

People who are potential victims have to know that they can stop

that person from doing them harm. We need to move on. Question four.

From a trade union official from Tyrone. With 24 % of Arjun people

unemployed, is it time to start the wreath hiring of ex-police officers.

-- with 24 % of our young people employed, is it time to start

employing a gain ex-police officers. Some people said contracts being

handed out at a tender was out of control. I do not think it is out

of control than that evolution has happened. There is youth

unemployment and the issue of hiring a game. I do not think you

can equate the two things. Policemen were hired again because

they had a particular task. That was not necessarily something that

could be done by unemployed 21- year-old. One was employed as a

transport assistant. Those issues are clearly now being addressed by

the Policing Board which has a responsibility with the chief

constable for dealing with these matters. It is not something which

comes directly to the department but in terms of the political area,

it seems to be clear across all parties what is expected. We need

to make clear what happened. We also need to recognise that ten

years on, the message the chief constable is giving his... And we

have to look at the issue of what we are going to do with unemployed

young be well. Do you want heads to roll? Whose head? Those who were

their ten years ago who have promptly retired? Even when you get

to the point of a Public Accounts Committee you ring which is due to

happen in the Assembly, those facing it will be the current

permanent secretary of the Department of Justice, not the

Northern Ireland Office, the current chief constable, not the

previous chief constable, the current chief exec did you got the

Policing Board, not the previous one. So when you talk about heads

rolling, most of them rolled out of the door a long time ago.

Paisley, Edge Hill party has a split on this. Jonathan crake was

critical of the lack of transparency, -- your party has a

split on this. So which stands do you take? I think that is the BBC

trying to find a street where there is not a sprint. They are two valid

but separate arguments and they are part of a series of arguments. --

trying to find a split when there is not a split. Ex-police officers

are entitled to be in a job. A lot of these officers for historic

reasons got those jobs back in the process. Where there have been

procedures that are wrong and abuse to the system, that should be

identified, as has been done by the Audit Office. That should be

rectified but a lot of this is now historic and I am fat the current

chief constable and senior team have put considerable amounts of

this right and are doing very well. Do you think it is entirely

justifiable that one in five of them should be employed again, two

of them before they had even left the RUC, hundred within a couple of

months and that the average length of these temporary contracts was

something like 233 days? There was a significant skill gap in the

police service whenever they opened the doors and said, pay off and

that is the end of Protestants in the policing service. That was the

church -- short-term language for it. Then they realise, we have to

get some of these people back in, and that is exactly what happened.

We said at the end of 2001 this is too much, too fast, too far, but we

knew the ambition was to get the change and the weak balance in the

police service, which I am pleased with. I am delighted remain

Katherine's want to be in the police. It is important we welcome

that support but the change was too sudden and this is one of the

consequences and we pay the price. It was not just jobs for the boys,

as a party has claimed. Each post that was retired with a very

generous retirement package had to be on the basis that it was surplus

to requirement. Those posts were judged a substantial package was

given to them and within a matter of days, weeks, months and years,

those officers were brought back into the service. That is wrong and

his is not that historical. The police board were giving the wrong

information with regards to this matter right up until recently. It

was a matter of months ago that the orders of this was called in. The

Policing Board, a democratic body, gave wrong information. That has to

be further investigated by the Policing Board. But the overriding

issue in this, it is not this -- just the actual damage, it is also

the potential damage to the policing process. The reader

creation of a policing service serving all sections of the

community was crucial and there were individuals, or a collective

decision, to undo it. You were saying about young people who could

be taking these jobs, but they might not be employed enough. Why

don't we not cut EMA and provide more training for the sent people

to go into the jobs? I guess the policing jobs are very specific

jobs. Quite a lot of them, if you read the public accounts committee

report, and you can Google it, you see a lot of the jobs they were

doing when not particularly police jobs but at win jobs, drivers. That

point about young people needing the jobs is what struck me

immediately when I saw that over half the agency workers provided by

the PSN eye over the last ten years work formally retired police

officers. -- PSNI. I agree with John on this that there is a really

big issue that we thought there was going to be a discontinuity between

the old policing and the new policing. That has been completely

undermined by the discovery that so many retired police officers,

including special branch officers, are back in there. A colleague of

mine from the University, when she was doing her research into the

historical team, she found that large numbers of special branch

officers actually involved in the intelligence unit. That is

something that we all... If I took the same attitude as you, then Sinn

Fein should not be entitled to jobs because of their baggage. Former

police officers are entitled to jobs because of -- despite their

baggage. But there is a continuity issue. The criteria for any job

should be merit and suitability and it would be nice to think that that

is being applied across the board in Northern Ireland. I may be being

somewhat naive but that should be the only criteria. For example, the

award of a contract worth �44 billion to a company with no

tendering process would be anti- The youth unemployment and the

retiring and rehiring are both connected to austerity because it's

privatisation and out sourcing which is happening to cuts to

government budgets which facilitated this. The Audit Office

said it was out of control. They are not giving to extravagant

comment. They said it was out of control wesm need to ensure that

public servants in the police are accountable and are directed by the

Chief Constable and accountable to the Policing Board. In terms of

youth unemployment, in Greece it's 55%. Here it's 24%. We are half way

there. We have half way to misery that people in Greece are saying

wesm need to do something about austerity before we get a visit

from Angela Merkel. On 20th October there will be thousands of people

in London, Glasgow and Belfast standing up against austerity.

can move on to our next question. Do you not think that clerical

sexual abuse would stop if priests were allowed to marry? This

question is based on a statement from father don began. He has gone

to California for a few months. He was saying that celibacy, the end

of celibacy was inevitable. There simply weren't enough priests

coming through and it would have to happen. We should say that there is

no reason to say there is a direct link between celibacy and sexual

abuse of children. Having said that, it is a big issue for the church.

