11/02/2016 The View

The SDLP backs the DUP's plan for a commission to report

on abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality -

but critics accuse both parties of avoiding the issue ahead

Tonight on The View, we ask if it's a debate that's too

Too important to be bound up in politics says one MLA as that

We hear from politicians on both sides of the debate and we ask

the Justice Minister what happens next. Also on the programme -

Never mind passes for bonfires, what about licences to fly flags?

It involves paramilitaries and all sorts of customs and practices. We

need to look at why people feel the need to fly flights.

And sexist and unacceptable - or much ado about nothing?

We've more on that row over Jim Wells' whispered

And making a welcome return to the commentary team -

former MLA Dawn Purvis and blogger Chris Donnelly...

No change to the law here on abortion, but a DUP proposal

for a working group on the issue has won support from the SDLP.

In a late-night sitting of the Assembly, MLAs debated

an amendment to the Justice Bill which would have allowed

the termination of pregnancy in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

However, after almost five hours, the amendment -

proposed by Alliance Members Stewart Dickson and Trevor Lunn -

There are those who will make their decisions today due to the influence

of party whips, rather than through free expression of their conscience.

I have to save Mr Speaker, I find that regrettable. Tread carefully.

That is why the DUP is rejecting the amendment but outlining a road map

to a sensible informed and appropriate way forward. The

Minister of health has been asked by the end of February to establish a

working group including clinicians in this field and legally qualified

persons. What about the women who are pregnant as a result of rape? Or

women who are faced with fake tilt foetal abnormalities? Is the DUP

going to tell them we will have a commission and see where it goes? We

welcome the initiative of Arlene Foster in setting up a working group

that will listen to those people at the coal face, to those women having

to make those difficult choices, informed by their clinicians and by

legal experts? The First Minister knows very well that our party has

put in place a mechanism that ensures there will be a majority to

vote down the amendment and to bring forward the working group which will

kick the decision to the far side of the election. And I say to the First

Minister that this delay is cruel, it is Dickensian. Amendment 61

falls. That announcement came

just before midnight. So has the issue been deliberately

"kicked down the road" until after the election,

as Mike Nesbitt put it? In a moment I'll be talking

to the SDLP's Dolores Kelly and the Independent

Unionist John McCallister - but first, the Justice Minister,

David Ford, is here... Good evening. Thank you for joining

us. There was a straight vote in the assembly last night and the other

side won by 59 votes - 40. No petition of concern. You were

defeated fairly and squarely. The proposal was defeated. It was

defeated however after some pretty underhand subterfuge. This issue has

been around since late 2013. In a tub 2013, I wrote to the Ben Health

Minister saying that because the issue had been raised, there should

be a joint consultation about all aspects of abortion law. That was

never taken up. My requests were ignored and I went ahead with my

responsibilities and I conducted a proper consultation. Then I produced

proposals which have been sitting with the executive since June the

1st last year and we had at the very last minute, like a rabbit out of

the hat, this proposal that the Health Minister should conduct some

sort of study into something which actually a criminal justice issue.

