:00:11. > :00:14.Hello and welcome to The View. On The View tonight: Calls for clarity
:00:14. > :00:17.on abortion law - the Republic vows to act after the Galway tragedy,
:00:17. > :00:23.but will Northern Ireland be left behind? We hear from the
:00:23. > :00:26.politicians and a medical expert. And new to The View's commentary
:00:26. > :00:31.team this week, Fionnuala O'Connor and Denzil McDaniel with their look
:00:31. > :00:41.at our top stories and what's coming up in the next seven days.
:00:41. > :00:46.
:00:46. > :00:49.And you can, of course, follow the Around 100 people held a candlelit
:00:49. > :00:53.vigil at Belfast City Hall this evening in memory of Savita
:00:53. > :00:58.Halappanavar. The 31-year-old dentist was 17 weeks pregnant when
:00:58. > :01:01.she died in a Galway hospital. Her husband claims she would still be
:01:01. > :01:06.alive had she been allowed an abortion. The tragedy has re-opened
:01:06. > :01:09.the abortion debate north and south. Joining me to discuss this, the
:01:09. > :01:19.Irish Labour Party Senator, Ivana Bacik, Sinn Fein MLA Catriona Ruane
:01:19. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :01:27.and leading obstetrician, Professor Jim Dornan. I know you do not know
:01:27. > :01:31.of the detailed medical history of what happened, but do you believe
:01:31. > :01:41.that if Mrs Halappanavar had been given determination she requested,
:01:41. > :01:42.
:01:42. > :01:50.she might not have died? Yes. It is just tragic. This kind of think
:01:50. > :02:00.reverberates through the whole midwifery, abstract Dick family.
:02:00. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:05.She died of a condition and go which was preventable. Her husband
:02:05. > :02:10.was very clear she had asked for a termination several times. He
:02:10. > :02:15.believes she would have survived. She was told she could not have the
:02:15. > :02:19.termination she wanted because this is a Catholic country. I do not
:02:19. > :02:25.think we should get into that. It would a been better if they said,
:02:25. > :02:29.this is the law of the land rather than a Catholic country. We have
:02:29. > :02:33.problems were there are all in the Republic of Ireland. One of my
:02:33. > :02:37.colleagues spoke very well this morning from Dublin, and made it
:02:37. > :02:45.clear they feel their hands are tied somewhat, as they can only
:02:45. > :02:52.into a fair -- interfere in situations where the life will be
:02:52. > :03:00.saved. Whereas, in the north, our understanding of the law is we can
:03:00. > :03:04.proceed with the risk is that could happen. Just to be absolutely clear,
:03:04. > :03:10.there is no doubt that the foetus was not going to survive in this
:03:10. > :03:18.case. Our I don't know the details of the case. All doctors would
:03:18. > :03:22.agree that this is not the issue because the mother's life is sacred.
:03:22. > :03:32.Have you encountered at a situation like this singalong Medical Greg?
:03:32. > :03:34.
:03:35. > :03:43.They have been ready -- many cases. -- a situation like this in your
:03:43. > :03:49.medical career? 3,000 women have died having a baby since yesterday
:03:49. > :03:59.morning, so yes, complications occur. And we know how to deal with
:03:59. > :04:00.
:04:00. > :04:06.them. Do you think this tragic case could be a significant turning
:04:06. > :04:12.point, forcing politicians into producing clear guidelines on the
:04:12. > :04:18.termination of pregnancies? Yes, I do believe this is a catalyst, a
:04:18. > :04:26.wake-up call. We have shirked a responsibility for far too long. It
:04:26. > :04:30.is 20 years since the X case, where a young girl became pregnant and
:04:30. > :04:37.became suicidal. The use -- the Supreme Court ruled that she was
:04:38. > :04:44.entitled to abortion. But that case sets out the principle that
:04:44. > :04:48.abortion is permissible in Irish law, but does not give any clear
:04:48. > :04:54.guidelines to doctors as to when they may operate in such
:04:54. > :04:58.circumstances. In 1992, the judges said legislation would be necessary
:04:58. > :05:03.to clarify conditions where abortion could be carried out to
:05:03. > :05:07.save women's lives. But six successive governments have failed
:05:07. > :05:13.to legislate. I am a member of a government party, and will be
:05:13. > :05:19.pressing as hard as I can to ensure we get legislation as soon as we
:05:19. > :05:23.can. This is tragic and heartbreaking. Your party leader
:05:23. > :05:29.said today he expect the Government to do something about this. We know
:05:29. > :05:39.there is a port -- a report sitting on his desk, making recommendations
:05:39. > :05:39.