Where do you stand on that one? It's clearly about more than just

celibacy. There is also sexual abuse in other churches where there

are married priests or married elders, or whatever. I suspect it's

go the more to do with attitudes to sexuality generally. A lot of the

churches, Christian, other churches as well, do actually see sex as

being something that is quite dirty or something that they are not

wholesome. If you that all sex is somehow not wholesome that abusive

sex is, you know, just... Is just on that same continuum of nastiness.

That I think is the problem. All of the churches, all of the main

churches that don't have an open view towards sexuality, churches

that would see homosexuality as Knott being natural or any loving

sex at nos natural that those by definition are leaving themselves

open to people abusing sex in all kinds of ways, including abusing

children. I don't think it's just the marriage issue. I think priests

should be allowed to marry. This stipulation was introduced in the

11th century by the church to it related to the Inamoto her itance

of land issues. It's not appropriate for the individual

priest concerned. I don't think it's achieving any purpose. I'm not

a particularly religious person. It's an unfair comment for me to

make. If you ask my personal view, I would back the freedom of choice.

Having a situation where, you know,... I mean, people do have

been casting observation that is the child abuse problem that

appears tor to be rampant is, in some way, related to the fact that

priests have not been allowed to marry. I don't know if that is

correct or not. I would not be in a position to make that assessment. I

think the church, it is for the church to decide and analyse, I

think they should review the situation as to whether priests

should be allowed to marry. Thank you. I think it would be a gd thing

to look into allowing priests to marry. I think anything that could

lessen the chance of child abuse or sexual abuse within the Catholic

church would be a good thing and all right thinking beam think that.

We are talking about marriage between a man and a woman in this

case. Where would you stand on this. I hardly dare ask you? I'm glad

that you were prepared at the beginning of your question to

define the circumstances of this particular discussion. That because

it's to do with a priest and because it's to do with celibacy

there is no specific link to child abuse. I agree with you on that.

Just as I agree with the point because I have a particular view on

marriage doesn't make me homophobic. I think that it's important to that

if what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I actually

believe that the damage that is done to the Roman Catholic Church

by not allowing their priests to marry, man to woman, I think that

that damage speaks volumes. I think that it is unnatural to hold back

that passion within a person to find that loving relationship and

bond and it should be allowed and permitted. I think that the sooner

the church address that is the much better for the society. By any

definition, to say, as you did, some time ago you were repelled by

homosexuality would be - I can be repulsed by someone but not hate

someone. OK. We will leave it there. David Ford. Sorry. Married clergy,

Catholic Church. I'm not sure I'm qualified to advise the Catholic

Church on whether it should allow Catholic priests. I'm not qualified.

You have raised an issue about child abuse which has occurred in a

number of institutions, not merely the Catholic Church. I think the

fact that we have seen revelations or at least allegations about the

behaviour of a prominent television personality in the last week or so

shows how embedded this culture that we don't respect children and

that can lead to the point of serious abuse of them has to be

addressed as a matter of grave concern. I used to do child

protection work as a social worker. It is complex issue. One of the key

issues is ensuring we don't have institutions that feel their duty

is to defend the institution rather than deal with the perpetrator of

these crimes. The gentleman here. think the Catholic Church, I think

it's a mute point at the moment about them being allowed to marry

because aI believe an abuser will always be an abuser and a

paedophile will always be a paedophile no matter whether they

are mafr married or not. Thing are clutching at straws. Thank you.

has become relvapbts because of the reduction in the number of

vocations in the chath Catholic Church. The status of a Catholic

priest has changed massively. In years gone by it was to the

advantage for the family to have a priest in the family. That has been

reduced because of the scandal. Whether celibacy or married or

women priest also change that, we don't know. There are jobs out

there for young men in the priesthood if they want to get them.

I don't think it's between marital status an abuse as one of the

previous person said. They should allow their priests and nuns to

marry. They should open their church. They should allow the

greater involvement of the layette. They should demock ra ties the

church to bring it back to the grassroots. The fact there was

consistent abusers within their ranks has hurt many, many people.

It has distanced Catholics from the church itself. They have to examine

it is own purpose but certainly allow its membership and clergy to

reflect. Is Belfast on the move or is it a closed shop for drivers?

The Belfast public and wider public has been exercised by the

introduction of these bus lanes which believe have brought chaos.

