15/11/2012 The View

Hello and welcome to The View. On The View tonight: Calls for clarity

on abortion law - the Republic vows to act after the Galway tragedy,

but will Northern Ireland be left behind? We hear from the

politicians and a medical expert. And new to The View's commentary

team this week, Fionnuala O'Connor and Denzil McDaniel with their look

at our top stories and what's coming up in the next seven days.

And you can, of course, follow the Around 100 people held a candlelit

vigil at Belfast City Hall this evening in memory of Savita

Halappanavar. The 31-year-old dentist was 17 weeks pregnant when

she died in a Galway hospital. Her husband claims she would still be

alive had she been allowed an abortion. The tragedy has re-opened

the abortion debate north and south. Joining me to discuss this, the

Irish Labour Party Senator, Ivana Bacik, Sinn Fein MLA Catriona Ruane

and leading obstetrician, Professor Jim Dornan. I know you do not know

of the detailed medical history of what happened, but do you believe

that if Mrs Halappanavar had been given determination she requested,

she might not have died? Yes. It is just tragic. This kind of think

reverberates through the whole midwifery, abstract Dick family.

She died of a condition and go which was preventable. Her husband

was very clear she had asked for a termination several times. He

believes she would have survived. She was told she could not have the

termination she wanted because this is a Catholic country. I do not

think we should get into that. It would a been better if they said,

this is the law of the land rather than a Catholic country. We have

problems were there are all in the Republic of Ireland. One of my

colleagues spoke very well this morning from Dublin, and made it

clear they feel their hands are tied somewhat, as they can only

into a fair -- interfere in situations where the life will be

saved. Whereas, in the north, our understanding of the law is we can

proceed with the risk is that could happen. Just to be absolutely clear,

there is no doubt that the foetus was not going to survive in this

case. Our I don't know the details of the case. All doctors would

agree that this is not the issue because the mother's life is sacred.

Have you encountered at a situation like this singalong Medical Greg?

They have been ready -- many cases. -- a situation like this in your

medical career? 3,000 women have died having a baby since yesterday

morning, so yes, complications occur. And we know how to deal with

them. Do you think this tragic case could be a significant turning

point, forcing politicians into producing clear guidelines on the

termination of pregnancies? Yes, I do believe this is a catalyst, a

wake-up call. We have shirked a responsibility for far too long. It

is 20 years since the X case, where a young girl became pregnant and

became suicidal. The use -- the Supreme Court ruled that she was

entitled to abortion. But that case sets out the principle that

abortion is permissible in Irish law, but does not give any clear

guidelines to doctors as to when they may operate in such

circumstances. In 1992, the judges said legislation would be necessary

to clarify conditions where abortion could be carried out to

save women's lives. But six successive governments have failed

to legislate. I am a member of a government party, and will be

pressing as hard as I can to ensure we get legislation as soon as we

can. This is tragic and heartbreaking. Your party leader

said today he expect the Government to do something about this. We know

there is a port -- a report sitting on his desk, making recommendations

about the way forward. What do you think the answer is? It is

difficult, but other countries have dealt with it through legislation.

The Supreme Court guidelines is very clear, where there is risk to

the life of the woman, her only avoided by termination of pregnancy,

that is illegal. We need to see clarification, and we need to

legislate for the cases are fatal foetal abnormality. We do not know

the full facts, but there is an issue here where doctors had

determined a foetus was not viable. Abortion is also an awful in such

circumstances. This all stems back to a 1983 amendment, which gives

the unborn and equal right to live to that of the pregnant women. Even

within the terms of that, doctors could have terminated a pregnancy.

At the Medical Council guidelines also specified that doctors may do

this, and made to descend cases a fatal foetal abnormality. -- and do

this encases offered. -- in cases of. This case could be a catalyst

for politicians to sort the matter out. Might also be a catalyst for

politicians and this jurisdiction to deal with the problem? Sinn Fein

would like to put on record our deepest sympathies to Savita or's

family. It is terrible what has happened here. I would not prejudge

the outcome of an inquiry, but it does not take much to realise how

unavoidable this was. A voidable because the doctor did it all did

not do the right thing, or because the will is not clear? -- at the

low or. -- the law. We need legislation in the south of Ireland.

