03/12/2015 The View

The debate on abortion here intensifies after a High Court judge

rules that grounds for a termination should be extended.

And tonight on The View, in a new development on the story, we reveal

more details contained in the Health Minister's new draft guidelines.

We'll hear a range of views on that landmark abortion ruling,

and get reaction to the new Department of Health guidelines.

Are we a step closer to reaching agreement

And as Parliament votes to send RAF bombers to Syria,

we debate the impact of the decision with a Labour MP who

voted the against air strikes and a DUP Member who backed the

And making sense of it all - back in Commentators' Corner, Professors

The vote on air strikes in Syria may have been the story of the week

across the UK - and we'll come to that later in the programme -

but in Northern Ireland, a landmark judgment on abortion marked a

significant milestone in the debate on that issue here.

And tonight, The View can reveal more about the Department

of Health's as yet unpublished guidance for health professionals

This programme has seen those guidelines and we'll have reaction

But first I'm joined by the Justice Minister, David Ford.

This is the first time that you have spoken in detail about Monday's High

Court judgment. What do you make of it? It is a complex judgment and I

still in discussion with officials as to how we respond. At a policy

level it has endorsed the plan is that we put to the executive to

legislate in the case of fatal foetal abnormality, that abortion

may be permitted. The judge had no sympathy that there would be

abortion in the case of disability. And there are complexities in

relation to sexual crime, and the judge has made a ruling there that

does not fully recognise some of the detail -- some of the difficulties.

The key issue is that doctors, staff nurses, midwives, and woman needs to

be assured that there is absolute legal certainty as to the position.

I am not sure that this provides that legal certainty. That is why I

wanted primary legislation on the case of fatal foetal abnormality.

Was at correct for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to

bring this before the court to seek clarification? The court has ruled

on the basis of that challenge. You said that this is a complex issue.

Where does your responsibility as Justice Minister meet the desire of

the Minister of health to provide clarity for health practitioners? In

2004 the Department of Health was instructed to produce guidelines on

the current state of the law. There were draft guidelines circulated two

and a half years ago. They were revised. I received my copy on

Monday afternoon, after the court judgment was given. They may be a

fair reflection of the law that had not been for that judgment. I am

still looking at the detail of the guidance. It is an improvement on

what we had. In the face of the court decision we have now got a

conflicting issue of guidance that seems to be a offbeat, four hours

before it was circulated. Are you saying that Simon Hamilton's draft

guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on? Depend the

current outcome. The attorney is likely to appeal the judgment this

week. The Court of Appeal will have to decide. That will decide whether

the guidelines stating the law before the judgment this week are

accurate or not. The guidelines continue to advise doctors that

fatal foetal abnormality is not in itself grounds for a lawful

termination. Does that help or hinder you in your desire to change

the law on that issue? If that were the case, as I see the court

decision contradicts that, if that were the case, it certainly would be

clarified by what I have proposed to legislate in that area of fatal

foetal abnormality. Because when this issue became covered I made

promises that I would address that. It is a complex process to get a

consultation document date. But he consulted over one year ago. We

produce recommendations. It went to be executive. It has been sitting

and waiting. But because it now goes on the agenda, it should be on the

agenda for next Thursday's exhibited beating and that will establish we

are in policy terms. Just to be clear, it is your intention to have

this matter discussed at the next executive meeting next Thursday? I

put a paper to the executive on the 1st of June. It has not been

discussed because it is not be put on the agenda by the First Minister

or Deputy First Minister but I have invoked the procedure which insists

that goes on the next Thursday. I wonder what you make of some

comments that were made by Simon Hamilton on Tuesday on radio

Ulster. He said he had some concerns about the issue of constitutionality

with judges making laws. Is that concern that the judge might

interpret the issue in line with human rights law which would take it

out of the hands of you as the Minister and ultimately the

Assembly? Is that an understandable concern? The judge has exercised

what he sees as his duty in following through on the Human

Rights Act and the obligations that we have under the European

Convention. That is the position he has taken. That is a position that

does stand in law that judges interpret the law. The question is

whether that has provided the legal clarity which is needed by the

professionals and women who might be affected, or whether we need primary

legislation. That is a context issue as to how we get the balance right.

You can understand people watching this, some people seeing, nothing

seems to be clarifying anything. There seems to be different views

being expressed, competing rates, competing interests, competing

opinions. It is hard to pick away through that needs. It is extremely

hard. That is what the judge tried to do with that ruling on Monday and

clearly he has not satisfied everybody but what he has said.