Others aren't too sure. What do our panel think? I only experienced

them for the first time today. visitor what is your first

impression? It was OK actually because there wasn't much traffic

when I went through. It I think our public transport system in Northern

Ireland is absolutely dreadful. We know it's the worst in the UK. We

spend less on public transport than any other region of the UK. We know

that, for example, our subsidy for public transport is about... I mean,

it's a fraction of what it is in other regions of the UK. It really

is time, if we had better public transport maybe we wouldn't have so

many cars on the roond and we wouldn't need have all -- road and

we wouldn't need to have all these traffic jams. Maybe they are doing

the right thing? It has been the experience of many motorists. I

haven't been in the thick of it. We have to examine our relationship

with the car. There is no doubt about. That we have to look the at

how we use and fulfill public transport. I welcome the fact that

the DRD is involved with discussions with the Belfast City

Council with representatives and they are monitoring the situation.

I hope the difficulties faced by motorists are smoothed out. In a

year's time or less, when we reflect on the Belfast bus lanes we

say it was a good idea. I don't know whether it's psychological on

my part. Since they introduced the lanes there seems to be fewer buses.

It increases the temptation to do a quick right and zoom along. I

haven't done it yet. Maybe you should. I'm for more buses driving

on the streets in Northern Ireland or London or anywhere else.

won't be able to buy the buses. use a bus and train three days

every week. If we can get out of our cars and use bus and public

transport it's better. We do not have sufficient infrastructure in

Northern Ireland to make it work for thousands of people because we

have a largely rural community. Whenever we think of everything in

Belfast terms we get the clut they're we have under this current

decision. There is no strategy. There is no buses, as you say, I

think it's screwed up thinking not joined up thinking. You don't think,

making it more unpleasant for motorists is not a bad policy to

get people on the buses. That is not the answer. Not the answer.

more. The lady here. Is there an opportunity for jobs then if we

need to change our infrastructure to improve on the public transport,

could we look at something for that for public spending? Just an idea?

OK. David. We had a fundamental problem for a couple of generations

planners have assumed that people in Belfast would travel in a

private car. There is no wonder that the general public assumes

they will travel in a private car if they can. If we hadn't had a

sufficient lobby in the first Assembly when we developed the

strategy we wouldn't have a train between Belfast and Derry or

Belfast and Larne. They are not running from Coleraine at the

moment anyway much we got some effort. We still have a transport

policy which is grossly imbalanced away from public transport. A lack

of subsidy. The only way you move people around cities is by public

transport. That is the case in every other city in these islands.

Frankly in every other city in Europe, Belfast is left in a time

warp, spwr whack -- somewhere back in the 19 '50s that people will

drive their cars and get places. That simply doesn't work. OK.

regular bus... Two microphones. As a regular bus user I have to be

honest they take so long and so irregular out where I am, it's

nought near Ballyclare, they are once every hour, later on, I have

to be honest I don't think that actions such as this should be

taken in my name. We are only saving maybe 30 seconds or a minute

going past St George's on the way to the Europa. It's adding minutes,

10 to 15 minutes car driver user per person. A bus may have 20 to 30

people on it because it's awful and it takes ages. I do not like the

fact saying - it makes it better for the buses. Improving the buses

would make it bet r for us. This has exercised the travelling public

terribly over the last few weeks. There is a long way to go before we

sort it out. Our final question from a managening Dr From Holywood.

Which James Bond do the panel most I dent with and why? -- identify

with and why? The 50th anniversary of Dr No. John O'Dowd probably Jaws,

am I wrong? I was thinking of MiniMe. I'm a great fan of James

Bond films, I have to say. When a question is thrown at you my mind

goes blank. Go with Jaws. I'm not sure if I have seen an entire Bond

film. Which actor? I couldn't identify with one of these actors.

Daniel Craig in that little swimsuit. Steady on. This is a

family show. David Ford. I would like to be Q I would like to have

the ability to invent wonderful gadgets. It ties in with being

Minister of Justice and fixing a system that doesn't work very well.

And being a control freak? I leave it other people to do things like

the Community Safety Strategy. James Bond makes me aware of my own

mortality. You see the bonds through the years, as they were

then and as they are now. You feel really old. I will go for Pierce

Brosnan he is near my age. Just because of his age? I don't know.

Roger Moore he was on TV recently, he is looking very old. I can

remember as a young boy where he looked quite young. You become

conscious of the ageing process yourself. I have to dye the hair

here a wee bit. With your background your family would you

have to be MiniMe, wouldn't you? Ha-ha. I'm sorry he is not a bond

character. I'm delighted... Yes. I'm delighted. Never let the facts

get in the way? You certainly wouldn't. You work for the BBC. I'm

derighted -- delighted that John is supportive of a British secret

agent. That is progress in my terms. Jaws. He wants to kill him. There

has been some wonderful bond characters.

APPLAUSE My faiv raid Bond was George

Lasenbury. It was the Best Film, best script and story. I think the

best Bond. I agree with you, I think Daniel Craig is making a good

bash. I'm sorry to say that is where we must leave it. Thank you

to my guests and to our studio audience. Thank you to you at home

for watching. If you would like to talk about any of the subjects we