:00:00. > :00:29.Tonight, comfort letter, ultimatums and on the runs, David Cameron calls
:00:30. > :00:35.in a running to lead a review into the issue which could have brought
:00:36. > :00:39.down Stormont the First Minister says he's satisfied. The First
:00:40. > :00:42.Minister and the Secretary of State have been prompt. They have dealt
:00:43. > :00:47.with the issue seriously and in a matter satisfactory to me. Yes, I do
:00:48. > :00:52.not intend to resign on the basis that if you get what you want, why
:00:53. > :00:55.would you want to resign? Is that satisfaction shared by other
:00:56. > :00:58.politicians? We hear from representatives at the Assembly and
:00:59. > :01:01.Westminster. Plus the man responsible for prosecutions here
:01:02. > :01:05.gives his verdicts on prosecuting the past. So it is a matter of
:01:06. > :01:10.concern to me that there are a large number of cases out there in respect
:01:11. > :01:16.of which there may not have been complete investigations. And in the
:01:17. > :01:22.commentary box with their thoughts on it all and you can join on
:01:23. > :01:34.Twitter. So, the crisis appears to be over
:01:35. > :01:38.for now at least. Peter Robinson has withdrawn his threat to be First
:01:39. > :01:42.Minister, appeased by David Cameron, who agreed to call in a judge to
:01:43. > :01:47.look at the row. A frenzied two days of political accusations, denials,
:01:48. > :01:52.claims of secret deals and secret amnesties began, with the collapse
:01:53. > :01:58.of the Hyde Park bombing case. That was on Tuesday. Events moved at a
:01:59. > :02:02.heady pace. I am not prepared to be the head of a Government kept in the
:02:03. > :02:05.dark in this way. I want full disclosure. I want the people of
:02:06. > :02:10.Northern Ireland to know what has gone on. With the brief to the
:02:11. > :02:15.Policing Board, but if you read the report in the past, it is referred
:02:16. > :02:21.to there. The first I knew anything about it was after the court
:02:22. > :02:27.decision last Friday. Despite what I read out there the DUP did not know
:02:28. > :02:34.and it says, the OTRs were being dealt with. And to set that... And
:02:35. > :02:39.where does it say that there was an administrative scheme to deal with
:02:40. > :02:44.the issue? Where does it say? No, it doesn't! It is becoming increasingly
:02:45. > :02:48.clear to people that we were not the only people who knew about this. I
:02:49. > :02:53.can announce we'll appoint an independent judge to produce a full
:02:54. > :02:55.public account of the administration of this scheme to determine whether
:02:56. > :03:03.any other letters were sent in error. A quick reminder of how we
:03:04. > :03:10.got where we are. Joining many eare Geoffry Donaldson. Of Alex Maskey,
:03:11. > :03:16.Jim Allister and the SDLP's Mark Durkan.
