Special Spotlight

Hello and welcome to Spotlight special with our studio audience.

Our panellists tonight at the TV leader Jim Allister, the DUP leader

Jeffrey Donaldson, the Lions minister Jeffrey Ford and Declan

Kearney and the commentator and former victims Commissioner Patricia

McBride. That is our line-up tonight. You are to have your part

to play. This is how you can get in touch.

You can follow the programme on Twitter. The details are on your

screen. Let's get into the questions. I would like to ask the

panel how do I convince my children to vote given their perception of

the standards and behaviours of MLAs during the expanses? This is a hot

topic this week with the independent financial review panel talking about

secret regulars is for having expenses claims reviewed, denied of

course all around but it has left a bad taste. Jim Allister you have

talked about this, is it a big deal? It is a big deal because it is

public money. This is not party many. This is public money. Public

money that apparently is being squandered through a system which

totally lacks the adequate checks and balances. Your sister programme

did an investigation couple of years ago exposed the fact that ?700,000

of public money had been paid to Sinn Fein front organisation called

Ireland research and yet they couldn't find a single scrap of

research that had ever been completed either Wadi. It had been

set up either financial managers of Sinn Fein. Tell us what research was

done. One of the tragedies is that the Assembly Commission which is

supposed to look at this matter does not seem to have even investigated

whether or not the research was done. Yesterday the DUP and Sinn

Fein were jumping up and down to defend the integrity of the expenses

system. Tonight the job First Minister is having to call for a

review but they had their chance three months ago in the fresh start

document and they said that fundamentally the expenses system,

the architecture is sound. We have Sinn Fein year. ?700,000 is a lot of

money for research that can't be found. As all of the enquiries

demonstrated Sinn Fein was absolutely and completely compliant

with the regulations that were set down by the relevant audience. Sinn

Fein has used the funding available to ensure there has been quality

representation delivered by our representatives. Sinn Fein members

enter the chamber of the assembly, they going fully equipped, informed,

capable of dealing with the issues and the policy formation and taking

forward the legislation that is necessary to try and ensure the

answer to your question the outset, how do you convince your children

that it's worthwhile floating -- voting? We do have a viable

political process which serves the needs of citizens and that gives

your children confidence that is a there but politics year. The parties

have given good representation without that ?700,000. We have

demonstrated time and again we are entirely capable of ensuring that

the political process is benefiting as a result of the public funding

that is available for these purposes. Let me deal with this

particular point. Public confidence needs to be maximised in the

political process. We have come through five years of developing

political instability and last year we came through a serious political

crisis. Politics now needs to be seen in the context of the fresh

start agreement. It did not say anything about expenses and

transparency. It said the architecture was sound. And we

welcome the continued operation of the body and were quite open to the

suggestion that there is merit in exploring other mechanisms that

would enhance public confidence in that little process as proper

compliance. Do we need something like that, and entirely independent

mechanism? I think we do. We have a system at Westminster which is

proven to work. It is independent. I don't think it is a way forward that

MLAs or political parties should be investigating these issues. It

should be investigated by an independent body and we proposed two

years ago when this issue came up that we should introduce the system

at the assembly. We still hold that view. How come that fresh start said

the architecture is sound? The fresh start is an all-party document

agreement. We tried to persuade people and we will continue to try

and persuade people of the need to have an independent system to

oversee the expenses at Stormont. That is our view. That was our view

two years ago and it remains our view. The first Anniston today as

reiterated that position. That is the DUP position. We are in a

Coalition Government. There are now four parties in the government. We

cant take decisions on our own. We have to persuade others to come on

board. If other parties are prepared to do that we will have an

independent system and then we can persuade your children that what we

have in Stormont is more accountable and transparent. The Chief Whip was

talking about the integrity of the expenses system. You did not back

our proposal. If you are doing that now I welcome that. You are not

going to bully me. I am going to speak. If you are coming on board

for an independent system, you did not do it. It's not just about Sinn

Fein and that ?700,000 it's about the back door system apparently that

MLAs are going to members of the staff at Stormont and saying I know

this has been refused his expenses claim but maybe you can fix it for

me. I don't know what the specific start. That is the allegation. If

people are explaining and expenses claim they have a right to do that

but what we do need... Not behind the door though. That is not an

official challenge -- channelling that sense. That is an issue about

transparency. It's an issue about public funding, it's an issue about

how assembly funding is used. It's also about how we persuade young

people to engage in the literal process. Everywhere I go I meet

