:00:00. > :00:00.The SDLP backs the DUP's plan for a commission to report
:00:00. > :00:00.on abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality -
:00:07. > :00:08.but critics accuse both parties of avoiding the issue ahead
:00:09. > :00:16.Tonight on The View, we ask if it's a debate that's too
:00:17. > :00:42.Too important to be bound up in politics says one MLA as that
:00:43. > :00:46.We hear from politicians on both sides of the debate and we ask
:00:47. > :00:49.the Justice Minister what happens next. Also on the programme -
:00:50. > :00:58.Never mind passes for bonfires, what about licences to fly flags?
:00:59. > :01:05.It involves paramilitaries and all sorts of customs and practices. We
:01:06. > :01:07.need to look at why people feel the need to fly flights.
:01:08. > :01:09.And sexist and unacceptable - or much ado about nothing?
:01:10. > :01:11.We've more on that row over Jim Wells' whispered
:01:12. > :01:15.And making a welcome return to the commentary team -
:01:16. > :01:25.former MLA Dawn Purvis and blogger Chris Donnelly...
:01:26. > :01:29.No change to the law here on abortion, but a DUP proposal
:01:30. > :01:32.for a working group on the issue has won support from the SDLP.
:01:33. > :01:34.In a late-night sitting of the Assembly, MLAs debated
:01:35. > :01:37.an amendment to the Justice Bill which would have allowed
:01:38. > :01:39.the termination of pregnancy in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.
:01:40. > :01:41.However, after almost five hours, the amendment -
:01:42. > :01:43.proposed by Alliance Members Stewart Dickson and Trevor Lunn -
:01:44. > :02:00.There are those who will make their decisions today due to the influence
:02:01. > :02:04.of party whips, rather than through free expression of their conscience.
:02:05. > :02:13.I have to save Mr Speaker, I find that regrettable. Tread carefully.
:02:14. > :02:18.That is why the DUP is rejecting the amendment but outlining a road map
:02:19. > :02:22.to a sensible informed and appropriate way forward. The
:02:23. > :02:26.Minister of health has been asked by the end of February to establish a
:02:27. > :02:31.working group including clinicians in this field and legally qualified
:02:32. > :02:38.persons. What about the women who are pregnant as a result of rape? Or
:02:39. > :02:43.women who are faced with fake tilt foetal abnormalities? Is the DUP
:02:44. > :02:49.going to tell them we will have a commission and see where it goes? We
:02:50. > :02:54.welcome the initiative of Arlene Foster in setting up a working group
:02:55. > :03:00.that will listen to those people at the coal face, to those women having
:03:01. > :03:04.to make those difficult choices, informed by their clinicians and by
:03:05. > :03:09.legal experts? The First Minister knows very well that our party has
:03:10. > :03:13.put in place a mechanism that ensures there will be a majority to
:03:14. > :03:19.vote down the amendment and to bring forward the working group which will
:03:20. > :03:24.kick the decision to the far side of the election. And I say to the First
:03:25. > :03:28.Minister that this delay is cruel, it is Dickensian. Amendment 61
:03:29. > :03:30.falls. That announcement came
:03:31. > :03:31.just before midnight. So has the issue been deliberately
:03:32. > :03:34."kicked down the road" until after the election,
:03:35. > :03:36.as Mike Nesbitt put it? In a moment I'll be talking
:03:37. > :03:38.to the SDLP's Dolores Kelly and the Independent
:03:39. > :03:40.Unionist John McCallister - but first, the Justice Minister,
:03:41. > :03:50.David Ford, is here... Good evening. Thank you for joining
:03:51. > :03:57.us. There was a straight vote in the assembly last night and the other
:03:58. > :04:01.side won by 59 votes - 40. No petition of concern. You were
:04:02. > :04:07.defeated fairly and squarely. The proposal was defeated. It was
:04:08. > :04:13.defeated however after some pretty underhand subterfuge. This issue has
:04:14. > :04:17.been around since late 2013. In a tub 2013, I wrote to the Ben Health
:04:18. > :04:22.Minister saying that because the issue had been raised, there should
:04:23. > :04:26.be a joint consultation about all aspects of abortion law. That was
:04:27. > :04:31.never taken up. My requests were ignored and I went ahead with my
:04:32. > :04:36.responsibilities and I conducted a proper consultation. Then I produced
:04:37. > :04:40.proposals which have been sitting with the executive since June the
:04:41. > :04:44.1st last year and we had at the very last minute, like a rabbit out of
:04:45. > :04:49.the hat, this proposal that the Health Minister should conduct some
:04:50. > :04:52.sort of study into something which actually a criminal justice issue.