There are complexities which deal with not only the issues he has

given his judgment on, but he that your leads to other aspects of the

law including how we take European Convention rights into domestic law.

Whether we have primary legislation readily accept judge rulings. Stay

with me. I want to broaden the discussion.

You described Mondays development as a landmark ruling Andy torn ginger

but you still see the need for a proper clarity and support. Are

closer to getting that today? I think we are all stop first of all I

wanted 25,000 mothers in Northern Ireland to feel that the advice they

are getting from professionals and politicians, but that is good honest

advice, fair advice, and that all their problems can be sorted out

within this island. I want to regain the confidence and trust of our

trust managers, the Department of Health, most of the politicians, and

the judiciary. The two things that happened this week are putting us on

that road. Mr Justice Horner has changed the tone. It is

compassionate and humane. Very knowledgeable and in line with

thinking of previous judges. I was comfortable with that. Are you

positive about the guidelines that the Minister has published two

fellow members of the executive, but not to the public at this stage,

that that this programme has seen? You have had sight of him as well.

Do they help to clarify some of these context issues which are I do.

David Ford suggests that they are not terribly helpful at this stage.

We are used to that. Everybody having their opinion. But I strongly

feel that for many decades we worked under caselaw in Northern Ireland.

That case law is the envy of many countries in the world because it

puts the woman at the centre, the mental and physical health of the

woman at the centre of all decisions. That is a positive

future. In a couple of sentences, from your understanding of what is

in these draft guidelines, what do you make of them which a Mac they do

give good help to the workers on the ground. They should give confidence

to the mothers that the advice they will be getting will be good advice.