young people who are engaged in the political process but they are not

keen on what they think politics is a storm on. They are interested in

all kinds of things but not the shenanigans they see at Stormont all

the time. Let's see this in the context of what it is and it's an

issue over accountability. It pains me to say it but I agree with Jim

Allister. We have a serious problem of accountability in the Stormont

structures. There is no accountability in the system we have

now. We need some kind of institutional reform so that our

politicians can be held accountable and that the minute the only

accountability coming from within Stormont is from the naughty corner

of the Green party and the independent MLAs. You mean you want

a proper opposition. That would be nice but we need processes in place.

Any other young people who would like to venture a thought about

their feelings this week with this expenses business? We need to

implement the system we have at Westminster. It is invaluable to

have public trust in politicians and in our politics and it's one of the

only ways we would be able to re-establish that trust. I want to

bring Patricia in. Is your confidence in the assembler at a low

ebb? There are two issues, the first is around the expenses issue itself

and how that is best dealt with. The announcement now that there will be

a further review of how those expenses are as a positive thing but

from what I can see of the investigations to date there has

been, nobody has acted outside of the rules and we need to examine

whether the rules are right or wrong. The second issue is the

original question which is around how do we get young people to engage

and the gentleman talking about accountability. The key to

accountability is the election and that is happening in May. That is

the opportunity for people to put forward their views. Do you think

that issues like this are high up the agenda of the voters? I think

when you look at the trend in elections where we have seen

turnouts in the last number of years it's showing disaffection with the

political situation generally. That is the concern so the challenge for

all the parties when they are campaigning for the assembly

elections will be how do you reinvigorate that vote? And more

importantly what safeguards can you put in place to make sure the public

representatives are accountable. Might the young people be disengaged

from politics because our representatives are failing to

address any of our needs. We have the highest levels of youth

unemployment. Young people in care are disproportionately represented

within our justice system. I could go on. You are not delivering to

young people. I was going to say that we need to ensure that that is

maximum transparency and integrity and if there are other mechanisms we

can introduce that will guarantee that is the case and give confidence

the under people then we should absolutely do that. However, Jim

Allister is no paragon to lead the charge in relation to integrity and

standards and how the system should operate. He does not -- he does

everything a candid giant drag wallet it down. I shine the dark --

the light into the dark spotlight of Stormont. I am proud to shown that

spotlight. But we still haven't heard were the ?700,000 went. What

research it purchased. It went into the cough is of Sinn Fein. This was

a company set up by the Finance managers. We are going to come back

to Alan. Buy you encouraged by what you hear? I have been trying to

convince my two sons to vote but I have not succeeded. Based on what I

am hearing, I don't think I am going to be any more successful.

People have to ask themselves and if you take Sinn Fein, they held the

country to ransom recently for a year based on... I'm talking about

the resistance to austerity cuts proposed by David Cameron's

government. From my point of view, ?700,000 which cannot be accounted

for, I still have not heard anything which says to me where that ?700,000

went. I will move it on. The second question is from Anita Murphy. My

question is, how is Northern Ireland supposed to believe in a sheared

society if our first Minister has declined invitations to the 1916

centenary celebrations. The first Minister is going to Dublin this

week to our Church of Ireland, the historical centenary working group

at Christ Church Cathedral. She will be at that. But it did not set a

very good example, Jeffrey Donaldson, when she said she would

not take part in anything to commemorate a failed revolution

which was a strike against a moxie? Is she not entitled to her a few?

Are we going to rewrite the history of 1916? -- against democracy. You

can be an apologist all you want and whoever else wants to be... But I am

entitled and she is entitled to view an act that when people walk in and

shoot a policeman in a police station whether in 1916 or 2016, it

is wrong. You do not glorify those acts. Arlene Foster is trying to

understand better the views of other people and those -- on this issue

which is why she will go to the event organised by the Church of

Ireland. If your measure of fairness for our future, if your message to

our children is we glorify acts of terrorism, whether they occurred in

1916 or 2016, if that is the way to measure fairness, I disagree

strongly with that. I want our children to understand that violence

and terrorism for whatever reason... Go-ahead. I did not mention the word

horrify. 1916 happened. Arlene Foster, as first minister of

Northern Ireland should respect that and have some sort of involvement

and appreciation of that. Just like we had Martin McGuinness shaking

hands with the Queen. The Queen met with Mary McAleese. We all have to

except that the past she does. The same way that when the Queen visited

the Republic of Ireland the first time, Sinn Fein boycotted the event.