:04:53. > :04:59.Did you know that that was coming? When I heard from the media, yes. Is
:05:00. > :05:04.it a helpful development? It looks to me like it is helpful to the DUP
:05:05. > :05:09.postponing the issue until after the election. It is as simple as that? I
:05:10. > :05:15.think it is as calculated as that because the DUP if they had wanted
:05:16. > :05:19.to engage, they had a number of opportunities, over the last two and
:05:20. > :05:24.a half years. The DUP disputes that and says it is a sensitive and
:05:25. > :05:29.complex issue. Legislation should not be rushed into, they say. Two
:05:30. > :05:33.and a half years? When you look at the amendment, some critics would
:05:34. > :05:38.say it was tacked onto a much broader justice bill dealing with
:05:39. > :05:44.other issues and that is not the way to introduce good legislation. In
:05:45. > :05:51.2013, A.D. UPM lay and an SDLP MLA tacked on an amendment which would
:05:52. > :05:55.have made it even more restrictive and at the further consideration
:05:56. > :06:01.stage, when there was no opportunity to amend it or get it right, no
:06:02. > :06:04.prior consultation, the amendment which was tabled yesterday was
:06:05. > :06:08.tabled at consideration stage with the opportunity to get it right in
:06:09. > :06:11.two or three weeks' time, it was based firmly on the consultation
:06:12. > :06:15.that was carried out by the Department of Justice. It was the
:06:16. > :06:19.exact opposite of what the DUP did and they talked about consultation,
:06:20. > :06:24.it is all part of the subterfuge. What some people who are
:06:25. > :06:28.particularly uncomfortable about abortions is that it introduces the
:06:29. > :06:32.concept of choice to the termination process. That is different from
:06:33. > :06:35.other circumstances in which termination is currently available
:06:36. > :06:40.in Northern Ireland, do you accept that that is a lying in the sand for
:06:41. > :06:46.a lot of people? The concept of choice is only the concept of choice
:06:47. > :06:51.where clinicians state, I am describing it as it would have been
:06:52. > :06:54.another amendment, where two clinician say there is no prospect
:06:55. > :06:59.of a viable life and no treatment could be offered if it was carried
:07:00. > :07:04.to full term after delivery. Then the woman has a choice, whether to
:07:05. > :07:09.seek a termination or not to. It was made very clear by my colleagues and
:07:10. > :07:13.indeed by me that if that was the case, the woman had a right to full
:07:14. > :07:17.medical treatment if she wished to proceed to full term. That is the
:07:18. > :07:29.only concept where choice comes in, whether circumstances are of a fatal
:07:30. > :07:32.abnormality, the woman has a right to choose whether she should have an
:07:33. > :07:35.abortion or whether she should proceed to full term. What do you
:07:36. > :07:37.think you need to do next? This debate has clearly been blocked by
:07:38. > :07:42.the DUP with this subterfuge, but they will have to come back because
:07:43. > :07:46.they have talked about six months. I can respect people who yesterday
:07:47. > :07:48.walked into a lobby differently from me because on the grounds of
:07:49. > :07:52.conscience they did not agree because I claimed the right of
:07:53. > :07:55.conscience on that issue and I will give someone like Danny Kennedy his
:07:56. > :08:01.right to disagree with Mike Nesbitt and myself. What I cannot accept is
:08:02. > :08:13.people who produce the subterfuge to avoid taking the decision to avoid
:08:14. > :08:16.taking a difficult issue, no one wanted to deal with that, we all
:08:17. > :08:18.hoped we would not have to deal with it, just the same as women and
:08:19. > :08:21.partners and their families in many cases hope they do not have to deal
:08:22. > :08:23.with it. We have responsibilities. We cannot duck and run away.
:08:24. > :08:25.Stay with me David Ford, but let's bring Dolores Kelly
:08:26. > :08:27.and John McCallister into the conversation now.
:08:28. > :08:30.We did ask the DUP and Sinn Fein to take part in this discussion,
:08:31. > :08:32.by the way, and both parties declined...