:05:39. > :05:45.about the way forward. What do you think the answer is? It is
:05:45. > :05:51.difficult, but other countries have dealt with it through legislation.
:05:51. > :05:56.The Supreme Court guidelines is very clear, where there is risk to
:05:56. > :06:04.the life of the woman, her only avoided by termination of pregnancy,
:06:04. > :06:11.that is illegal. We need to see clarification, and we need to
:06:12. > :06:18.legislate for the cases are fatal foetal abnormality. We do not know
:06:18. > :06:25.the full facts, but there is an issue here where doctors had
:06:25. > :06:33.determined a foetus was not viable. Abortion is also an awful in such
:06:33. > :06:38.circumstances. This all stems back to a 1983 amendment, which gives
:06:38. > :06:45.the unborn and equal right to live to that of the pregnant women. Even
:06:45. > :06:49.within the terms of that, doctors could have terminated a pregnancy.
:06:49. > :06:57.At the Medical Council guidelines also specified that doctors may do
:06:57. > :07:07.this, and made to descend cases a fatal foetal abnormality. -- and do
:07:07. > :07:10.
:07:10. > :07:16.this encases offered. -- in cases of. This case could be a catalyst
:07:16. > :07:22.for politicians to sort the matter out. Might also be a catalyst for
:07:22. > :07:28.politicians and this jurisdiction to deal with the problem? Sinn Fein
:07:28. > :07:33.would like to put on record our deepest sympathies to Savita or's
:07:33. > :07:38.family. It is terrible what has happened here. I would not prejudge
:07:38. > :07:47.the outcome of an inquiry, but it does not take much to realise how
:07:47. > :07:54.unavoidable this was. A voidable because the doctor did it all did
:07:54. > :08:04.not do the right thing, or because the will is not clear? -- at the
:08:04. > :08:05.
:08:05. > :08:13.low or. -- the law. We need legislation in the south of Ireland.
:08:13. > :08:20.Six governments have failed, and a seventh to legislate. This is
:08:20. > :08:25.despite the Supreme Court decision. In the north, what we have is a
:08:25. > :08:35.lack of clarity. Medical practitioners are asking for
:08:35. > :08:40.guidelines, and I believe they deserve to have that. We have said
:08:40. > :08:46.that guidelines should be brought forward. It is our duty as
:08:46. > :08:49.politicians to legislate. Your partner in government says he is
:08:49. > :08:55.looking at the guidelines, and will be doing something about clarify
:08:55. > :09:00.the situation. He needs to do it sooner rather than later. Each
:09:00. > :09:05.minister in the Executive has Executive authority. We are clearly
:09:05. > :09:10.calling on Edwin Poots to bring forward guidance. We cannot have
:09:10. > :09:15.been a death, in this part of Ireland, due to the fact that
:09:15. > :09:21.politicians have failed to bring forward guidelines. The report
:09:21. > :09:26.needs to be published, and I appreciate your comments already
:09:26. > :09:33.made in relation to her own party. I ask if they make the report
:09:33. > :09:40.public. A has to go to the European Council before November 30th. This
:09:40. > :09:45.must not happen again. You would obviously agree with that. Do you
:09:45. > :09:55.agree with what she says it needs to be done, in terms of how the
:09:55. > :10:05.politicians chart the way forward? I do agree. Mothers, or midwives,
:10:05. > :10:10.
:10:10. > :10:16.or on the case. We know what to do. -- were on the case. What precisely
:10:16. > :10:22.do the politicians need to do? We have these guidelines, in existence
:10:22. > :10:30.for 10 years. You act within guidelines at the moment. You want
:10:30. > :10:37.to see those are legislated for or? I want to rewind a little bit. She
:10:37. > :10:41.talked about foetal abnormality. The judge, in his judicial review,
:10:41. > :10:45.made it very clear that if a decision is made to terminate a
:10:45. > :10:53.pregnancy, it is not because of the baby, it is because of the effect
:10:53. > :11:03.of the pregnancy on the mother's mental health. And that is key. And
:11:03. > :11:03.