If you are going down the road of giving me lectures on history,

please do not go there because for everything you put in front of me, I

will have something to put in front of you. I am sure you well. The

reality is Arlene Foster is the first Minister of Northern Ireland.

Dublin is not in Northern Ireland. This is not a commemoration taking

place in Northern Ireland, it is in the Republic of Ireland. What do you

think Arlene Foster should do? I think her decision to attend the

event in Dublin tomorrow is a positive one and a brave one, given

that it goes against what she had said... I think whoever organises

the event is irrelevant. This is an event which is part of a series of

events to commemorate 1916. It might be called discussion. The fact she

is attending is positive. The question was around a sheared future

and respect for one another, shading diverse histories. The Easter Rising

wasn't terrorism, it was the end of an empire. It was about Irish

citizens standing up for self-determination and making that

first set. A few Irish citizens. Killing a lot of other Irish

citizens. It was the beginning of a movement towards an Irish Republic

so it is dear to the hearts of not only Irish citizens in this part of

the Ireland but Irish citizens throughout the world. Arlene Foster

is the first Minister for all of the citizens as she has a duty as first

minister to represent all of the citizens, much the same way as

Martin McGuinness did when ye engaged with the Queen and as

Jeffrey Donaldson does when he represents his constituents, as does

Jim Allister. It is no different, she has a duty to do that and should

do so to the fullest extent. What do you think? I welcome the fact that

Arlene Foster is going to attend the event in Dublin. However, Geoffrey

did not add to your question and that type of antagonistic approach

in relation to this debate and then attempting to reducing it down to...

Is the wrong way to approach how we jointly celebrate, commemorate and

remember the events of 1916. Flip it over to the other side, I could make

remarks about the imperialist carnage that was evidenced

throughout 1916. An event such as the Battle of the storm which caused

so much human destruction and carnage, in the interests of

imperialism which led predictably -- directly to conditions which gave

rise to nine -- World War II and that is a fair analysis. We need to

understand that his narrative towards understanding events like

the Battle of the storm and I need to be respectful of that narrative.

We have an opportunity in 2016 to take big iconic universities, Easter

week and the Battle of the storm. The distinct narrative of our

sheared history and begin to exist will work together in a reasoned way

how perhaps we can begin to build a sheared culture of commemoration in

our society that is based on mutual respect. -- Battle of Somme. How do

you explain it Sinn Fein's boycott of the Queen's visit. At that time,

we did not feel it was right. So this sheared future is depending on

your interpretation? It is not because what Queen Elizabeth did

during that visit was quite remarkable. She made a huge

contribution, in my opinion, to the Irish peace process is. In the

period since, the English royal house is dedicated and committed to

the development of the peace process which is far in advance of some of

her unionist political representatives. This is one of the

problems. Declan cannot even come to call my Queen anything other than

English. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland. Let me finish. Excuse me. Listen to the year

please. Declan, Declan. Let us have another word from the panel. I

totally repudiate any equivalence between the 1916 rebellion and the

phenomenal sacrifice of the Battle of the Somme. Grubby little

rebellion of the 1916 was trying to take advantage of the fact that

nation when a wartime to liberate Europe. Men of valour were out

fighting that war in Europe. What happens? The Republicans tried to

take at vantage of that with their rebellion of 1916. What we saw at

the storm, the valour of men prepared in a cause of honour and

freedom for us all that we still enjoy, prepare to make that

sacrifice and I utterly repudiate attempts to create an equivalence.

-- Somme. To me the Easter Rising is nothing. You do not recognise its

historical importance? It is important to San but as a unionist,

there is nothing for me to celebrate in rebellion against the British

Crown. -- important to Somme. I think the tone is of celebration. We

had Patricia talk about the sacrifice which she would translate

into more recent time for when those who set about the terrorism of

recent times, she equates with those who set about the terrorism of 1916.