Six governments have failed, and a seventh to legislate. This is

despite the Supreme Court decision. In the north, what we have is a

lack of clarity. Medical practitioners are asking for

guidelines, and I believe they deserve to have that. We have said

that guidelines should be brought forward. It is our duty as

politicians to legislate. Your partner in government says he is

looking at the guidelines, and will be doing something about clarify

the situation. He needs to do it sooner rather than later. Each

minister in the Executive has Executive authority. We are clearly

calling on Edwin Poots to bring forward guidance. We cannot have

been a death, in this part of Ireland, due to the fact that

politicians have failed to bring forward guidelines. The report

needs to be published, and I appreciate your comments already

made in relation to her own party. I ask if they make the report

public. A has to go to the European Council before November 30th. This

must not happen again. You would obviously agree with that. Do you

agree with what she says it needs to be done, in terms of how the

politicians chart the way forward? I do agree. Mothers, or midwives,

or on the case. We know what to do. -- were on the case. What precisely

do the politicians need to do? We have these guidelines, in existence

for 10 years. You act within guidelines at the moment. You want

to see those are legislated for or? I want to rewind a little bit. She

talked about foetal abnormality. The judge, in his judicial review,

made it very clear that if a decision is made to terminate a

pregnancy, it is not because of the baby, it is because of the effect

of the pregnancy on the mother's mental health. And that is key. And

that has to be the case. I have no problem with her statement today. I

am very buoyed up by its Edwin Poots's statement today. He has

said word-for-word what was said in the judicial review, but we need to

have that guidance. We have been put -- working on a guidance

document, sitting in an entry somewhere. I appreciate there are

problems, but let us address them. Let Savita's tragedy be the

catalyst to get this thing sorted out. There are those within the

pro-life lobby who have said that this very tragic case is being used

as a way to push a pro-choice agenda. Do you agree? No. Medical

practitioners have been asking for guidance. In the south, the Supreme

Court, the European Court, has called for women's lives to be

protected. People had been quelling for this. -- calling for this. What

I would say to the pro-life movement is, everybody needs to

take a step back. We are legislators, we're not priests or

ministers or Muslim clerics. It is our job to legislate. We have to

leave morality and RN personal opinions to the side and put the

light of women and children to the forefront of this. -- the life. The

doctor talked about reverberations indeed midwifery community.

quickly do you think, realistically, this issue could be dealt with the?

Overnight! If the political will is at there. The guidelines we are

working with up a map of what we have been doing for 50 years. There

is no change there. I am not a lawyer, but give us the guidelines.

We need adult politics, north and Still to come on The View: It's the

Twitter revolution. Can our local politicians prevent themselves

being swept away by the technology? Now, tonight more controversy

surrounding John Larkin. It has emerged Peter Robinson was advised

by a senior party colleague not to appoint him. The warning came in a

confidential letter Ian Paisley Junior wrote to the First Minister

back in 2009. Stephen Walker had this exclusive report.

Last weekend, several hundred people attended a pro choice rally

in Belfast city centre. The crowd heard calls for John Larkin to

resign over his intervention in the abortion debate. The Attorney

General is rarely far from the headlines, whether it is about his

attempts to prosecute the former Secretary of State or the issue of

gay adoption. When the Marie Stopes clinic opened here in Belfast John

Larkin made contact with the Justice Committee. He made it clear

if they were prepared to hold an investigation into whether the

clinic was operating legally, he was prepared to assist them I was

an offer that raised eyebrows. Then an interview he gave to BBC Radio

Ulster's Sunday programme emerged from the archives. He compared

abortion to shooting a new-born baby. It attracted criticism. Now

The View has seen a letter sent by Ian Paisley to Peter Robinson back

in 2009, before John Larkin was appointed.