:03:17. > :03:20.This judge-led examination is a far cry from what Peter Robinson was
:03:21. > :03:24.demanding yesterday, isn't it? He asked for a judge-led inquiry into
:03:25. > :03:26.what happened. That is what the Prime Minister announced this
:03:27. > :03:32.afternoon. We need full disclosure. We want to know the names to whom
:03:33. > :03:37.these letters were issued. We want to know why made the decisions and
:03:38. > :03:41.on what basis were they issued. These are critical matters. As Peter
:03:42. > :03:45.said, in your interview, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to
:03:46. > :03:49.know these things. They will get to know because we'll have a judge who
:03:50. > :03:53.will examine all this and bring it into the public dough main. That is
:03:54. > :04:02.what we wanted to see happening. It is not a judicial inquiry. It cannot
:04:03. > :04:08.compel witnesses to appear. It will not be altered by the inquiry. Don't
:04:09. > :04:14.twist words, Mark. It is a judge-led inquiry. That is
:04:15. > :04:17.what he has got today - a judge-led inquiry into this situation. You may
:04:18. > :04:22.be happy with the situation in Northern Ireland where deals are
:04:23. > :04:26.done behind people's backs. I am t not I am not happy we had a
:04:27. > :04:30.Government who did a deal with Sinn Fein, who issued letters without
:04:31. > :04:33.telling anyone, including the Justice Minister. Those things
:04:34. > :04:39.should be brought into the public domain. That is what a judge-led
:04:40. > :04:43.inquiry will do. It is the same as a full judicial inquiry. With respect,
:04:44. > :04:47.Mark, you are the only person talking about that. Peter Robinson
:04:48. > :04:52.did not ask for a judicial inquiry. His full words were, a full,
:04:53. > :04:55.judicial inquiry. He asked for a judge-led inquiry into this
:04:56. > :05:00.situation. That is what we've got. . Here are the words, in case you are
:05:01. > :05:04.in any doubt - a full judicial inquiry into all these matters. That
:05:05. > :05:08.is what we're getting. The judge is a member of the judiciary, that is a
:05:09. > :05:12.judicial inquiry. He has the power, as the Prime Minister said, and if
:05:13. > :05:16.you read the terms of reference for this inquiry, it is very clear. He
:05:17. > :05:23.can compel officials. He has access to all Government documents and in
:05:24. > :05:27.fact, he can consider any... Yes he can compel officials to present
:05:28. > :05:31.themselves. He cannot compel anyone. I am sorry, Mark, this is a judicial
:05:32. > :05:37.inquiry. The judge has the power to call officials. He has the power to
:05:38. > :05:40.examine documents. The Prime Minister said he would have full
:05:41. > :05:44.access to Government papers on. This this is not the only show in town.
:05:45. > :05:47.The Northern Ireland affairs committee, which has the power to
:05:48. > :05:50.compel ministers to come to Parliament will also conduct an
:05:51. > :05:55.inquiry. The Justice Committee here in Northern Ireland, in the
:05:56. > :06:01.Assembly, is also looking at the option of having an inquiry in the
:06:02. > :06:05.Assembly here as well. They might do that. Then again, they might not do
:06:06. > :06:09.that. We can have the judge-led inquiry. We'll have a parliamentary
:06:10. > :06:13.inquiry, which has the power to compel officials and ministers to
:06:14. > :06:17.appear before the committee. So, with all due respect, our objective
:06:18. > :06:20.was to bring this out into the open, so the people of Northern Ireland
:06:21. > :06:27.could see exactly what was happening, what was going on. With
:06:28. > :06:33.all due respect, no-one has brought anything else, or come forward...
:06:34. > :06:37.Jim Allister, apparently I am the only person concerned about this. I
:06:38. > :06:43.don't think you are terribly happy that it is what Peter Robinson asked
:06:44. > :06:47.it to be? It is nothing like Peter Robinson asked it. Geoffry is the
:06:48. > :06:50.man sent out the spin. He was sent out to spin the Maze when they
:06:51. > :06:58.wanted the Maze. Tonight, we are looking at one of --
:06:59. > :07:04.another U-turn. Only 24 hours ago, he was playing tough and saying he
:07:05. > :07:10.needed a full judicial inquiry into all these matters, so that we can
:07:11. > :07:16.see who knew, when they knew, what they knew - these are vital question
:07:17. > :07:20.toss be asked and answer -- questions to be asked and answered.
:07:21. > :07:27.I want to know who the 170 people are. He's got an administrative
:07:28. > :07:35.review, led by a judge. It is not a public inquiry. There'll be no
:07:36. > :07:40.compellable witnesses. There will be no witness on oath. There'll be no
:07:41. > :07:45.representation for victims, which you would have in a proper public
:07:46. > :07:48.inquiry. Which is the most concerning thing. There'll be a
:07:49. > :07:52.paper exercise, where the judge will look over the papers N the words of
:07:53. > :08:02.the Prime Minister, to satisfy himself there's no other mistakes...