I repudiate that. There is no equivalence between defence of the

realm and what happened at the Somme and what happens at the Easter

Rising? I do not say anything to celebrate. I think it is fair I

should come back. I will let you come back. This gentleman. It is

ironic for Sinn Fein or anyone like them to talk about it quality when

given me murder people on the basis of their politics and religion. They

cannot even let Orange men up our roads, 20 years after the Good

Friday Agreement we still have Sinn Fein creating residents groups. Sinn

Fein is not stopping people marching up roads. Gentleman in the jackets.

It is clear we are not going to agree about the Easter Rising

tonight, tomorrow night or next year. But it is not about glorifying

or celebrating, it is about engaging with it. If Arlene Foster had taken

part in events in Dublin, it would have been more nuanced. I would like

to ask Mr Donaldson and Mr Alistair how our union is going to engage in

a sheared future if it is not through gestures like that? --

Unionists. That is the point I wanted to make. It is not about

commemoration but engagement and shaving at sheared future and

understanding diverse futures. -- shading as sheared future. There is

no comparison. The Easter Rising was about... I understand. You agree

with him on that. I have problems with the concept of celebrating the

Easter Rising. I also have problems with what Unionists did three years

ago when they celebrated the Ulster government because those were two

sides of the same coin. I want no part in either of those. There are

issues to look at seriously and I have opened my diary for

opportunities to travel to Dublin to consider activities regarding 1916

but I was unable to accept an invitation for family reasons. When

I discovered that recognition of the 1st of January, the raising of the

flag in Dublin Castle involved reading out the names of 78

volunteers who died with no reference to civilians, police

officers, the 14 children in Dublin who died, I do think Democratic

politicians in Dublin have a difficult job screening with the way

they feel, the release date the Republic began on Easter Monday

rather than Easter Sunday and yet they have moved into an entirely

different position now in constitutional politics from what

that was about. I think there is a difficulty squealing that, just like

Unionists who celebrate rebellion against the Crown in the Ulster

covenant. There was no comparison with the

bloodthirsty events of 1916. I believe we should look at this. We

have to look at the positives if you could take us back we will never get

forward. We're moving on. I was wondering what the panel thought on

whether there would be run an Irish passports from Unionists if the UK

voted to leave the EU? Because they would be so desperate to remain in

the EU? I think it's more than likely that the Republic of Ireland

will be rushing to following such tough follower of the EU. Look at it

financially, as a nation we pour ?20 billion a year into Europe and we

get 10 billion back so we are ?10 billion on every year. We are a

trading nation but most of our trade is outside the EU. Our trade with

the rest of Europe is falling. Europe now has the lowest GDP of all

enlightened areas of the world. So the future lies outside the EU for a

trading nation and yet because of EU rules we cannot even have a trade

agreement with North America, America which ours who are biggest

trading partner because only Brussels can make trading

agreements. Independent nation states like the UK can't by virtue

of Brussels rules make a trade agreement on their own right. We

cant decide our own laws, we cant decide this and our own borders. We

are subject to all the hideous bureaucracy so getting out of the EU

would be liberating financially and liberating for our freestanding as a

nation. You are shaking your head. I think the point is well made in

terms of people seeking Irish passports. As somebody was science

passport application forms for people I can tell you the vast

majority of senior citizens carry Irish passports because they are

free. That is something that has started to happen but Jim talks

about leaving the U as being positive but that is simply not the

truth. If you are sitting there, let me paint this scenario, URA unionist

farmer and you have a nice big dairy farm and a single farm payment

coming in every and you look across the fence and there is your

neighbour with the same sort of farm getting a nice single farm payment

every year. Do you really think that if Britain comes out of the EU

George Osborne is going to write a cheque for up to get that single

farm payment? If you look at the amount of money in single farm

payments and the amount of money the North has benefited in terms of the

programmes, this part of the island as benefited from the. The figures

the 2014 with 300 million, the infrastructure gave Northern Ireland

was a total of 433 million. Where is your single farm payment coming

from? We get ?433 million back of our own money. What you think our

share of the 20 billion is? It is five or ?600 million a year and in

response to that we get some of it back. Then farmers are leaving the

North because they cannot make a living. Jeffrey Donaldson. There are

various views within the DUP. Will you be voting to leave in the

referendum? I am not going to indulge Patricia in the fantasy

stuff she has come up with. Every penny that goes to the farmers in

Northern Ireland is paid for by the taxpayers of Northern Ireland. Every

time you buy goods and pay VAT on it money goes Europe.