:08:33. > :08:43.Pick up on what the minister has said. A process of subterfuge to
:08:44. > :08:47.duck actually the difficult challenge of dealing with this
:08:48. > :08:51.complicated and complexes issue. I think there is no doubt in the minds
:08:52. > :08:56.of anyone that under the Health Minister Edwin Poots, the DUP have
:08:57. > :09:00.ducked the issue for the last two or three years. I believe this will be
:09:01. > :09:04.a test of Arlene Foster's leadership, real test as to whether
:09:05. > :09:10.or not she can deal with some of these difficult issues and bring
:09:11. > :09:14.forward a set of guidelines which would be consulted and led by
:09:15. > :09:18.clinicians. With respect, the debate was last night, the test was last
:09:19. > :09:23.night, all that has happened according to David Ford and other
:09:24. > :09:28.critics is that the cam has been kicked down the road. I do not agree
:09:29. > :09:37.with his interpretation. He admits that the amendments were an wheelie
:09:38. > :09:41.and indeed we as a party... What he said was it could be refined. They
:09:42. > :09:46.could have withdrawn them last night and put forward further amendments.
:09:47. > :09:49.The SDLP as a pro-life party took our lead not just from our own
:09:50. > :09:53.principles but we met over the last two days with senior clinicians and
:09:54. > :09:59.also with legal teams and they were both clear in their advice and that
:10:00. > :10:03.was that the amendments would not have given greater clarity around
:10:04. > :10:08.the guidelines to clinicians. Can we be clear about this, are you saying
:10:09. > :10:13.that you voted against the amendment last night on our point of principle
:10:14. > :10:18.because you are opposed to the concept of termination in cases of
:10:19. > :10:21.fatal foetal abnormality or because you did not like the wording and had
:10:22. > :10:25.they been better worded and more workable you would have supported
:10:26. > :10:34.them? That is not the case, is it? Answer the question as --! What we
:10:35. > :10:39.believe is that the 1967 act which David disputes that those amendments
:10:40. > :10:45.were around in terms of choice... I did not interrupt. Those amendments
:10:46. > :10:48.were on workable. They did not provide the clarity and direction
:10:49. > :10:56.that clinicians require. I understand that. Had they been
:10:57. > :11:00.workable, would you have supported termination in cases of fatal foetal
:11:01. > :11:05.abnormality? I have friends who have had to make those choices and I have
:11:06. > :11:10.the utmost compassion for them. In the past, this has become an issue
:11:11. > :11:14.because of the Health Minister messing around with the guidelines.
:11:15. > :11:18.There has always been the possibility in difficult cases but
:11:19. > :11:21.it was the principle of the health and well-being of the mother both
:11:22. > :11:29.physically and mentally, not on the basis of choice. Are there any
:11:30. > :11:34.circumstances in which you would support termination in a case of
:11:35. > :11:38.fatal foetal abnormality? If the guidelines were agreed and clarity
:11:39. > :11:43.given to the clinicians and legal advice we would not shy away from
:11:44. > :11:47.making those top decisions. You did support the amendment passed like,
:11:48. > :11:53.why? First of all it had nothing to do with the 1967 act. To be
:11:54. > :11:57.absolutely fair to the Minister, he has tried to move this issue
:11:58. > :12:06.forward. This is about how we deal with the difficult issue when
:12:07. > :12:09.families are faced with the tragedy, a tragic diagnosis, that none of us
:12:10. > :12:13.would want to face. How do we support them, how do we give them a
:12:14. > :12:17.choice and how do we support them whatever they choose? No one was
:12:18. > :12:21.forcing anyone down any particular part, this was about simply a
:12:22. > :12:27.compassionate way, rather than having people travel across the
:12:28. > :12:33.water to England and not even advising families... An interesting
:12:34. > :12:37.point, how come the vast majority of Unionists voted against the
:12:38. > :12:44.amendment but you were able to vote for it as an independent? I think
:12:45. > :12:48.the vast majority... It is an issue that politicians do not want to deal
:12:49. > :12:53.with. We have had a crisis in our governance here as to how to deal
:12:54. > :12:58.with this. We have shied away from it for years between court decisions
:12:59. > :13:05.telling us to bring guidelines. This was being dealt with by clinicians
:13:06. > :13:09.are until Edwin Poots is guidelines came in. David Ford has tried to
:13:10. > :13:14.bring legislation, tried to work with the other departments and the
:13:15. > :13:19.only criticism of the amendments last night was that they were
:13:20. > :13:22.wrong... The very idea that we have another amending stage, if they had
:13:23. > :13:26.been passed last night, the government would have kicked in and
:13:27. > :13:33.could have tidy them up and heightened language, gave reassured.