:08:03. > :08:08.I wasn't the man... I was not the man who said if I don't get a full
:08:09. > :08:12.inquiry, if I don't get the resigning of these letters then I
:08:13. > :08:17.resign. Hang on!
:08:18. > :08:21.As for the rescinding of the letters he got nothing. Tonight, he's trying
:08:22. > :08:28.to hide behind a fig leaf. It's the same that's in the very letters. Go
:08:29. > :08:32.to paragraph 123 of the judgment in the Downy case. The very thing that
:08:33. > :08:38.Robinson is claiming tonight as a victory was already in the on the
:08:39. > :08:43.run letters - the very same language. He got nothing. He took
:08:44. > :08:47.people to the top of the hill and he's clambered back down, clutching
:08:48. > :08:55.the leafs he has. It's easy for you to criticise the DUP! You knew
:08:56. > :09:00.nothing about it either... Did you not read the police board minutes?
:09:01. > :09:04.Did you not read the memoirs? I was not on the police board. I have read
:09:05. > :09:09.the memoirs. Let's be very, very clear I was the First Minister who
:09:10. > :09:14.came out and said, my job is not worth doing unless I can deliver on
:09:15. > :09:19.these issues. He's not going to deliver on these issues. He has once
:09:20. > :09:22.again, sadly, even betrayed the victims. Those who are concerned
:09:23. > :09:26.about what has happened to those that may have murdered their loved
:09:27. > :09:30.ones they are not going to get a chance in a public inquiry to
:09:31. > :09:35.explore that. They will not even hear the names of those. I will
:09:36. > :09:41.bring in the other guests. You have said, a phrase used by Jim Allister,
:09:42. > :09:45.you have said the announcement from David Cameron is a fig leaf for the
:09:46. > :09:50.DUP. What I am worried about is all the
:09:51. > :09:54.parties working together, to solve the problems which this particular
:09:55. > :09:58.issue highlights and that is the failure of the parties and of the
:09:59. > :10:01.Governments to deal with all of the issues of the past. When all the
:10:02. > :10:05.parties go out and say, let's deal with the victims, none of the
:10:06. > :10:11.parties, including my own, we don't represent all the victims. We may
:10:12. > :10:17.represent some. We do not all. Do we get a way forward which addresses
:10:18. > :10:21.the vast majority of victims - an opportunity to go down the judicial
:10:22. > :10:25.route or an information... You don't think it is now dead in the water?
:10:26. > :10:30.There have been people who have been opposed to dealing this matter for
:10:31. > :10:37.years. There are three parties who have rejected it. For me, it is more
:10:38. > :10:41.like a get out pass. The Republican version was to deal
:10:42. > :10:45.with it in secret and not deal with anybody else - that is what Sinn
:10:46. > :10:50.Fein did. It is a contrived problem because all of the parties were
:10:51. > :10:58.aware that as it was being addressed, it was 2001 and as late
:10:59. > :11:03.as 2009 in the report, page 121, it refers very explicitly in that
:11:04. > :11:08.review - the case has been raised by Foster.
:11:09. > :11:13.They didn't know about the letters. It doesn't matter if you know about
:11:14. > :11:17.a precise letter. That is the point. Let me say to you, you are saying
:11:18. > :11:21.that and others are making a point. I am not saying it. These gentlemen
:11:22. > :11:25.are saying it. I have just agreed with you that
:11:26. > :11:29.others are saying it is a matter of concern to them. What I am saying to
:11:30. > :11:37.you, it is no surprise that any of the parties that this matter was of
:11:38. > :11:45.interest. And in the case, which Arlene Foster review referred to.
:11:46. > :11:51.The defence for the killing was the fact that he, unlike others didn't
:11:52. > :11:55.get a letter or a pardon. That was a highly-publicised case. The unionist
:11:56. > :11:59.party politicians were in the court listening to all of that. It was a
:12:00. > :12:04.highly-publicised case. People knew it was going on. Did you know it was
:12:05. > :12:09.going on? No. I didn't know it was going on in these terms. Let's be
:12:10. > :12:13.clear, there were things the parties decided they didn't need to know.