So George Osborne is going to carry on writing a cheque? I believe are

taught to the government and I believe the government will continue

to support the farming industry. It's interesting I think that we

will wait and see what the Prime Minister comes back with. He has

gone and is trying to get a deal for reform. We will make our judgment. I

am highly sceptical. I do think what he wants to deliver will bring the

reforms people in the UK want and if that's the case the DUP will be

voting to leave and we will do so on the basis that the UK pays in far

more to the European Union that we get back and that is an indisputable

fundamental fact. It means that outside of the European Union the UK

will have more money than it has inside the EU. It is interesting I

think that when people like Patricia make the case that the EU all they

want to do is stare us. They want to say if you leave here are the

consequences. The consequences are we will have more money to spend on

the things we need to spend on. A few short weeks ago I asked to

questions and they asked whether except would-be interests of

Northern Ireland and she can answer and there is said with the loss of

all the funding which we have the camera lions upon the terms of our

industry like fishing and infrastructure and in relation to

the peace process, when asked the question would the British

Government replace that funding chief urged that question as well.

The reality is that Ireland's bases in Europe and the best place for us

to be as within the confines of the European Union building and ensuring

the European Union asks as a social Europe benefiting all of our

citizens economic leak of rights. This is an agenda being driven by

narrow in list nationalists and Tory vested interests.

David Ford, Mike Nesbitt came back from America saying America wanted a

strong UK in a strong European Union. President Obama said that.

This question started off with something about passports. I know

lots of people carry passports but the issue of Exeter is not just

about economic 's which we could haggle about all day. It's about the

fundamentals of what the European Union means. The act of establishing

peace post-World War II by the original six members of the hugely

significant stake and. I had the opportunity to be in Copenhagen the

night before ten countries joined a few years ago and one of those I was

with recalled seeing the Soviet altered fleet sailed past Copenhagen

and a few short years later three of the Soviet republics were joining

the European Union. Justice cooperation is much easier because

we are in the European Union. So it's much bigger than economic 's. I

think Patricia has engaged in the usual pro-European scare tactics. It

is very clear. I am a British passport holder and any of the

benefits we get out of Europe we more than people.

I would just like to address a couple of the points. The bottom

line is 50% of what goes on in Brussels is very commendable as the

reason it was put together in the first place to stop another world

war. The other 50% is corporate controlled as is Westminster.

Patricia has eluded that the subsidy coming from Brussels are good that

the subsidies at the same road coming since 2003 that are arriving

today. So by next year they will be worth 32% less than what they were

in 2003. I think we have to consider not looking for the economic

advantage but the other advantage for being a European citizen. I

choose to live here in this territory and if you look what you

are getting in return for what you have given you might consider how

many European citizens are making businesses in the UK and bringing in

coming to the UK. We are going to move on. The next question comes

from David Gleave. With younger generations influenced by issues

like the economy and equality, why do Northern Ireland politicians

refer to the past? It is in the news again that the Lord Chief Justice is

talking about the legacy UNIX needed for inquests. The past is always

there. Declan key any, why will it always be there? We need to ensure

that the past is put in the past and the basis of the agreement that was

signed last November and the fresh start reinstated the mechanisms

which would allow us to move forward. Mechanisms that would give

us the ability to deal with the legacy of our past. The difficulty

is that the British Government having previously agreed to support

those mechanisms during the course of the negotiations leading up to

finality on the agreement in November reneged on its commit went

for information disclosure. The sooner we get the British Government

to recommit to the fresh start agreement and the mechanisms that

all the parties have put in place to deal with the past then we will get

to the place about which you speak. But the biggest government needs as

a matter of absolute urgency to commit to a position where it they

can and should be full information disclosure and start high -- stop

hiding behind the shame of national security but if you look at the

inquest which took place in relation to young Arlene Atkinson's death in

the last 24 hours and learned then that the insulation that her family

is looking for cannot in fact be disclosed because the British

government have agreed to actually refuse information disclosure to

that grieving family, I think that demonstrates that it British

Government has not got to point where they can be trusted. Let's

ensure that the mechanisms we have in place are fully permitted and

let's ensure that all parties to the agreement commits to full

information disclosure. Declan talks about the myth of national security.