:13:34. > :13:36.The Attorney General made it clear that if those amendments as they
:13:37. > :13:41.were worded had been approved then he would have taken it to the
:13:42. > :13:45.Supreme Court. The Minister made it clear he was content for the Supreme
:13:46. > :13:50.Court to decide. The clinicians were very clear on Monday that those
:13:51. > :13:54.amendments did not meet their requirements in terms of planning
:13:55. > :14:01.the care pathways of women. The Attorney General lost his case with
:14:02. > :14:05.justice Horner. What would have happened if John Larkin had referred
:14:06. > :14:07.this to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court would have decided
:14:08. > :14:14.whether it was in the competence of the assembly. That would have been
:14:15. > :14:18.perfectly acceptable? Yes. My legal advice was that it was a sound
:14:19. > :14:22.point. The Attorney General made a sound point that he regarded that
:14:23. > :14:26.this was discrimination against disabled foetuses. The reality was
:14:27. > :14:29.we were not talking about disability, we are talking about a
:14:30. > :14:37.fatal abnormality with no prospect of life. It was made clear by me, we
:14:38. > :14:40.were not talking about Down's Syndrome or the kind of subterfuge
:14:41. > :14:45.that people engaged in. When you establish the principle in terms of
:14:46. > :14:49.choice and move away... I have explained choice! That enters into a
:14:50. > :14:52.whole different ball game and the legal advice is that of what we were
:14:53. > :15:12.given. There is no such definition in law.
:15:13. > :15:17.There is no such thing in law as mental illness either and I know
:15:18. > :15:22.what schizophrenia and depression looks like. It's an all encompassing
:15:23. > :15:30.term which covers all conditions. We have moved it from the well-being of
:15:31. > :15:36.the mother to choice. Is it not possible but there are individuals,
:15:37. > :15:40.perhaps some of them MLAs, who would regard themselves as being pro-life
:15:41. > :15:44.but who would argue that in the circumstances where a fatal faecal
:15:45. > :15:50.abnormalities present in the foetus, there is no viable prospect of life
:15:51. > :15:54.and therefore look you can actually allow abortion in those
:15:55. > :15:59.circumstances and still hold the principles are being pro-life? But
:16:00. > :16:08.not with those amendments last night. Those amendments were not
:16:09. > :16:13.given as that. Those amendments were giving exactly that. They were also
:16:14. > :16:20.stated clearly by the proposals and by me on the basis of the legal
:16:21. > :16:26.advice. The willingness of the proposals, they could've been
:16:27. > :16:30.amended further considerations. You are speaking for the SDLP tonight.
:16:31. > :16:35.We have invited you to do that. But not everyone in your party voted
:16:36. > :16:43.against the its last night. Two individuals were not there. But
:16:44. > :16:55.Claire Hanna abstained. Was that about the BST Bjorn not? Sean Rogers
:16:56. > :16:59.is the family engagement plan for many months abroad. What about
:17:00. > :17:04.Claire Hanna, who abstained? She did not follow the party line. There was
:17:05. > :17:14.no whip line on it but the priority is pro-life. That is what happened
:17:15. > :17:16.last night. With the exception of those she named, they voted against
:17:17. > :17:23.those amendments and Claire abstained. You have told us what you
:17:24. > :17:26.think needs to happen as far as that is concerned. There is another
:17:27. > :17:32.outstanding issue you have been dealing with, and that is the issue
:17:33. > :17:36.of legal aid. There has been a dispute today. That issue was
:17:37. > :17:42.resolved. Can you tell us anything about the details of how that was
:17:43. > :17:46.resolved? That was resolved in mediation, which was suggested by
:17:47. > :17:53.the Lord Chief Justice. These were rules put in place by the Assembly.
:17:54. > :18:01.They were upheld in the High Court apart from two minor variations. But
:18:02. > :18:08.even so, lawyers were willing to work. In the interest of those
:18:09. > :18:12.victims, we agreed, when the Lord Chief Justice suggested mediation,
:18:13. > :18:16.and we have reduced the skill of the cuts and the lawyers have said they
:18:17. > :18:20.will be back to work tomorrow. It's an honourable compromise which
:18:21. > :18:23.recognises the difficulties that were potentially facing victims. But
:18:24. > :18:29.you are happy to concede that you had to give some ground? I gave some
:18:30. > :18:37.ground, they gave some ground. That is what compromise means. Thank you
:18:38. > :18:38.both very much indeed for coming to join us.