Then a member of the Policing Board, Ian Paisley told the First

Then the DUP MLA told his party Ian Paisley Junior was referring

back to a case in 2005, when disciplinary proceedings were

brought against John Larkin. He was found guilty on two charges of

professional misconduct. One charge related to John Larkin failing to

maintain good relations with another member of the bar and

declining to accept instructions from a solicitor. He was censured

for his conduct and fined �5,000. In an unrelated case, Ian Paisley

Junior complained about the behaviour of John Larkin. When the

QC appeared here at the High Court here in 209. Ian Paisley Junior was

po -- 2009. Ian Paisley Junior was potentially facing a prison

sentence. In court, John Larkin Ian Paisley Junior said it was a

nastry remark and warranted -- nasty remark and warranted

investigation. The complaint was investigated and it was concluded

it was a legitimate use of language. No further action was taken. Ian

Paisley ended his letter to Peter Robinson with final plea about John

Despite Ian Paisley's revelations Peter Robinson and Martin

McGuinness agreed to John Larkin becoming Attorney-General. We

contacted Ian Paisley about his letter, but he declined to be

interviewed and said it was a private matter. We asked John

Larkin to appear in tonight's programme, but he declined N a

statement, he said: The decision to appoint the Attorney-General is not

a matter for me. It is a matter for the first and Deputy First Minister

acting jointly. We contacted their office with a series of questions,

but they didn't comment. Stephen Walker reporting. Politicians have

ways of getting their message across. Face-to-face, leaflets,

speeches, but the most direct way these days is Twitter. It has

worked well for Barack Obama and now politicians here are looking

across the Atlantic to see what they can learn. If you have not

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 42 seconds

signed up to it yet, what exactly Well, that is all very well, but

are there pitfalls? With me is Mike Nesbitt and Daithi McKay. You are a

committed and enthusiastic tweether. Why is it a good -- Tweeter? It is

real time and about communicating with constituents as well and

because it's not through the media, it is uncut and unadjusted. We can

get our message on to the mobile phones of the people we represent.

A lot of critics of Twitter say you have to be ego tiskal to be on

there and you have to assume people want to waste their time looking at

your musings - is that right? People get the messages instantly,

so they don't have to go into your particular account to view it.

Quite often we are told on the doorsteps we never hear anything

from one year to the next. This is a way to make sure people know what

we are doing every day. You are sceptical - is that fair? You have

to have an ego to be sitting in this studio as well. The only

reason I started with any social media was because of politics. What

is my objective? It is to reach out to people, looking on them primary

as potential voters. It is not - is this a lovely photo of our new cat?

It is about politics. It is a better way to connect w some of the

stuff I see some politicians put on the internet. You have an

interesting line to walk. I started a Twitter conversation with people

last night saying, who do you like, what information benefits you and

what don't you want to hear? They want something private, intimate

and interactive. They don't just want press releases or politicians

telling them how wonderful they are. Everybody has a different

definition of relevant and interesting. That is the challenge.

Is it the personal stuff or the policy? You are one step removed...

You Tweet infrequently. Very often it is not personal. That is

deliberate? That is deliberate. I will not put on photos of the new

cat. I am using it more about policy. Policy, yes, but you give a

little bit more opinion - a more of a glimpse into the Daithi McKay

perhaps than we might get from... But is it the real one? How much do

you reveal and hold back? It is about getting the balance right.

Sometimes I use both Twitter and Facebook. Facebook is about

personal things and engaging with people you know. Twitter, quite

often you get people, the media, the politicians, et cetera. They

know who they are. That is one thing I don't know about Twitter. I

put on a Tweet the other day. I was attacked. The person attacking me

was called "transparency" zero something. I am hoping a very

intelligence person with a sense of irony. We saw the recent case

involving a well-known Tory peer. He was wrongly accused of child

abuse, which has now been clarified. Nonetheless, individuals were on

Twitter saying things which should not have been said and will now be

held accountable for it? It has identified one of the pluses of

Twitter and that is you are your own Editor in Chief. It is one of

the big downsides because you are entirely responsible. A lot of

people would not realise, particularly re-tweething makes you

responsible -- re-Tweeting makes you responsible. If you re-Tweet,

you are legally responsible for the content of somebody else's message.