:12:14. > :12:19.And things the DUP decided they didn't need to know. Whenever the
:12:20. > :12:24.controversial bill was brought forward, the thrust was not the stop
:12:25. > :12:29.the bill which is what the SDPL were trying to do, it was to make sure
:12:30. > :12:32.the blame hung around David Trimble's neck. Of course the
:12:33. > :12:38.British Government went along with him saying it went back... The
:12:39. > :12:45.record will show if anybody... The record shows we opposed the bill. I
:12:46. > :12:51.did not t interrupt you. We opposed the bill at every turn and it was
:12:52. > :12:55.not the SDLP... Let him make his point. I want to be very clear -
:12:56. > :12:59.Peter Robinson, who sit on that committee, made it clear to me,
:13:00. > :13:03.personally, that he thought I was overdoing it in opposing the bill,
:13:04. > :13:07.that he thought I was foolish in believing I could stop the bill,
:13:08. > :13:11.that it was a done deal. They were making it clear it was done by David
:13:12. > :13:20.Trimble. You only have to read the words that every time he spoke, it
:13:21. > :13:26.was put on... Peter and grefry, they made it clear... It was never made a
:13:27. > :13:33.deal-breaker by the DUP. And Jim, you were in the DUP at that stage.
:13:34. > :13:38.You knew what was in that bill. The bill was public. It was not made a
:13:39. > :13:43.deal-breaker. How the First Minister was there, was going to be a
:13:44. > :13:48.deal-breaker. The review was a deal-breaker. This scheme to give a
:13:49. > :13:53.whiched-open amnesty, not just this to on the runs - that was never a
:13:54. > :13:59.deal breaker, so long as David Trimble could take the blame. Let's
:14:00. > :18:38.be clear with that... ALL SPEAK AT
:18:39. > :18:48.Finish the sentence. We never went against individual families. We were
:18:49. > :18:58.looking to deal with the past on a number of levels. Sinn Fein did not
:18:59. > :19:08.want to address some other families. Let's be very clear. These letters
:19:09. > :19:14.were always outrageous. Yesterday, today. Why? Because they subvert the
:19:15. > :19:20.due process of the law. They subvert the political process. None of that
:19:21. > :19:25.has changed. The very thing that Mr Robinson said would be a resigning
:19:26. > :19:46.matter, that is still the position tonight. We are out of time, folks.
:19:47. > :19:49.ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER. The debate will continue. Thank you
:19:50. > :19:55.all very much for joining us tonight. One man in an unusual
:19:56. > :20:00.position is the director of public prosecutions, appointed in November
:20:01. > :20:05.2011. Beforehand, as prominent defence solicitor, he represented
:20:06. > :20:16.clients who would have been categorised as on the runs. I asked
:20:17. > :20:22.him for his reaction to David Cameron's announcement of an enquiry
:20:23. > :20:25.into the row. There is a senior judicial figure
:20:26. > :20:33.heading this enquiry. It will have integrity. I certainly will give my
:20:34. > :20:41.cooperation to it, as will the GPS. -- PPS. It should clear up some
:20:42. > :20:49.confusion and concern. You are confident it will get to the
:20:50. > :20:54.answers? It most certainly will. You acted as a solicitor for some on the
:20:55. > :20:58.runs, before you were appointed as director of public and is. Did you
:20:59. > :21:11.know about the existence of these letters? -- public prosecutions.