:18:39. > :18:40.Now, one of the commitments of the Fresh Start Agreement
:18:41. > :18:42.was a cross-party effort to solve the disputes over flags.
:18:43. > :18:46.That Commission is due to start work in the next six weeks and,
:18:47. > :18:48.in a separate development, The View understands that a report
:18:49. > :18:50.from two Queens's University academics will next week call
:18:51. > :18:52.for a much more determined and consistent approach
:18:53. > :18:54.to the removal of street flags and propose a set
:18:55. > :18:57.Our Political Correspondent, Chris Page, has been
:18:58. > :19:16.Flags and fury have gone together for more than 50 years. This was the
:19:17. > :19:20.1964 street riots. They began after police removed a tricolour from a
:19:21. > :19:32.Republican election office. Ian Paisley had threatened to take it
:19:33. > :19:36.down himself. More recently, a dispute over the union flag put the
:19:37. > :19:41.issue of the top of the political agenda. It is over three years since
:19:42. > :19:48.Belfast City Council decided to make a change on the flying of the flag
:19:49. > :19:53.on City Hall. It is now up to 18 designated days rather than all year
:19:54. > :20:02.round. A number of demonstrations turned violent, dozens of police
:20:03. > :20:08.officers were injured. Since then, the issue has featured in three sets
:20:09. > :20:12.of party negotiations, so what is the likelihood that this complex and
:20:13. > :20:16.contentious matter could ever be resolved? Dominik Brian is an
:20:17. > :20:19.academic who has done a lot of research on flags. There were two
:20:20. > :20:25.dimensions to the issue and says one is more challenging than the other.
:20:26. > :20:28.Trying to sort out the problem of flags on official buildings is
:20:29. > :20:32.relatively easy in the sense that there is a small set of policy
:20:33. > :20:38.options and you got to make a decision and come to a resolution.
:20:39. > :20:42.The flying flags on lamp posts is considerably more important. It's
:20:43. > :20:51.widespread and difficult agencies. It is more difficult to solve. That
:20:52. > :20:53.will be one of the tasks facing the commission on flags, identity,
:20:54. > :20:58.culture and tradition. It is being set up on part of the agreement.
:20:59. > :21:06.There will be 15 agreements. -- members. There will also be eight
:21:07. > :21:10.nonpolitical members. The commission will have 18 months to come up with
:21:11. > :21:19.a final report that must be agreed on by a majority of the commission.
:21:20. > :21:23.The PPC the commission must develop good relationships with the
:21:24. > :21:28.loyalists. It can't simply come in and prescribe solutions from above
:21:29. > :21:35.because loyalism would accept the legitimacy of the commission. It
:21:36. > :21:39.also has to show understanding as to why loyalists for life flags. The
:21:40. > :21:42.flags at a public expression of identity but the same time, they
:21:43. > :21:49.have to look at why people feel the need to fly flags. Among the ideas
:21:50. > :21:57.which the commission might consider, there are two basic approaches. The
:21:58. > :22:03.first is a top down. That is to come up with legislation or regulation
:22:04. > :22:06.that controls the flags being put on lamp posts. The difficulty is it is
:22:07. > :22:11.hard to get agencies to police it and there is a good chance that
:22:12. > :22:15.would increase conflict around them in the short-term. The alternative
:22:16. > :22:19.is to come up with a bottom-up approach and that is the sort of
:22:20. > :22:24.protocols and guidelines that you will see from time to time around
:22:25. > :22:28.the country. There was a good one in Portadown and another one in
:22:29. > :22:32.Banbridge where local agreements tried to reduce the time that flags
:22:33. > :22:37.are flying. The difficulty with those is that they can be short
:22:38. > :22:42.lived. They can break down after a number of years. The Lions party are
:22:43. > :22:46.running a public consultation on the issue. One of their proposals is to
:22:47. > :22:49.have a system where licences are issued to allow people to five
:22:50. > :22:55.fights in public places for two weeks. They don't think enforcement
:22:56. > :22:58.will be a big problem. If we get people to sign up to claiming
:22:59. > :23:03.ownership of the flag so that when you make an application for a
:23:04. > :23:07.licence to fly flags, the community woman who has put them there. I
:23:08. > :23:12.believe we probably won't even need to move to the situation of fines or
:23:13. > :23:18.deliberately having to take flags down. I think the community will
:23:19. > :23:22.respect that and that the flags will be brought down by those who put
:23:23. > :23:28.them up in the first place. The SDLP think the both top-down and
:23:29. > :23:34.bottom-up approaches are needed. We need buying from the people who are
:23:35. > :23:39.seeking to express their identity but also the local residents and in
:23:40. > :23:43.a lot of cases where there are local arrangements, I know many people who
:23:44. > :23:48.believe they were not consulted but ultimately, we need legislating. The
:23:49. > :23:53.flag's protocol is not binding and because of that, people have ignored
:23:54. > :23:58.it for many years. So the commission will shortly begin its work to find
:23:59. > :24:03.that elusive resolution. The parties are being asked to nominate their
:24:04. > :24:06.appointees. Applications for nonpolitical position is closed last
:24:07. > :24:09.month. The commission is due to be up and running by the end of March.