Did you know that that was coming? When I heard from the media, yes. Is

it a helpful development? It looks to me like it is helpful to the DUP

postponing the issue until after the election. It is as simple as that? I

think it is as calculated as that because the DUP if they had wanted

to engage, they had a number of opportunities, over the last two and

a half years. The DUP disputes that and says it is a sensitive and

complex issue. Legislation should not be rushed into, they say. Two

and a half years? When you look at the amendment, some critics would

say it was tacked onto a much broader justice bill dealing with

other issues and that is not the way to introduce good legislation. In

2013, A.D. UPM lay and an SDLP MLA tacked on an amendment which would

have made it even more restrictive and at the further consideration

stage, when there was no opportunity to amend it or get it right, no

prior consultation, the amendment which was tabled yesterday was

tabled at consideration stage with the opportunity to get it right in

two or three weeks' time, it was based firmly on the consultation

that was carried out by the Department of Justice. It was the

exact opposite of what the DUP did and they talked about consultation,

it is all part of the subterfuge. What some people who are

particularly uncomfortable about abortions is that it introduces the

concept of choice to the termination process. That is different from

other circumstances in which termination is currently available

in Northern Ireland, do you accept that that is a lying in the sand for

a lot of people? The concept of choice is only the concept of choice

where clinicians state, I am describing it as it would have been

another amendment, where two clinician say there is no prospect

of a viable life and no treatment could be offered if it was carried

to full term after delivery. Then the woman has a choice, whether to

seek a termination or not to. It was made very clear by my colleagues and

indeed by me that if that was the case, the woman had a right to full

medical treatment if she wished to proceed to full term. That is the

only concept where choice comes in, whether circumstances are of a fatal

abnormality, the woman has a right to choose whether she should have an

abortion or whether she should proceed to full term. What do you

think you need to do next? This debate has clearly been blocked by

the DUP with this subterfuge, but they will have to come back because

they have talked about six months. I can respect people who yesterday

walked into a lobby differently from me because on the grounds of

conscience they did not agree because I claimed the right of

conscience on that issue and I will give someone like Danny Kennedy his

right to disagree with Mike Nesbitt and myself. What I cannot accept is

people who produce the subterfuge to avoid taking the decision to avoid

taking a difficult issue, no one wanted to deal with that, we all

hoped we would not have to deal with it, just the same as women and

partners and their families in many cases hope they do not have to deal

with it. We have responsibilities. We cannot duck and run away.

Stay with me David Ford, but let's bring Dolores Kelly

and John McCallister into the conversation now.

We did ask the DUP and Sinn Fein to take part in this discussion,

by the way, and both parties declined...

Pick up on what the minister has said. A process of subterfuge to

duck actually the difficult challenge of dealing with this

complicated and complexes issue. I think there is no doubt in the minds

of anyone that under the Health Minister Edwin Poots, the DUP have

ducked the issue for the last two or three years. I believe this will be

a test of Arlene Foster's leadership, real test as to whether

or not she can deal with some of these difficult issues and bring

forward a set of guidelines which would be consulted and led by

clinicians. With respect, the debate was last night, the test was last

night, all that has happened according to David Ford and other

critics is that the cam has been kicked down the road. I do not agree

with his interpretation. He admits that the amendments were an wheelie

and indeed we as a party... What he said was it could be refined. They

could have withdrawn them last night and put forward further amendments.

The SDLP as a pro-life party took our lead not just from our own

principles but we met over the last two days with senior clinicians and

also with legal teams and they were both clear in their advice and that

was that the amendments would not have given greater clarity around

the guidelines to clinicians. Can we be clear about this, are you saying

that you voted against the amendment last night on our point of principle

because you are opposed to the concept of termination in cases of

fatal foetal abnormality or because you did not like the wording and had

they been better worded and more workable you would have supported

them? That is not the case, is it? Answer the question as --! What we

believe is that the 1967 act which David disputes that those amendments

were around in terms of choice... I did not interrupt. Those amendments

were on workable. They did not provide the clarity and direction

that clinicians require. I understand that. Had they been

workable, would you have supported termination in cases of fatal foetal

abnormality? I have friends who have had to make those choices and I have

the utmost compassion for them. In the past, this has become an issue

because of the Health Minister messing around with the guidelines.