:21:12. > :21:17.Again, this whole issue is going to be examined in detail by a judicial
:21:18. > :21:23.figure for the purposes of a review to be published, I understand, in
:21:24. > :21:29.May. I should keep whatever I have to say about all of that to the
:21:30. > :21:35.context of that review. Is it not a fair assumption that you must have
:21:36. > :21:37.known about it? In the Jan Downey ruling your quoted about having
:21:38. > :21:43.asked about the status of your clients. Your position now is
:21:44. > :21:50.different, I am just asking, did you know at that time? The first tranche
:21:51. > :21:55.of letters were given out in 2002. When you were asking in 2007, did
:21:56. > :22:01.you know about the existence of the letters? I had a degree of
:22:02. > :22:05.knowledge. But in the current context, a judicial review announced
:22:06. > :22:11.by the Prime Minister, I should keep what I have to say within the
:22:12. > :22:16.context of that review. Were you surprised that your sister
:22:17. > :22:23.organisation, the CPS, will not appeal the ruling in the Downey
:22:24. > :22:26.case? I have read it, a well reasoned ruling, and I can
:22:27. > :22:33.understand the decision of the CPS not to seek a review. Lots of people
:22:34. > :22:41.have not read it as closely as you have, but they are surprised. And
:22:42. > :22:44.very frustrated and annoyed. I can understand that, but it is a legal
:22:45. > :22:51.decision taken by the Attorney General and the director public
:22:52. > :22:54.prosecutions. Does having represented on the runs in the past
:22:55. > :23:05.mean there are certain decisions you cannot play a part in in your
:23:06. > :23:09.current role? The number of cases were down to a trickle by the time I
:23:10. > :23:14.got to the office, the vast number well dealt with many years ago. In
:23:15. > :23:19.tombs of the sheer volume of casework in which my office is
:23:20. > :23:25.involved, it is a tiny number. -- in terms. But there would have been a
:23:26. > :23:31.number that crossed your desk that you could not be involved in because
:23:32. > :23:39.of the disengagement? A very small number. There was only
:23:40. > :23:43.one case of which I became aware, that was being considered, in
:23:44. > :23:47.respect that I might have had a conflict of interest. As soon as I
:23:48. > :23:52.became aware I made it known and had no further dealings. In fact I had
:23:53. > :23:58.no dealings with it at all, except being aware of it was in the office.
:23:59. > :24:01.That was a matter of months ago. It was mentioned that there was an on
:24:02. > :24:06.the run case being looked at, the name was mentioned, as soon as I
:24:07. > :24:10.heard, I said, you may tell me nothing about that case. I actually
:24:11. > :24:16.know nothing about it. The deputy director deals with it. What is your
:24:17. > :24:24.view on the Harris proposals providing limited immunity for those
:24:25. > :24:29.giving information and killings? I have to say I thought they were
:24:30. > :24:34.positive, in that they set out clearly an investigative procedure
:24:35. > :24:39.and constitution, which would be sharply focussed, which would have a
:24:40. > :24:43.period of time in which it would be operating and would have clear terms
:24:44. > :24:48.of reference. As a prosecutor, that is a good thing. For me, that was a
:24:49. > :24:52.positive suggestion. What do you think of the Attorney General's view
:24:53. > :24:57.that it is time to drew a line under the past and stop investigating
:24:58. > :25:00.killing killings that happened before the Good Friday agreement was
:25:01. > :25:05.signed. That was a controversial decision he made. He is a senior law
:25:06. > :25:10.officer. Do you agree with him? I have to say, I don't. He's entitled
:25:11. > :25:15.to his point of view, as he expressed it. He made it clear that
:25:16. > :25:21.he felt it made a positive contribution to the debate. I
:25:22. > :25:25.wouldn't disagree with that. As a senior prosecution in the jurs
:25:26. > :25:29.diction -- jurisdiction, it is my role in the criminal justice system
:25:30. > :25:37.to deliver prosecutions where there is evidence. From my perspective
:25:38. > :25:41.that would have removed a significant function, which I am not