:24:10. > :24:12.He's not the first politician - and he's unlikely to be the last -
:24:13. > :24:15.to land in hot water after making comments near a live microphone.
:24:16. > :24:17.The DUP's Jim Wells found himself in hot water this week
:24:18. > :24:20.after he was recorded making alleged sexist comments
:24:21. > :24:24.The Alliance Party has asked for an investigation and now
:24:25. > :24:26.Sinn Fein has lodged a formal complaint after a subsequent
:24:27. > :24:32.So is it a storm in a teacup or part of a wider issue around
:24:33. > :24:42.With me are Sinn Fein's Catriona Ruane and UKIP's David McNarry...
:24:43. > :24:54.Jim Wells said the original remarks he made were a joke against himself.
:24:55. > :25:01.Megan Fearon did not like them but Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party,
:25:02. > :25:06.they not overreacting? First of all, Jim Wells should examine the remarks
:25:07. > :25:12.he made. The question you asked is is it a storm in a teacup or wider
:25:13. > :25:17.sexism? As a woman in the Assembly, there have been patterns of sexism.
:25:18. > :25:23.We have discussed with you why women don't go into politics, that's why.
:25:24. > :25:30.We have a woman giving evidence in a committee and two elderly men are
:25:31. > :25:36.laughing and making comments. They say they feel inadequate compared to
:25:37. > :25:44.her. They scare the wits out of Jim Wells and then he makes a joke. He
:25:45. > :25:50.says it is against himself. It shows his inadequacy, surely? He will have
:25:51. > :25:58.to get used to dealing with women because women make up 50% or 51% and
:25:59. > :26:03.what women want is a quality. What we also need is respect for visitors
:26:04. > :26:07.that come and professional women to come to the Assembly. Tell me how
:26:08. > :26:13.you think that was a sexist comment. How did that denigrate women, in
:26:14. > :26:16.your view? If he had made a comment about someone of faith or sexual
:26:17. > :26:22.orientation or another country in the same way, let's be clear about
:26:23. > :26:26.this, this was a put-down of women. But he was saying he was inadequate
:26:27. > :26:33.to them. That is Jim tried to justify... What worried me most
:26:34. > :26:41.about all of this, the rump of Unionist men, who came in, backing
:26:42. > :26:45.Jim and Ross Hussey, and subsequently, we had an incident in
:26:46. > :26:51.the Chamber, where the youngest member of the Assembly, Jim Wells
:26:52. > :26:59.volatile out, and there are witnesses to all of this. He didn't
:27:00. > :27:05.speak to her. He was very intimidating to Megan Fearon. The
:27:06. > :27:16.saddest thing for me, do you know what is? We have done more work in
:27:17. > :27:21.relation to women and politics. And meanwhile, some of the lads are
:27:22. > :27:31.getting together and making silly comments. What could you possibly
:27:32. > :27:37.disagree about their? This is part of a wider Bahia dropout or on the
:27:38. > :27:43.part of men at Stormont. You know what is annoying about this? The
:27:44. > :27:48.snitch who brought this about. What kind of politics is that? We have
:27:49. > :27:58.the tell-tale tips who runs about, saying this. It was said in public.