They are not perfect. I would like to see statutory law that we are we

are. Let us use them for a year. See how they work on the ground. With

confidence all round, from trusts, from mothers, doing everything in

Northern Ireland, I think this is does lead the way forward because

the centre should be the mother, the life of the mother is sacred, foetal

life is also seated. -- is also seated. You do not think there is

need for new legislation? I did not say that. I do not see that

happening but I am not a politician. These guidelines give us something

that will give us confidence. Merely Lewis, a lawyer, you take an

interest in this issue. Let us stay with these draft guidelines. You

have had belief sight of some of the details. As far as you know what you

know who you think they help to move us towards greater clarification or

not? The difficulty is the relate to the position before Monday. We had

the court case on Monday which moves the situation along somewhat. We now

have a situation which goes beyond the guidelines. The situation we

have is that the judge has declared that aspects of the law in Northern

Ireland is not compatible with the European Convention of human rights

so he is opening the door for abortion for fatal foetal

abnormality and for sexual crime situations. He seems to have taken a

somewhat strange position because on the one hand he did not want

abortion for severe malformation yet he was happy to have it for fatal

foetal abnormality. Yet some of the conditions he was describing fall

into the same category in a sense. It is hard to be 100% accurate. I

agree. That is part of the problem with the guidelines. The guidelines

took so long over the years. It is difficult to be accurate. You are

talking about the judge making a ruling which seems to have been a

game changer in your opinion. But the judge wants people to come back

to the court later in December. In a sense this is an interim ruling. We

are in a holding pattern. Yes, absolutely. Not only that. A holding

pattern within the case and also in a holding pattern if the case is

appealed and remotely back to the guidelines you are talking about. I

emphasise that those guidelines are in draft. I do not know what'll

happen with the executive. They may be changed again. Maybe Ford can

answer that. We will come back to the minister in a second. Les

Allamby, it was your organisation which took this judicial review in

the first place. You now have an opportunity to come back with some

clarification to Mr Justice Horner on the night of December. Are you

going to make a submission and if you are can you give us any sense of

what might be in it? Yes. We have to do evidence of mission along with

other parties by the ninth. They will be a hearing on the 16th of

December. The important thing to emphasise is that what the judge has

said at the moment is that there are two options. He can read down the

legislation in terms of the Human Rights Act. Which means? In a

natural, interpret the existing legislation, the 1861 act in a way

that allows terminations in the case is that he has ruled about, sexual

crimes and fatal foetal abnormality. Then it doesn't need

new legislation to go to Stormont. Then my own view about the

guidelines as they would have to reflect the law. The alternative of

that cannot be done, with the what is called a declaration of

incompatibility. Then it would be putting the ball in the court of the

Assembly. My view on that is since the Human Rights Act came end, a

small number of the clinicians of incompatibility in the Westminster

Parliament and Westminster has always remedied that legislation and

I would expect the Assembly to do the same. If it did not, we would be

into unknown territory, and of course we would be an position where

further legal action would no doubt be taken. And there is the right of

appeal. While an appeal goes on you are again in a position of trying to

determine what do you do in that interim position. The only thing I

would say about the guidelines is that they must reflect the law. The

important thing for me is not just in terms of human rights, but also

in terms of where we are, we need clarity for both clinicians, women,

for all those who are involved in this, so that the issue of whether

you are criminalised critiquing a particular action is no longer the

case in these particular circumstances. I will come to the

Minister in a second. On the issue of primacy, do you have a sense

about where primacy lies in this process? You raised the issue of the

potential for appeal. Mr Justice Horner referred to his expectation

that his ruling will be appealed. And we know that the Attorney

General is looking into that at the moment. Like anything else we need

to wait until the dust settles and see them whether the clock does not

start ticking for an appeal until we get the issue of beating down or a

declaration of incompatibility sorted out. I am sure that will not

take long. Then the clock ticks. We have waited 150 years since this

legislation has come in. It is important that we try and get some

clarity as quickly as we can but it is the clarity that we need. In

terms of the issue about the role of the judge, in terms of the

executive, legislature, independents are traditionally, those are the

pillars of the constitutional framework and it is appropriate for

judges to do all that judges are assigned to do.

Some might disagree because we have an elected Assembly. I come back to

primacy. Where does pregnancy like? He has set out the options from a

judicial point of view but it is not clear which of those is actually

going to happen, whether we have a reading down or a declaration of

incompatibility. There could be an appeal process and Mary has raised

the issue of the primacy of the democratic process. The new chart a

path through this for people who are watching this scratching their

heads. Frankly, tonight, you cannot chart a path through. It is not that

easy to see primacy. We can talk about the pregnancy can democratic

institutions in creating law. The courts have the rights to interpret

laws. That includes -- that includes the international obligations of

pre-existing law as well as current law. That is where the complexity

comes in. In an ideal world, the legislature was where everything

will be dealt with in detail. I have had a paper sitting with the

Executive for six months, that is not an indication it will be dealt

with easily. I am trying to get it done. It is obvious we do not live

in an ideal world and out of the 108 MLAs, a significant number of them

would not want the kind of change if they were asked to vote on it, would

not support the change that Mr Justice Corner would like to see in

his judgment in the High Court on Monday. That is a reasonable thing

to Assen, isn't it? It has potential. There is the possibility

that a free vote, there might be a bridge the in of legislating in

cases of feudal paparazzi -- VTOL abnormality.

Our own consultation showed there was no clear-cut, easy views. There

was an understanding from those involved, the relevant professionals

as to how we could work on fatal faecal abnormality. What strikes

you. -- foetal. We were not happy with the term. There is no textbook

that I know of, no doctor knows exactly when a foetus is going to

die. We are all fatal. The life of the few minutes can be as perfect as

a life of 60 years. I am really concerned because we are talking

about fatal foetus abnormality. It is not mentioned in the new

deadlines and it is not a medical term. I am impressed by the idea

that it is not a medical term so why is it the basis of the judgment?

Fatal foetus abnormality is described as a ground for abortion.

He's talking very much about respect for the woman and the baby. We only

have to look at Baby Corp. 74 hours. -- hope. We made it clear in section

16 we are not happy about that. It is a fallacy. Final point. If I can

go back to primacy. The UK Government and Northern Ireland is

signed up to international covenants including the European Convention on

human rights. The idea of primacy. We have international human rights

laws and standards, this case is about whether the current law meets

those standards. The judge independently has said, no, they do

not in certain circumstances. It is the elected body that is governed

that is covered by those international standards and have

been signed up to buy politicians. It is important to remember that. We

have effectively heard the different opinions on a complex issue. It will

be fun to -- fascinating to see how it unfolds. Thank you very much.

Now, the UK's bombing of Islamic State targets in Syria is underway,

and last night's vote which authorised that action was the

climax of a marathon day in the Commons, when those for and against

the bombing had their say. We'll continue that debate in a moment,

but first here's a flavour of the arguments, beginning with one of the

Conservative MPs critical of the plan to launch airstrikes.

By themselves, they cannot achieve what we have been told is the game.