:25:42. > :25:46.entirely sure that society wanted to happen. Did Mr Larkin speak to you
:25:47. > :25:51.about his proposals before he went public with them? No, he didn't. I
:25:52. > :25:54.make no complaint about that. Were you surprised that such a
:25:55. > :25:59.significant suggestion come from such a significant legal figure had
:26:00. > :26:04.not been run by another significant legal figure? As you said, it would
:26:05. > :26:09.cut across your whole am blet? I was not the only one surprised by the
:26:10. > :26:15.remarks. You certainly weren't. You were not the only one who thought he
:26:16. > :26:20.got it wrong, either. I disagree from my perspective as the chief
:26:21. > :26:24.prosecutor of the jurisdiction. We've had four successful of
:26:25. > :26:29.prosecutions in relation to, what might be described as historical
:26:30. > :26:33.cases. We have two more we have commenced before the courts and
:26:34. > :26:39.there may be others arising from the future investigations. So, I have to
:26:40. > :26:45.say that while I would agree with the attorney that the prospects of
:26:46. > :26:50.successful prosecutions are in those cases now slim. I have to say, they
:26:51. > :26:54.are by no means out of the question. Yes, because that is the point he
:26:55. > :26:58.madech he said part of his reasoning for that suggestion was the
:26:59. > :27:02.likelihood of successful prosecutions recedes each year. You
:27:03. > :27:06.say it does, but it is still worth continuing to try to pursue the
:27:07. > :27:13.prosecutions when you can? Yes. It does recede each year. That is why
:27:14. > :27:15.it is my view, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the
:27:16. > :27:20.outstanding investigations which are proposed to take place, take place
:27:21. > :27:23.sooner rather than later. OK, let's stay with the subject of
:27:24. > :27:33.prosecutions and whether they are successful or not. If February, 2012
:27:34. > :27:38.a judge freed 12 loyalists - very news worthy event when it happened.
:27:39. > :27:43.Why do you feel the assisting offenders scheme, which was part of
:27:44. > :27:47.that trial, has credibility after the enormously expensive collapse of
:27:48. > :27:53.that case two years ago? These are difficult cases. They are difficult
:27:54. > :27:58.cases because this society is amongst many in Europe and
:27:59. > :28:03.particularly in the United States, has taken The View that however
:28:04. > :28:09.distasteful it may be, there are occasions when significant leniency
:28:10. > :28:12.should be afforded to those engaged in significant criminal conduct in
:28:13. > :28:18.order to benefit from what they have to tell us, to secure convictions in
:28:19. > :28:22.respect of others - for the greater good of society. That is - there's a
:28:23. > :28:27.proo Is to be paid for that -- there's a price to be paid for that.
:28:28. > :28:32.However, the Government has set up a clear stat tor Tory structure, in
:28:33. > :28:38.which these decisions will be made and those cases brought forward,
:28:39. > :28:42.which in my view allows for a significant degree of scrutiny of
:28:43. > :28:50.those cases. Didn't that collapse, that expensive collapse, two years
:28:51. > :28:55.ago, show the scheme is open to whole scale abuse? Each case has to
:28:56. > :29:01.be taken on its own merits. Because it was a case and there was a
:29:02. > :29:05.lengthy and detailed reasoned judgment from the judge, I was able
:29:06. > :29:10.to - when I came into office the case was already under way. What I
:29:11. > :29:15.was able to do after it ended in the way it did, was able to take the
:29:16. > :29:19.judge's judgment, analyse it and learn lessons from it. So, any
:29:20. > :29:23.future decisions which I will take in respect of these cases and there
:29:24. > :29:27.are a couple outstanding l be take within the ben -- outstanding will
:29:28. > :29:33.be take within the benefit of the judgment given in that case. I want
:29:34. > :29:41.to talk to you finally about your own background and your own
:29:42. > :29:46.involvement. You represented on-the-runs in the past. There may
:29:47. > :29:52.be people who feel you are compromised. For example, your
:29:53. > :29:55.involve with on-the-runs. Gerry Adams was a client at one stage. Is