There has always been the possibility in difficult cases but

it was the principle of the health and well-being of the mother both

physically and mentally, not on the basis of choice. Are there any

circumstances in which you would support termination in a case of

fatal foetal abnormality? If the guidelines were agreed and clarity

given to the clinicians and legal advice we would not shy away from

making those top decisions. You did support the amendment passed like,

why? First of all it had nothing to do with the 1967 act. To be

absolutely fair to the Minister, he has tried to move this issue

forward. This is about how we deal with the difficult issue when

families are faced with the tragedy, a tragic diagnosis, that none of us

would want to face. How do we support them, how do we give them a

choice and how do we support them whatever they choose? No one was

forcing anyone down any particular part, this was about simply a

compassionate way, rather than having people travel across the

water to England and not even advising families... An interesting

point, how come the vast majority of Unionists voted against the

amendment but you were able to vote for it as an independent? I think

the vast majority... It is an issue that politicians do not want to deal

with. We have had a crisis in our governance here as to how to deal

with this. We have shied away from it for years between court decisions

telling us to bring guidelines. This was being dealt with by clinicians

are until Edwin Poots is guidelines came in. David Ford has tried to

bring legislation, tried to work with the other departments and the

only criticism of the amendments last night was that they were

wrong... The very idea that we have another amending stage, if they had

been passed last night, the government would have kicked in and

could have tidy them up and heightened language, gave reassured.

The Attorney General made it clear that if those amendments as they

were worded had been approved then he would have taken it to the

Supreme Court. The Minister made it clear he was content for the Supreme

Court to decide. The clinicians were very clear on Monday that those

amendments did not meet their requirements in terms of planning

the care pathways of women. The Attorney General lost his case with

justice Horner. What would have happened if John Larkin had referred

this to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court would have decided

whether it was in the competence of the assembly. That would have been

perfectly acceptable? Yes. My legal advice was that it was a sound

point. The Attorney General made a sound point that he regarded that

this was discrimination against disabled foetuses. The reality was

we were not talking about disability, we are talking about a

fatal abnormality with no prospect of life. It was made clear by me, we

were not talking about Down's Syndrome or the kind of subterfuge

that people engaged in. When you establish the principle in terms of

choice and move away... I have explained choice! That enters into a

whole different ball game and the legal advice is that of what we were

given. There is no such definition in law.

There is no such thing in law as mental illness either and I know

what schizophrenia and depression looks like. It's an all encompassing

term which covers all conditions. We have moved it from the well-being of

the mother to choice. Is it not possible but there are individuals,

perhaps some of them MLAs, who would regard themselves as being pro-life

but who would argue that in the circumstances where a fatal faecal

abnormalities present in the foetus, there is no viable prospect of life

and therefore look you can actually allow abortion in those

circumstances and still hold the principles are being pro-life? But

not with those amendments last night. Those amendments were not

given as that. Those amendments were giving exactly that. They were also

stated clearly by the proposals and by me on the basis of the legal

advice. The willingness of the proposals, they could've been

amended further considerations. You are speaking for the SDLP tonight.

We have invited you to do that. But not everyone in your party voted

against the its last night. Two individuals were not there. But

Claire Hanna abstained. Was that about the BST Bjorn not? Sean Rogers

is the family engagement plan for many months abroad. What about

Claire Hanna, who abstained? She did not follow the party line. There was

no whip line on it but the priority is pro-life. That is what happened

last night. With the exception of those she named, they voted against

those amendments and Claire abstained. You have told us what you

think needs to happen as far as that is concerned. There is another

outstanding issue you have been dealing with, and that is the issue

of legal aid. There has been a dispute today. That issue was

resolved. Can you tell us anything about the details of how that was

resolved? That was resolved in mediation, which was suggested by

the Lord Chief Justice. These were rules put in place by the Assembly.

They were upheld in the High Court apart from two minor variations. But

even so, lawyers were willing to work. In the interest of those

victims, we agreed, when the Lord Chief Justice suggested mediation,

and we have reduced the skill of the cuts and the lawyers have said they

will be back to work tomorrow. It's an honourable compromise which

recognises the difficulties that were potentially facing victims. But

you are happy to concede that you had to give some ground? I gave some

ground, they gave some ground. That is what compromise means. Thank you

both very much indeed for coming to join us.

Now, one of the commitments of the Fresh Start Agreement

was a cross-party effort to solve the disputes over flags.