The reduction and removal of Isis. That is the failure. We should help

our allies and help our allies by destroying Isis, by doing it

properly and not by symbolism. I am not among those who in arguing

against the government is saying that it creates a bigger risk of a

terrorist threat in anybody's constituency in the near term. I do

not think it makes a difference one way or the other of a threat that is

real and alive. I do think there is a severe risk of leading what we are

trying to fight by feeding a wider agenda of radicalisation. By

adopting the role that the jihadist 's playbook actually craves, a house

like this to adopt. We are here faced by fascists. Not just the

calculated brutality but the belief that they are superior to every

single one of us in this chamber tonight. And all of the people --

all of the people we represent. They hold us in contempt, they hold

values in contempt, our belief intolerance in contempt, our

democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in

contempt. What we know about fascists is that they need to be

defeated. Hilary Benn and a flavour

of the speech which won him a round of applause last night

from both sides of the House. And with me now are the Labour MP,

Kate Hoey, Kate Hoey,

you voted against the air-strikes but how close did you come to being

persuaded to vote the other way Hilary Benn made a brilliant speech

just like his father would have made but probably making the opposite

point of view. I think we had a brilliant to debate all day. People

thought about it very seriously. I had decided by that morning that I

was probably going to be voting against and he did not change my

mind. It was a brilliantly delivered speech it did not really change the

issue for me which was whether this was actually going to solve the

problem which we all are opposed to, the terrible things going on by the

so-called Isil, the state. Hilary Benn making that speech, getting up

laws whilst Jeremy Corbyn was sitting there with the poker face,

not a flicker of emotion. It was unusual. I have been 27 years in

Parliament and I have not seen a situation where your leader makes an

opening speech seen one thing and the end speech by the Shadow Foreign

Secretary saying the opposite. That is the reality of how the Labour

Party is at the moment. The case in her view was not made for military

action in Syria. Why do you take the opposite view, why do you think the

case was made? We are already doing in Iraq what we are going to do in

Syria. Effectively, there is no border between Iraq and Syria at the

moment. I am left wondering why we are taking action against these

terrorists the few miles one way, and in the opposite direction when

the same atrocities are cunning, people are being killed, we are not

doing that. The primary persuasive argument to me was the threat to our

own country. I have had briefings from the national security council

in recent days and I have seen the evidence, clear and compelling

evidence. There is a unit based in Raqqa in Syria with a named

individual at its head detecting these attacks against four European

countries, specifically France, Belgium, Germany and originated

kingdom. The United Kingdom is top of the list. Therefore you have to

ask the question as I asked myself, do we wait until they come for us?

Or do they at least try to diminish the capacity to attack us? I am not

saying that the air strikes will prevent an attack on the UK. I do

not believe it will. We have to degrade Isil's capacity to do what

we have been doing. That means taking on the leadership when it is

based and located. Does that worry you? What I would say, Iraq is

different because they were asked by the Iraqi government to come in and

bomb. There is a huge grin force of support on the ground. Everybody

yesterday from different angles felt that bombing is only part of a

strategy. And that overall view of what is going to happen next was not

decided. What is going to happen in Raqqa? The leaders are going to make

sure that the civilians are where the bombs are falling and they will

be somewhere else. Many of the terrorist outrages have been not

necessarily planned in Raqqa but planned by home-grown terrorists. If

I thought it would help I would have supported it. I think it is too

early and we need to get that overall political view of who are

our enemies and who of all these different groups on the ground are

going to be there to support us? That is the big concern, by taking

the action that was taken, a shopping after the vote was passed,

the UK has made itself more of the target. Citizens at home even more

in peril weren't before the vote took place. Does that not concern

you? I do not accept that premise. I have seen the evidence, there have

been seven planned attacks in the United Kingdom, all of them thwarted

by the diligence of our security services. Some of those attacks have

been directed by the Isil readership in the Syria. The UK is a target.

Let us not kid ourselves. The attacks in Paris happened before

France began the air strikes in Syria. France was attacked before

this. The UK, I have no doubt will be attacked. Again the question is,

and we have asked our security ad buys us, our military leaders this,

what is the view on the best course of action to take? I sat and

listened to the army commanders and I have listened to the security

services giving the briefing in Privy Council format and they are

very clear, all of them without exception and reservation have

recommended this cause of action. I agree with Jeffrey, even if we were

not going to bomb that they would be safe, we have all had these

briefings. I do not think so. I do not think it will make any

difference in that sense. I feel very strongly that the 70,000 people

on the ground that are now supposedly going to come in and help

take over the territory if we bomb in Raqqa, they are not there. It is

a hugely... Everyone accents it is a hugely complicated situation with

Russia now involved and Turkey also bombing the Kurds who are supporting

us. It is such a nightmare situation, to simply look like we

had to do something because of what happened in Paris, I do not accept

that. You have both talked about the standard of the beat in the Commons

yesterday. It was not just Hilary Benn who was impressive. -- the

arguments. You said during your contribution that you wanted a

personal apology from the Prime Minister reportedly referring to

Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters as a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.