If this led to the disclosure of capabilities and techniques which

would be of value to terrorists there would be a veto. Is that a

myth? National security is not a myth but

we suffered when a draft bill was introduced to replace the legacy

issues and had about four layers of security which suggested that was

their priority. The proposal the Lord Chief Justice is making about

inquests looked at the issue of full disclosure from the police, Ministry

of defence and other agencies to the judge who will be conducting the

legacy inquests and it will be for the judge to produce a summary for

families. That puts it away from government and in the hands of

judges and that is something which should be more acceptable. There are

real challenges to get an appropriate measure of national

security. Thankfully as devolved Justice Minister I have nothing to

do with national security but can see the implications and there are

real challenges and to state is a myth is nonsense but to put on the

multiple layers which the government put on before Christmas, with the

result that victims of the past got let down in the deal. The deal that

the DUP and the Sinn Fein did with the two governments. The veto was

described as a smothering blanket, do you agree? I do not. Any state in

the world has to pay attention to national security issues. There is a

bigger agenda going on year. We hear Sinn Fein C the British government

must open their books. We saw what happened when Martin McGuinness went

to this travelling quietly, he took the first. He said his oath as an

IRA man suppressed everything and he couldn't tell the truth. It is very

strange that Sinn Fein are very adamant about getting the British

government to open the books but when are Sinn Fein and the IoD going

to tell the truth about their hideous bloodthirsty terrorism. They

try and turn every incident into a rewrite of history. Take the

incident when eight of the most bloodthirsty terrorists went to do

more murder and because policemen did not put up their hand and say

would you like to come down to the PlayStation for a chat, the British

government is vilified as those responsible for that incident. --

the police station. The SAS did the right thing in dealing with

terrorists armed to the teeth who were going to kill again. What Sinn

Fein is trying to equate the lawful actions of the security forces and

when they step outside the law, the law is there to deal with them. You

cannot equate the actions of the security forces with the deliberate

terrorist actions of those who skulk behind and shoot people. We have to

move on. Patricia. Always about the past? I am surprised about Jim's

disregard for the rule of law, everyone should be accountable under

the rule of law. Please let her speak. Jim, could you please have

the courtesy to let me speak. What concerns me the most is when you

hear that the Secretary of State is refusing disclosure in the murder of

a child by a paedophile, how can we expect there will be disclosure in

the cases of anywhere else in the cases of conflict related deaths. We

do not know what the reasons are for the lack of disclosure? There could

be valid reasons. Why would public interest immunity certificates be

relevant in the case of Arlene Arkinson? Who are we protecting

your? That is concerning and it should be concerning to everyone who

supports the rule of law. I have always been optimistic about the

ability to deal with our past. I engage with everyone in this table

at some stage around that. We need to go back to the blueprint, there

was a lot of positive that came out of that in terms of dealing with the

past. For those who say that Republicans would open up, loyalists

want open up, test them. Put them out in front of the independent

mechanism. We had this travelling quietly, we saw what Mick -- we saw

what McGuinness did, he would not tell the truth. I do not hear

anything coming from you that is forward-looking, positive or

aspirational. I want these murderers dealt with, I do not want a

whitewash like Sinn Fein want a whitewash, it is on the past, let us

forget about it. We do want to deal with the past. I would remind you

that it was Sinn Fein for a year who held up for I hear the Sinn Fein

agreement -- book agreement. Sinn Fein held that agreement to ransom,

no one else. We were the only party blocking implementation and the only

party who disagrees with the British government over the question of

national security, I again blocking the implementation of the Stormont

house at agreement. I spent most of my day today dealing with education

issues, housing, roads and planning, the local council and youth issues

especially. The report for young people in my constituency. A tiny

proportion of my time is devoted towards this issue but it is an

important one and we need to deal with it. That means we have to

strive to get justice for the innocent victims who still chase

after justice. If I hear Declan talk about full disclosure, I was

involved in this medic inquiry which investigated collusion between the

Garda and the IRA. Sinn Fein are invited to take part. Gerry Adams

finally agreed to two senior IoD... This is worth it. With all due

respect, it is the kind of stuff you do not want to put on the BBC but I

will put it on the BBC. They were asked to cooperate with the inquiry.

Every time they were asked a question, they got out of the room,

made a telephone call and called their superiors and returned and

said they could not and so that question. Sinn Fein and the IRA will

not tell the truth. There is no level playing field. I... When it

comes to truth and transparency, Republicans say the majority of

mergers was done by Republicans but most unresolved murders was by them.