:29:56. > :30:01.that a concern you have, that you are not seen to be an honest broker
:30:02. > :30:04.in the legal process? Do you know, I am glad you have given me the
:30:05. > :30:08.opportunity to address that. I have to say, I think most people in our
:30:09. > :30:15.society are mature enough to understand that the role of the
:30:16. > :30:22.lawyer is to represent any particular client's interests and
:30:23. > :30:25.it's a professional function. In my professional function, in
:30:26. > :30:30.independent practise, in private practise, I would have represented
:30:31. > :30:36.many people accused of a variety of crimes. I represented victims, I
:30:37. > :30:41.have represented policemens accused of crimes. I have represented
:30:42. > :30:44.British soldiers. I have represented members of unionist political
:30:45. > :30:50.parties and nationalist political parties who have been accused of
:30:51. > :30:56.crimes. I have represented victims in a variety of situations. I am a
:30:57. > :31:00.professional. I will apply my professional ethics and my
:31:01. > :31:04.professional skills, as I hope I have acquired over nearly 30 years
:31:05. > :31:12.now, to any situation in which I am involved. That doesn't compromise me
:31:13. > :31:18.whatsoever. Barra McGrory talking to me earlier today. Let's hear what
:31:19. > :31:25.the commentators make of the days in politics. Alex, first let's pick up
:31:26. > :31:34.on Barra McGrory's comments. He'sed a odds with the Attorney General --
:31:35. > :31:37.he's at odds the Attorney General? One of whom wants to continue with
:31:38. > :31:42.the judicial review. It is another way of dealing the past and the
:31:43. > :31:46.attorney general who says he doesn't. If he says he doesn't
:31:47. > :31:51.agree, it explains why there's so much difficulty at the political
:31:52. > :31:58.level. The key guys they go to for advice are giving them contradictory
:31:59. > :32:02.advice. I am surprised that two such figures are at such ends over such a
:32:03. > :32:06.key issue. Having seen the conversation at the beginning of the
:32:07. > :32:12.programme, you can understand why people can be - can be at poles
:32:13. > :32:18.apart like that. Let's pick up on that. That was the main story
:32:19. > :32:25.tonight and on all news outlets for 48 hours. Maybe we should not be
:32:26. > :32:31.surprised to see such disagreement? Absolutely we shouldn't. I find
:32:32. > :32:40.myself in an unnish position of agreeing pretty much with a lot of
:32:41. > :32:45.what Jim Allister said tonight. I have written down a quote here about
:32:46. > :32:50.Peter Robinson. He's resigning unless there is clarity around the
:32:51. > :32:55.letters and clarification about what happened. I don't think we have any
:32:56. > :33:02.clarity surrounding letter. We have been told the letters have remained
:33:03. > :33:09.unchanged. As regards a public inquiry. What David Cameron
:33:10. > :33:18.announced today, appointing a judge to looking at this scheme - I think
:33:19. > :33:23.it is a far cry short of what DUP supporters would have expected. Do
:33:24. > :33:27.you agree with that? It was like a party political episode of
:33:28. > :33:32.EastEnders. It was so bad. There was no trust. Almost naked contempt for
:33:33. > :33:37.each other. The reality is I can understand why Donaldson is angry.
:33:38. > :33:42.It is like that deal, no deal game - where you open the box and there's 1
:33:43. > :33:47.p. That is what Peter Robinson found today. He hasn't got what he wanted.
:33:48. > :33:57.This judicial review doesn't do half the things that grefry claims it
:33:58. > :34:03.does. -- everysay claims it -- Jeffrey says it does. Do you know
:34:04. > :34:10.what I find disspir riting, you think of the effect on vik tims. It
:34:11. > :34:14.must be -- victims. It must be soul-destroying. One saying if you
:34:15. > :34:18.were in your 30s, get an education and get out of here because the
:34:19. > :34:21.problems of the past are intractable. It is a negative note
:34:22. > :34:27.to end the programme on. Thank you very much. That is it from The View
:34:28. > :34:32.this week. Join me for a special edition of Stormont tomorrow
:34:33. > :34:38.tomorrow night. For now, from all of us, goodbye.