:27:59. > :28:02.It matters very much... The point is what was said and whether it was
:28:03. > :28:07.appropriate or not, not how it came to be the public domain. Was Jim
:28:08. > :28:22.Wells's comment defensible in any way? I didn't say I haven't seen any
:28:23. > :28:31.clips of his behaviour. If he is as Katrina has described him, that is
:28:32. > :28:35.wrong to me. What I heard was that his remarks were attributed to him
:28:36. > :28:39.in that he was being self-deprecating. He was actually
:28:40. > :28:48.knocking himself. Katrina does not accept that. You are either going to
:28:49. > :28:53.accept it or not. We are all in the same job, all elected on the same
:28:54. > :28:59.salary and we are all MLAs. That means that as far as I'm concerned,
:29:00. > :29:04.each MLA is an equal. I treat them as equals. That is how we should be
:29:05. > :29:08.going about our business. Then you need to say, if there is a situation
:29:09. > :29:13.where someone believes that he or she is treated an equally or is
:29:14. > :29:21.treated unfairly because of his or her gender or sexuality, you need to
:29:22. > :29:30.stand up about. Setting that aside as you like, we have got to be very
:29:31. > :29:35.careful. I certainly do not want to go to a workplace where I am being
:29:36. > :29:40.ultra cautious of what I may say that may give offence to someone
:29:41. > :29:44.when they would be no attention but it is so easy to get offensive in
:29:45. > :29:50.this place that you have got to watch what you are doing. So you
:29:51. > :29:58.shouldn't have to be careful? I have already said we are equals. We treat
:29:59. > :30:05.each other with respect. But this is the cup and thrust of politics.
:30:06. > :30:08.There you go, cut and thrust of politics, adversarial exchanges in
:30:09. > :30:17.the Chamber, people need to not be overly sensitive?
:30:18. > :30:24.There are plenty of good strong women. You are making this case
:30:25. > :30:30.about good strong women. I would never say there was good strong men.
:30:31. > :30:35.Can I finish my point? There are plenty of good strong women. We are
:30:36. > :30:41.not afraid of the adversarial politics, we just find it very
:30:42. > :30:46.boring. We find it very boring. When New Year David using language and he
:30:47. > :30:53.is part of the rump of the union is spent... There are plenty of good
:30:54. > :30:58.men. We are hearing David use the term snitch. Good men stand up and
:30:59. > :31:03.be comfortable we have sexism. He does not think there has been a
:31:04. > :31:09.problem. Said people should be treated equally. He has not. Before
:31:10. > :31:15.that he started talking about snitches. That is a separate issue.
:31:16. > :31:19.The person he is talking about is I presume one of the people who is
:31:20. > :31:25.making a complaint about the comments. If we do not take... I
:31:26. > :31:29.have no idea how this came into the public domain and I could not care
:31:30. > :31:36.less. That is not the point. If we do not deal directly with the rubber
:31:37. > :31:39.tree comments about women, and if we are going to go into a position
:31:40. > :31:47.where you have people defending those comments... You're not making
:31:48. > :31:54.a case that those comments against men, your comments are putting me in
:31:55. > :32:01.a position where I am actually quite consciously worried about my own
:32:02. > :32:08.style of politics, my respect... You have forum on this. You issued a
:32:09. > :32:13.pressure lease about women unite and you railed against the EU
:32:14. > :32:16.restrictions are rage of electrical appliances, why does that have
:32:17. > :32:21.anything to do with women? The fact about it was is that the newspaper
:32:22. > :32:27.article took away what I was saying about the use and the rules they
:32:28. > :32:33.were bringing in. An MLA objected to what you said. You're in the media.
:32:34. > :32:39.The newspaper went and found an MLA who was a woman who would
:32:40. > :32:45.disagree... You do regret what you said? Of course six perception is
:32:46. > :32:54.everything. What Ira Gretna is that it would become a sexist remark --
:32:55. > :33:00.what I regret. Can you imagine? If a man came to the committee and two
:33:01. > :33:09.women started saying the exact same comments, that Jim Wales... Hide we
:33:10. > :33:14.know you do not say these things? You have to take this seriously. I
:33:15. > :33:18.think you have to take it seriously. I think you're taking it too
:33:19. > :33:24.seriously! I think you're making more of it. We need to get to work.
:33:25. > :33:34.You are an equal of mine. I admire what you said. You give no quarter.
:33:35. > :33:42.We need to leave it there. Agreement at last this issue. Would you like
:33:43. > :33:46.your daughter or granddaughter treated like that? I certainly would
:33:47. > :33:52.not like it done to mine. I was brought up to believe in equality. I
:33:53. > :33:53.am going to speak to my commentators.
:33:54. > :33:56.An age old debate that seems no closer to a resolution.