The call for the British government to be transparent but... It is

hypocritical. We look at the South Africa getting past apartheid,

Rwanda gets past genocide, Northern Ireland should deal with issues from

the past but also move into the 21st century. Almost 20 years after the

Good Friday Agreement we are still playing the blame game. We can agree

that bloody massacres were done on all sides during the Troubles. We

need commitment from our leaders to move forward and move away from this

divided society. Northern Ireland itself suffered, you cannot move

away with a past which is not dealt with. The factors, young

working-class men on both sides of the community were led by their

leaders. This set -- the psychological damage which was last,

especially my background, a loyalist background, will not go away any

time soon. Playing the blame game does not work any more, pointing the

finger does not work, we need to come up with a constructive week to

ensure that no mother's son comes home in a box again. We want next

question from a legal assistant in Belfast. Can you explain why women

in Northern Ireland don't have the same access to abortion as women

elsewhere in the UK? Clearly the Assembly voted against any change in

the law on foetal abnormality and reports incest. David Ford, the

Ulster Unionists leaders said setting up a six-month working party

was Dickensian and cruel. You said it was any screws to avoid the

issue. The answer to the question is because abortion law is devolved.

The question is why was blocked in the Assembly? -- any excuse. We got

subterfuge and excuse last week. I can respect anyone who stands up and

says I am morally opposed to abortion and I will vote against

this. I was in agreement with the amendment and foetal abnormality but

I cannot respect someone who stands up and says, after a lengthy

consultation with the Department of Justice and proposals which have

been sitting with the Executive since June last year, after all we

have gone through over three years, we need another working group to

look at it. And they say that at the last minute before that vote was

taken. It was a ruse by the DUP which bought the SDLP and therefore

blocked anything happening. The interesting point is who is going to

run the working group? The statement from the leader of the DUP said the

Minister of health was being asked. If so, it is a crosscutting issue

because justice has responsibilities as well. Let me bring in Jeffrey

Donaldson. Pushing it beyond the election? Not at all, David Ford is

being disingenuous. We had this amendment two weeks before the

debate and there was no consultation. This amendment

proposed a fundamental change to the law of Northern Ireland. Listen to

what I have to say. I listened to you and if you do not mind, I will

now speak. The law in Northern Ireland says there can only be

abortion where the life of the mother is at risk. That is wrong.

That is correct. I know what the law on abortion says. It does not permit

abortion in the circumstances you're talking about. The fundamental

change to the law in Northern Ireland and you do not do that by

way of amendment which is put forward two weeks before an

important bill. That is not we do business and that is why we why we

believe we have to look at this more carefully, get experts involved.

David, you're not an expert this, neither am I. Wait on you what they

have to say and then we can take an informed decision. What is needed is

compassionate legislation in the north and we do not have this. This

entire debate, conducted as it is, it ignores the trauma of mothers and

fathers who find themselves in situations where the pregnancy has

been caused as a result of sexual violence or a fatal foetal

abnormality and the child being stillborn or with life limiting

illnesses. We need to move as quickly as possible to a situation

where those parents are given the type of support that we require with

compassionate legislation which allows them and clinicians, doctors

and nurses, to advise them on the best options available to them.

Patricia. Finally the only person at the table with a uterus gets to

speak. As long as you get to speak. I think this week's debate in the

Assembly Alastair was very disappointing. It was a huge fudge

by the DUP in the face of an alleged -- in the face of an election. No

one wants to defend a difficult and emotive issue when the canvassing

for an election. There is a lot of scaremongering going on around this

debate. We're not talking about abortion on demand. It is when

families face the good and dramatic circumstances. We're not saying that

every case of fatal foetal abnormality will end in abortion.

Some people will choose to carry through the pregnancy. Not every

case of incest will carry through to abortion, some people will... We're

running out of time. Yes we do need the legislation. We need to allow

women the opportunity is to have a say over their own bodies. The

question is why is the law as it is? Because that is the democratic will

of those who were elected. Why isn't like that because the proposal from

the Alliance Party was to introduce discrimination in respect of

disabled children, those who would be born unable to live beyond a

short time. Not scaremongering. The proposer wanted to decide that those

children could be aborted, able-bodied children could not be.

Under the UN protection... You cannot link those two. I am sorry

David Ford we have to finish year. We did our best. That is all for

tonight. Thank you to our panel, our studio audience and you for

watching. You can continue the debate online. Until the next time,

a very good night.