:11:03. > :11:11.that has to be the case. I have no problem with her statement today. I
:11:11. > :11:15.am very buoyed up by its Edwin Poots's statement today. He has
:11:15. > :11:21.said word-for-word what was said in the judicial review, but we need to
:11:21. > :11:25.have that guidance. We have been put -- working on a guidance
:11:25. > :11:34.document, sitting in an entry somewhere. I appreciate there are
:11:34. > :11:41.problems, but let us address them. Let Savita's tragedy be the
:11:41. > :11:48.catalyst to get this thing sorted out. There are those within the
:11:48. > :11:56.pro-life lobby who have said that this very tragic case is being used
:11:56. > :12:02.as a way to push a pro-choice agenda. Do you agree? No. Medical
:12:02. > :12:08.practitioners have been asking for guidance. In the south, the Supreme
:12:08. > :12:18.Court, the European Court, has called for women's lives to be
:12:18. > :12:19.
:12:19. > :12:23.protected. People had been quelling for this. -- calling for this. What
:12:23. > :12:29.I would say to the pro-life movement is, everybody needs to
:12:29. > :12:34.take a step back. We are legislators, we're not priests or
:12:35. > :12:39.ministers or Muslim clerics. It is our job to legislate. We have to
:12:39. > :12:49.leave morality and RN personal opinions to the side and put the
:12:49. > :12:50.
:12:50. > :12:56.light of women and children to the forefront of this. -- the life. The
:12:56. > :13:04.doctor talked about reverberations indeed midwifery community.
:13:04. > :13:10.quickly do you think, realistically, this issue could be dealt with the?
:13:10. > :13:16.Overnight! If the political will is at there. The guidelines we are
:13:16. > :13:26.working with up a map of what we have been doing for 50 years. There
:13:26. > :13:36.is no change there. I am not a lawyer, but give us the guidelines.
:13:36. > :13:38.
:13:38. > :13:41.We need adult politics, north and Still to come on The View: It's the
:13:41. > :13:50.Twitter revolution. Can our local politicians prevent themselves
:13:50. > :13:55.being swept away by the technology? Now, tonight more controversy
:13:55. > :14:01.surrounding John Larkin. It has emerged Peter Robinson was advised
:14:01. > :14:04.by a senior party colleague not to appoint him. The warning came in a
:14:04. > :14:10.confidential letter Ian Paisley Junior wrote to the First Minister
:14:10. > :14:13.back in 2009. Stephen Walker had this exclusive report.
:14:13. > :14:18.Last weekend, several hundred people attended a pro choice rally
:14:18. > :14:22.in Belfast city centre. The crowd heard calls for John Larkin to
:14:22. > :14:25.resign over his intervention in the abortion debate. The Attorney
:14:26. > :14:31.General is rarely far from the headlines, whether it is about his
:14:31. > :14:38.attempts to prosecute the former Secretary of State or the issue of
:14:38. > :14:41.gay adoption. When the Marie Stopes clinic opened here in Belfast John
:14:41. > :14:44.Larkin made contact with the Justice Committee. He made it clear
:14:44. > :14:48.if they were prepared to hold an investigation into whether the
:14:48. > :14:56.clinic was operating legally, he was prepared to assist them I was
:14:56. > :14:59.an offer that raised eyebrows. Then an interview he gave to BBC Radio
:14:59. > :15:06.Ulster's Sunday programme emerged from the archives. He compared
:15:06. > :15:12.abortion to shooting a new-born baby. It attracted criticism. Now
:15:12. > :15:15.The View has seen a letter sent by Ian Paisley to Peter Robinson back
:15:15. > :15:18.in 2009, before John Larkin was appointed.
:15:18. > :15:28.Then a member of the Policing Board, Ian Paisley told the First
:15:28. > :15:58.