:33:57. > :33:58.Let's get the thoughts of our commentators -
:33:59. > :34:03.and this week I'm joined by Dawn Purvis and Chris Donnelly...
:34:04. > :34:12.Welcome. We have had the first televised leaders debate of the
:34:13. > :34:17.General Election in the Republic. You have been looking at it. Let us
:34:18. > :34:21.have a flavour of the exchange -- Micro exchanges. To think anyone
:34:22. > :34:27.watching this programme will believe you or the Taoiseach on your
:34:28. > :34:37.election promises? They will certainly believe us, there are now
:34:38. > :34:41.140,000... You're going to get rid of the HSC. You're going to bring in
:34:42. > :34:46.a universal insurance, free prescriptions, you're going to bring
:34:47. > :34:53.in medical cars, every single one of them stroked off. You said a red
:34:54. > :34:55.line issue was disability, people are children with disabilities, you
:34:56. > :35:00.broke that as well. Some lively exchanges, Gerry Adams in the middle
:35:01. > :35:05.of it. We should not be surprised. It is clearly a boisterous debate
:35:06. > :35:11.and we can expect more of those. It is a short campaign, three and a
:35:12. > :35:14.half weeks. The first few days were dominated by discussion on economic
:35:15. > :35:22.matters. What I found interesting was that Sinn Fein came out quite
:35:23. > :35:30.well. They almost let their political commentator lead. Other
:35:31. > :35:34.parties had to retreat. Since then with the gang killings in Dublin,
:35:35. > :35:37.the focus has become security and an issue in terms of the special
:35:38. > :35:42.criminal Court which has perhaps put Sinn Fein on the back foot. They
:35:43. > :35:46.want to abolish that and that is something which is contentious. The
:35:47. > :35:52.narrative was shifted by the killings. It was. I think every
:35:53. > :35:58.party has united against them. We hear today about death threats
:35:59. > :36:04.against journalists. So it has become an election issue that there
:36:05. > :36:10.are lots of issues dominating the election, including abortion. We
:36:11. > :36:15.have just been treated to a very adversarial robust lively exchange
:36:16. > :36:21.there on the subject of sexism and equality in politics with my guess,
:36:22. > :36:25.what would you make of it? I think to be flippant about the issue
:36:26. > :36:30.really does not help the matter. There is sexism in politics, there
:36:31. > :36:34.is sexism in society and if you read some of the staff on everyday sexism
:36:35. > :36:41.on the Twitter feed you will see how bad it is. When you were an MLA, did
:36:42. > :36:47.you witness that on a day-to-day basis? Yes. People are disrespected,
:36:48. > :36:50.MLAs can be very disrespectful, talking to each other while other
:36:51. > :36:55.members are talking in the chamber or while members are talking in
:36:56. > :37:01.committees. There could be more respect certainly. What were used me
:37:02. > :37:06.about some of the comments is that women in leadership are sort of
:37:07. > :37:12.stereotyped as the these Aaron ladies or someone to be afraid of
:37:13. > :37:16.and that stereotypes women in positions of power and why can women
:37:17. > :37:23.leaders not be recognised as leaders? Chris, the DUP line on this
:37:24. > :37:27.is that Jim Wells had a tough time and was not being deliberately
:37:28. > :37:31.offensive and the DUP is committed to equality between the sexes, they
:37:32. > :37:36.have a female leader and half its MLAs are women, do you buy that?
:37:37. > :37:43.Know. Part of the problem is that the same argument was used to excuse
:37:44. > :37:47.his conduct several months ago when he ended up leaving the health post.
:37:48. > :37:52.Part of our difficulty is the underrepresentation of women in
:37:53. > :37:56.Stormont and politics generally. In 2013, research papers showed that
:37:57. > :37:59.only the Doyle is worse in terms of underrepresentation and they have
:38:00. > :38:04.tried to address that, all the major parties in the South have signed up
:38:05. > :38:06.to a gender code. 30% of the candidates have to be women.
:38:07. > :38:08.That's about it from The View for this week.
:38:09. > :38:11.Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35 here on BBC1 -
:38:12. > :38:14.but here's something that caught our eye from the United States.
:38:15. > :38:17.Who would have thought it could be quite so difficult to get seven
:38:18. > :38:56.Presidential candidates onto the one stage?!
:38:57. > :39:00.Jeb Bush! And lastly we welcome back to the debate stage, Donald Trump.