That Commission is due to start work in the next six weeks and,

in a separate development, The View understands that a report

from two Queens's University academics will next week call

for a much more determined and consistent approach

to the removal of street flags and propose a set

Our Political Correspondent, Chris Page, has been

Flags and fury have gone together for more than 50 years. This was the

1964 street riots. They began after police removed a tricolour from a

Republican election office. Ian Paisley had threatened to take it

down himself. More recently, a dispute over the union flag put the

issue of the top of the political agenda. It is over three years since

Belfast City Council decided to make a change on the flying of the flag

on City Hall. It is now up to 18 designated days rather than all year

round. A number of demonstrations turned violent, dozens of police

officers were injured. Since then, the issue has featured in three sets

of party negotiations, so what is the likelihood that this complex and

contentious matter could ever be resolved? Dominik Brian is an

academic who has done a lot of research on flags. There were two

dimensions to the issue and says one is more challenging than the other.

Trying to sort out the problem of flags on official buildings is

relatively easy in the sense that there is a small set of policy

options and you got to make a decision and come to a resolution.

The flying flags on lamp posts is considerably more important. It's

widespread and difficult agencies. It is more difficult to solve. That

will be one of the tasks facing the commission on flags, identity,

culture and tradition. It is being set up on part of the agreement.

There will be 15 agreements. -- members. There will also be eight

nonpolitical members. The commission will have 18 months to come up with

a final report that must be agreed on by a majority of the commission.

The PPC the commission must develop good relationships with the

loyalists. It can't simply come in and prescribe solutions from above

because loyalism would accept the legitimacy of the commission. It

also has to show understanding as to why loyalists for life flags. The

flags at a public expression of identity but the same time, they

have to look at why people feel the need to fly flags. Among the ideas

which the commission might consider, there are two basic approaches. The

first is a top down. That is to come up with legislation or regulation

that controls the flags being put on lamp posts. The difficulty is it is

hard to get agencies to police it and there is a good chance that

would increase conflict around them in the short-term. The alternative

is to come up with a bottom-up approach and that is the sort of

protocols and guidelines that you will see from time to time around

the country. There was a good one in Portadown and another one in

Banbridge where local agreements tried to reduce the time that flags

are flying. The difficulty with those is that they can be short

lived. They can break down after a number of years. The Lions party are

running a public consultation on the issue. One of their proposals is to

have a system where licences are issued to allow people to five

fights in public places for two weeks. They don't think enforcement

will be a big problem. If we get people to sign up to claiming

ownership of the flag so that when you make an application for a

licence to fly flags, the community woman who has put them there. I

believe we probably won't even need to move to the situation of fines or

deliberately having to take flags down. I think the community will

respect that and that the flags will be brought down by those who put

them up in the first place. The SDLP think the both top-down and

bottom-up approaches are needed. We need buying from the people who are

seeking to express their identity but also the local residents and in

a lot of cases where there are local arrangements, I know many people who

believe they were not consulted but ultimately, we need legislating. The

flag's protocol is not binding and because of that, people have ignored

it for many years. So the commission will shortly begin its work to find

that elusive resolution. The parties are being asked to nominate their

appointees. Applications for nonpolitical position is closed last

month. The commission is due to be up and running by the end of March.

He's not the first politician - and he's unlikely to be the last -

to land in hot water after making comments near a live microphone.

The DUP's Jim Wells found himself in hot water this week

after he was recorded making alleged sexist comments

The Alliance Party has asked for an investigation and now

Sinn Fein has lodged a formal complaint after a subsequent

So is it a storm in a teacup or part of a wider issue around

With me are Sinn Fein's Catriona Ruane and UKIP's David McNarry...

Jim Wells said the original remarks he made were a joke against himself.

Megan Fearon did not like them but Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party,

they not overreacting? First of all, Jim Wells should examine the remarks

he made. The question you asked is is it a storm in a teacup or wider

sexism? As a woman in the Assembly, there have been patterns of sexism.