:15:58. > :16:03.Then the DUP MLA told his party Ian Paisley Junior was referring
:16:03. > :16:09.back to a case in 2005, when disciplinary proceedings were
:16:09. > :16:12.brought against John Larkin. He was found guilty on two charges of
:16:12. > :16:17.professional misconduct. One charge related to John Larkin failing to
:16:17. > :16:20.maintain good relations with another member of the bar and
:16:20. > :16:27.declining to accept instructions from a solicitor. He was censured
:16:27. > :16:30.for his conduct and fined �5,000. In an unrelated case, Ian Paisley
:16:30. > :16:37.Junior complained about the behaviour of John Larkin. When the
:16:37. > :16:42.QC appeared here at the High Court here in 209. Ian Paisley Junior was
:16:42. > :16:52.po -- 2009. Ian Paisley Junior was potentially facing a prison
:16:52. > :16:58.
:16:58. > :17:02.sentence. In court, John Larkin Ian Paisley Junior said it was a
:17:02. > :17:06.nastry remark and warranted -- nasty remark and warranted
:17:06. > :17:10.investigation. The complaint was investigated and it was concluded
:17:10. > :17:15.it was a legitimate use of language. No further action was taken. Ian
:17:15. > :17:25.Paisley ended his letter to Peter Robinson with final plea about John
:17:25. > :17:31.
:17:31. > :17:35.Despite Ian Paisley's revelations Peter Robinson and Martin
:17:35. > :17:40.McGuinness agreed to John Larkin becoming Attorney-General. We
:17:40. > :17:43.contacted Ian Paisley about his letter, but he declined to be
:17:43. > :17:48.interviewed and said it was a private matter. We asked John
:17:48. > :17:50.Larkin to appear in tonight's programme, but he declined N a
:17:51. > :17:56.statement, he said: The decision to appoint the Attorney-General is not
:17:56. > :18:00.a matter for me. It is a matter for the first and Deputy First Minister
:18:00. > :18:06.acting jointly. We contacted their office with a series of questions,
:18:06. > :18:10.but they didn't comment. Stephen Walker reporting. Politicians have
:18:10. > :18:14.ways of getting their message across. Face-to-face, leaflets,
:18:14. > :18:17.speeches, but the most direct way these days is Twitter. It has
:18:17. > :18:21.worked well for Barack Obama and now politicians here are looking
:18:21. > :18:31.across the Atlantic to see what they can learn. If you have not
:18:31. > :18:31.
:18:31. > :19:14.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 42 seconds
:19:14. > :19:19.signed up to it yet, what exactly Well, that is all very well, but
:19:19. > :19:29.are there pitfalls? With me is Mike Nesbitt and Daithi McKay. You are a
:19:29. > :19:32.committed and enthusiastic tweether. Why is it a good -- Tweeter? It is
:19:32. > :19:40.real time and about communicating with constituents as well and
:19:40. > :19:44.because it's not through the media, it is uncut and unadjusted. We can
:19:44. > :19:50.get our message on to the mobile phones of the people we represent.
:19:50. > :19:57.A lot of critics of Twitter say you have to be ego tiskal to be on
:19:57. > :20:01.there and you have to assume people want to waste their time looking at
:20:01. > :20:10.your musings - is that right? People get the messages instantly,
:20:10. > :20:14.so they don't have to go into your particular account to view it.
:20:14. > :20:18.Quite often we are told on the doorsteps we never hear anything
:20:18. > :20:24.from one year to the next. This is a way to make sure people know what
:20:24. > :20:29.we are doing every day. You are sceptical - is that fair? You have
:20:29. > :20:32.to have an ego to be sitting in this studio as well. The only
:20:32. > :20:38.reason I started with any social media was because of politics. What
:20:38. > :20:45.is my objective? It is to reach out to people, looking on them primary
:20:45. > :20:51.as potential voters. It is not - is this a lovely photo of our new cat?
:20:51. > :20:54.It is about politics. It is a better way to connect w some of the
:20:54. > :20:58.stuff I see some politicians put on the internet. You have an
:20:58. > :21:04.interesting line to walk. I started a Twitter conversation with people
:21:04. > :21:11.last night saying, who do you like, what information benefits you and
:21:11. > :21:16.what don't you want to hear? They want something private, intimate
:21:16. > :21:21.and interactive. They don't just want press releases or politicians
:21:21. > :21:24.telling them how wonderful they are. Everybody has a different
:21:24. > :21:31.definition of relevant and interesting. That is the challenge.