I think people may do that and have not read the original message. Did

you realise you were exposing yourself to legal difficultys to

the level you are when you took out this process? I have taken people

to court about comments they have made about me on Facebook. People

need to be responsible for what they say on Facebook - particularly

young people as well. Do you follow each other? I follow Mike. Do you

follow Daithi? I checked five minutes ago. I don't follow that

many. I want to be followed. What does that say about you, you want

to be followed rather than followed. You -- rather than follow? I follow

some people. There's no deadline any more. That

is the great thing of social media. You would recommend it to people?

If they have not signed up, you think it can be useful? What it is

about in terms of politicians is we are held to account. Anybody can

log on and put a question to us or put on some opinions. Thank you

very much. Let's hear from our commentaters on

the week's political lows and highs. We have two new recruits to the

team tonight, Fionnuala O'Connor and Denzel McDaniel. Can I turn to

you on the issue of abortion - the situation we talked about at the

top of the programme. What did you matter of what you heard - how this

matter can be sorted out by politicians north and south? Are

you persuaded it is as simple as some have suggested? It should be

simple. Between north and south and people whose political point of

views would be far apart, because it is such a horror and such a sad

story. And the thought that could have been prevented, that a 31-

year-old woman, who went into hospital well, should end up dead

in such a way, inside a week, that should not have happened. And why

it happened is still unclear to me and if it was because of lack of

clarity, then legislation very fast just has to be done. Critics might

say that politicians have prevaricated for far too long. Do

you think that there is a public demand, a growing public demand for

the matter to be dealt with? think, in that context, it is

important that we don't confuse the pro-life, pro-choice argument here.

This is a much more straightforward. They are medical matters. There are

life and death decisions being taken by doctors. It was very

encouraging to hear about clarity. There's no reason, whatever the

emotional debate about abortion, that specifically on medical

matters that could be clarified straight away. I would be concerned,

I heard about a wake-up call that we are lagging behind in the north.

Yes, I think you may be right there - it is guidelines we need

shortened up. That should be easier than legislation. They should be

produced fast. There's no reason that should not be produced by the

minister. I would like to see how quickly it is dealt with. Your

story of the week - you were interested in the society of

editor's conference. It was taking place in Belfast. It was taking

place in Belfast. I was attending it. It was very interesting. What

was encourage from a newspaper point of view is there was an

upbeat mood about the future of newspapers. It's not all doom and

gloom. The story was John Whittingdale, the Tory MP who is

chair of the Commons select committee, very much came out

against statutory regulation of the press. It is important we have a

free press, that statutory regulation does not take place. We

do need to hold politicians to account. It will be interesting to

see what the recommendations are when they are published. Your story

of the week. Just on holding people to account, I thought it was sad

that the BBC here lagged behind the BBC in London, that we saw the best

and the worst of the BBC in the confrontation between John

Humphreys and George Entwistle, where John Humphreys did his job on

him and it was sad seeing Johnson getting an easier run here, when he

could have been faced with a Rottweiler from this very building

and was not. Right - point taken. Let's talk about your story of the

week, which is stateside. It's a fun story of two Generals, two

women, who may have had intimate relations with both of them, who

appear to be at loggerheads with each other and who knows where the

story might lead. This was all ventilated by one part of a spy

establishment against the head of another establishment. Who is

really running that country? In a place where four-star Generals can

become major political figures and this happening through history, it

is pretty unnerving. I heard if it was the plot of Homeland, people

would not have believed it. Your Tweet of the week? From Christ

This is about his talking to, publicly talking to, or in the

corridors of Stormont, talking in the corridors. He often has some

punchy comments. I was compelled by comparing them to those in Dad's

Army. I think of one MLA, we're all doomed, all doomed. This seems to

me a great waste of time to bring this in against Jim Wells. It will

go nowhere. We have 30 seconds left. It will take less time than that to

assess the outcomes of police and crime commissioners and the by-

elections, all of which will come out in the next couple of days -

the results. We could have told them where we fight over policing

and have fought over policing for a long time, that when there are

meetings for the public, people don't come in to say what they want