Do you think he was to you? I think he made it apparently in a very

crowded meeting this party when he was trying to browse them. If they

voted, they would be voting with a bunch of terrorist supporters. I

think he was referring to Jeremy Corbyn and probably John McDonald. I

do not think he was referring to me or his Tory MPs. He should not have

said. I think he is regretting it. I expect I will get a personal

apology. You do? I do. I said in my speech a private personal apology.

Will you let us know? Do you think the Prime Minister stepped over the

line? I think it marks where unfortunate but they were made in a

private meeting. I have known cave for years and out of all the

parliamentarians I know, I hold her in the highest respect. I have

helped her get up in the House of Commons and condemn terrorism in all

unequivocal terms. Kate is someone I have the highest regard for. I do

not think he meant it in the way that he did but it was a silly

mistake and one of those things. He did get a majority of the Shadow

Cabinet which was surprising. To be honest. I think there are some

people put in my party who dislike and are angry about Jeremy Corbyn

being a leader that they will do anything to bring him down. I am

prepared to give him some time provided he does not say anything

about Northern Ireland. What are the chances of that? Probably not very

high. Very slim. Thanks, both.

A lot to talk about in Commentators' Corner tonight where

I'm joined by the two Professors, Do they help or hinder the

discussion? What came out in the discussion is how complicated the

issue is and how emotive. We are not sure if it is a legal issue, a

social policy issue, should be the High Court judgment or the legal

judgment? It should be down to our democratically elected Assembly to

make these decisions. I welcome the guidance. They do seem more liberal

in torn. Simon Hamilton is saying that medics should be able to use

discretion. He is saying that information should be available. He

is trying to move the debate on. Interesting to hear that fatal

foetal abnormality is not a medical term. It is astonishing because it

has such -- it has played such a part in the debate, but the

professor is clear that it is not a medical term. Can you pick your way

through the minefield? I cannot. Seeing that it is not a medical

condition has lobbed a grenade into the debate. I do not have a problem

with judges interpreting the law. The tone of the draft guidelines is

more gentle than was the case with the guidelines from Edwin Poots

earlier. There is a bit of space for people in the medical confession to

exercise medical judgment. I was heartened that the professor said

that case law. People should not run away with the idea that what Mr

Justice Horner said is specific. It is a narrow judgment laid down.

Ultimately it is a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of choice.

There is nothing compelling in what he has said. He is trying to clarify

the law in relation to what now is not a fatal foetal abnormality --

not a medical condition. Let us move on to Syria.

The David Cameron get it right? I do not think he did. I watched the

debate yesterday. It was fascinating. But the arguments

seemed to boil down to something has to be done. But I do not think you

should go into war without an exit strategy. We do not have that

strategy. I listened carefully to what Geoffrey talked about seeing if

we do not do this, they will come for us. I do not feel safer today. I

do not know of people in Northern Ireland feel safer. I feel more of a

target. In the past we know that bombing does not work. Do we not

learn anything? If anything will cause radicalisation surely it is

this type of action? Why is it that the people who will be killed, the

innocent people who will be killed are collateral damage, but they are

victims in Paris? Was it a good day for a parliamentary democracy? On

balance it was. References have been made to the speech by Hilary Benn.

It has been described as a Victorian speech for a digital age. There was

a motion and passion in it. There was not much evidence. I think war

should be the last resort. Jeffrey saying we are doing it in Iraq, let

us do it in Syria, he is privy to information that we are simply not,

but what I do not believe is that Isil-Daesh, however that is

defined, I do not think it presents an existential threat to the United

Kingdom. If there was to be a terrorist incident like that in

Paris or wherever else Daesh has been exhibiting its offal behaviour,

I do not think that presents an existential threat. More effort

should be made on a diplomatic path rather than a bar like one.

Thanks, both. That's it from The View for this

week. Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35 am here on BBC1. And we leave

you with the life and times of Sammy Wilson, who this week ruled himself

out of the DUP's top job. But for some reason we don't think he's

likely to disappear quietly into the night. From everyone in the team -

going to go and tell. This will be the shortest speech in

this place, I can tell you. I was afraid I might have an

Alistair MacDonald moment. Here are. Look at that.

The night and gold. Sammy Wilson, not really leader of the DUP.