:21:31. > :21:35.Is it the personal stuff or the policy? You are one step removed...
:21:35. > :21:40.You Tweet infrequently. Very often it is not personal. That is
:21:40. > :21:45.deliberate? That is deliberate. I will not put on photos of the new
:21:45. > :21:50.cat. I am using it more about policy. Policy, yes, but you give a
:21:50. > :21:56.little bit more opinion - a more of a glimpse into the Daithi McKay
:21:56. > :22:01.perhaps than we might get from... But is it the real one? How much do
:22:01. > :22:05.you reveal and hold back? It is about getting the balance right.
:22:06. > :22:10.Sometimes I use both Twitter and Facebook. Facebook is about
:22:10. > :22:16.personal things and engaging with people you know. Twitter, quite
:22:17. > :22:21.often you get people, the media, the politicians, et cetera. They
:22:21. > :22:28.know who they are. That is one thing I don't know about Twitter. I
:22:28. > :22:36.put on a Tweet the other day. I was attacked. The person attacking me
:22:36. > :22:40.was called "transparency" zero something. I am hoping a very
:22:40. > :22:45.intelligence person with a sense of irony. We saw the recent case
:22:45. > :22:51.involving a well-known Tory peer. He was wrongly accused of child
:22:51. > :22:55.abuse, which has now been clarified. Nonetheless, individuals were on
:22:55. > :22:59.Twitter saying things which should not have been said and will now be
:22:59. > :23:04.held accountable for it? It has identified one of the pluses of
:23:04. > :23:09.Twitter and that is you are your own Editor in Chief. It is one of
:23:09. > :23:15.the big downsides because you are entirely responsible. A lot of
:23:15. > :23:22.people would not realise, particularly re-tweething makes you
:23:22. > :23:27.responsible -- re-Tweeting makes you responsible. If you re-Tweet,
:23:27. > :23:33.you are legally responsible for the content of somebody else's message.
:23:33. > :23:37.I think people may do that and have not read the original message. Did
:23:37. > :23:42.you realise you were exposing yourself to legal difficultys to
:23:42. > :23:47.the level you are when you took out this process? I have taken people
:23:47. > :23:50.to court about comments they have made about me on Facebook. People
:23:50. > :23:59.need to be responsible for what they say on Facebook - particularly
:23:59. > :24:02.young people as well. Do you follow each other? I follow Mike. Do you
:24:02. > :24:07.follow Daithi? I checked five minutes ago. I don't follow that
:24:07. > :24:16.many. I want to be followed. What does that say about you, you want
:24:16. > :24:20.to be followed rather than followed. You -- rather than follow? I follow
:24:20. > :24:25.some people. There's no deadline any more. That
:24:25. > :24:29.is the great thing of social media. You would recommend it to people?
:24:29. > :24:33.If they have not signed up, you think it can be useful? What it is
:24:33. > :24:39.about in terms of politicians is we are held to account. Anybody can
:24:39. > :24:45.log on and put a question to us or put on some opinions. Thank you
:24:45. > :24:53.very much. Let's hear from our commentaters on
:24:53. > :24:56.the week's political lows and highs. We have two new recruits to the
:24:56. > :24:59.team tonight, Fionnuala O'Connor and Denzel McDaniel. Can I turn to
:24:59. > :25:06.you on the issue of abortion - the situation we talked about at the
:25:06. > :25:11.top of the programme. What did you matter of what you heard - how this
:25:11. > :25:16.matter can be sorted out by politicians north and south? Are
:25:16. > :25:20.you persuaded it is as simple as some have suggested? It should be
:25:20. > :25:25.simple. Between north and south and people whose political point of
:25:25. > :25:29.views would be far apart, because it is such a horror and such a sad
:25:29. > :25:34.story. And the thought that could have been prevented, that a 31-
:25:34. > :25:39.year-old woman, who went into hospital well, should end up dead
:25:39. > :25:44.in such a way, inside a week, that should not have happened. And why
:25:44. > :25:49.it happened is still unclear to me and if it was because of lack of
:25:49. > :25:56.clarity, then legislation very fast just has to be done. Critics might
:25:56. > :26:01.say that politicians have prevaricated for far too long. Do
:26:01. > :26:05.you think that there is a public demand, a growing public demand for
:26:05. > :26:09.the matter to be dealt with? think, in that context, it is
:26:09. > :26:14.important that we don't confuse the pro-life, pro-choice argument here.
:26:14. > :26:18.This is a much more straightforward. They are medical matters. There are
:26:18. > :26:22.life and death decisions being taken by doctors. It was very
:26:22. > :26:26.encouraging to hear about clarity. There's no reason, whatever the
:26:26. > :26:30.emotional debate about abortion, that specifically on medical
:26:30. > :26:35.matters that could be clarified straight away. I would be concerned,
:26:35. > :26:40.I heard about a wake-up call that we are lagging behind in the north.
:26:40. > :26:43.Yes, I think you may be right there - it is guidelines we need
:26:43. > :26:49.shortened up. That should be easier than legislation. They should be
:26:49. > :26:52.produced fast. There's no reason that should not be produced by the
:26:52. > :26:57.minister. I would like to see how quickly it is dealt with. Your
:26:57. > :27:00.story of the week - you were interested in the society of
:27:00. > :27:06.editor's conference. It was taking place in Belfast. It was taking
:27:06. > :27:08.place in Belfast. I was attending it. It was very interesting. What
:27:08. > :27:13.was encourage from a newspaper point of view is there was an
:27:13. > :27:18.upbeat mood about the future of newspapers. It's not all doom and
:27:18. > :27:23.gloom. The story was John Whittingdale, the Tory MP who is
:27:23. > :27:27.chair of the Commons select committee, very much came out
:27:27. > :27:30.against statutory regulation of the press. It is important we have a
:27:30. > :27:34.free press, that statutory regulation does not take place. We
:27:34. > :27:37.do need to hold politicians to account. It will be interesting to
:27:37. > :27:42.see what the recommendations are when they are published. Your story
:27:42. > :27:47.of the week. Just on holding people to account, I thought it was sad
:27:47. > :27:55.that the BBC here lagged behind the BBC in London, that we saw the best
:27:55. > :27:59.and the worst of the BBC in the confrontation between John
:27:59. > :28:05.Humphreys and George Entwistle, where John Humphreys did his job on
:28:05. > :28:09.him and it was sad seeing Johnson getting an easier run here, when he
:28:09. > :28:15.could have been faced with a Rottweiler from this very building
:28:15. > :28:24.and was not. Right - point taken. Let's talk about your story of the
:28:24. > :28:28.week, which is stateside. It's a fun story of two Generals, two
:28:28. > :28:33.women, who may have had intimate relations with both of them, who
:28:33. > :28:39.appear to be at loggerheads with each other and who knows where the
:28:39. > :28:42.story might lead. This was all ventilated by one part of a spy
:28:42. > :28:46.establishment against the head of another establishment. Who is
:28:46. > :28:51.really running that country? In a place where four-star Generals can
:28:51. > :28:58.become major political figures and this happening through history, it
:28:58. > :29:04.is pretty unnerving. I heard if it was the plot of Homeland, people
:29:04. > :29:14.would not have believed it. Your Tweet of the week? From Christ
:29:14. > :29:22.
:29:22. > :29:32.This is about his talking to, publicly talking to, or in the
:29:32. > :29:32.
:29:32. > :29:40.corridors of Stormont, talking in the corridors. He often has some
:29:40. > :29:48.punchy comments. I was compelled by comparing them to those in Dad's
:29:48. > :29:55.Army. I think of one MLA, we're all doomed, all doomed. This seems to
:29:55. > :29:59.me a great waste of time to bring this in against Jim Wells. It will
:29:59. > :30:04.go nowhere. We have 30 seconds left. It will take less time than that to
:30:04. > :30:07.assess the outcomes of police and crime commissioners and the by-
:30:07. > :30:10.elections, all of which will come out in the next couple of days -
:30:11. > :30:14.the results. We could have told them where we fight over policing
:30:14. > :30:19.and have fought over policing for a long time, that when there are
:30:19. > :30:25.meetings for the public, people don't come in to say what they want