We have discussed with you why women don't go into politics, that's why.

We have a woman giving evidence in a committee and two elderly men are

laughing and making comments. They say they feel inadequate compared to

her. They scare the wits out of Jim Wells and then he makes a joke. He

says it is against himself. It shows his inadequacy, surely? He will have

to get used to dealing with women because women make up 50% or 51% and

what women want is a quality. What we also need is respect for visitors

that come and professional women to come to the Assembly. Tell me how

you think that was a sexist comment. How did that denigrate women, in

your view? If he had made a comment about someone of faith or sexual

orientation or another country in the same way, let's be clear about

this, this was a put-down of women. But he was saying he was inadequate

to them. That is Jim tried to justify... What worried me most

about all of this, the rump of Unionist men, who came in, backing

Jim and Ross Hussey, and subsequently, we had an incident in

the Chamber, where the youngest member of the Assembly, Jim Wells

volatile out, and there are witnesses to all of this. He didn't

speak to her. He was very intimidating to Megan Fearon. The

saddest thing for me, do you know what is? We have done more work in

relation to women and politics. And meanwhile, some of the lads are

getting together and making silly comments. What could you possibly

disagree about their? This is part of a wider Bahia dropout or on the

part of men at Stormont. You know what is annoying about this? The

snitch who brought this about. What kind of politics is that? We have

the tell-tale tips who runs about, saying this. It was said in public.

It matters very much... The point is what was said and whether it was

appropriate or not, not how it came to be the public domain. Was Jim

Wells's comment defensible in any way? I didn't say I haven't seen any

clips of his behaviour. If he is as Katrina has described him, that is

wrong to me. What I heard was that his remarks were attributed to him

in that he was being self-deprecating. He was actually

knocking himself. Katrina does not accept that. You are either going to

accept it or not. We are all in the same job, all elected on the same

salary and we are all MLAs. That means that as far as I'm concerned,

each MLA is an equal. I treat them as equals. That is how we should be

going about our business. Then you need to say, if there is a situation

where someone believes that he or she is treated an equally or is

treated unfairly because of his or her gender or sexuality, you need to

stand up about. Setting that aside as you like, we have got to be very

careful. I certainly do not want to go to a workplace where I am being

ultra cautious of what I may say that may give offence to someone

when they would be no attention but it is so easy to get offensive in

this place that you have got to watch what you are doing. So you

shouldn't have to be careful? I have already said we are equals. We treat

each other with respect. But this is the cup and thrust of politics.

There you go, cut and thrust of politics, adversarial exchanges in

the Chamber, people need to not be overly sensitive?

There are plenty of good strong women. You are making this case

about good strong women. I would never say there was good strong men.

Can I finish my point? There are plenty of good strong women. We are

not afraid of the adversarial politics, we just find it very

boring. We find it very boring. When New Year David using language and he

is part of the rump of the union is spent... There are plenty of good

men. We are hearing David use the term snitch. Good men stand up and

be comfortable we have sexism. He does not think there has been a

problem. Said people should be treated equally. He has not. Before

that he started talking about snitches. That is a separate issue.

The person he is talking about is I presume one of the people who is

making a complaint about the comments. If we do not take... I

have no idea how this came into the public domain and I could not care

less. That is not the point. If we do not deal directly with the rubber

tree comments about women, and if we are going to go into a position

where you have people defending those comments... You're not making

a case that those comments against men, your comments are putting me in

a position where I am actually quite consciously worried about my own

style of politics, my respect... You have forum on this. You issued a

pressure lease about women unite and you railed against the EU

restrictions are rage of electrical appliances, why does that have

anything to do with women? The fact about it was is that the newspaper

article took away what I was saying about the use and the rules they

were bringing in. An MLA objected to what you said. You're in the media.

The newspaper went and found an MLA who was a woman who would

disagree... You do regret what you said? Of course six perception is

everything. What Ira Gretna is that it would become a sexist remark --

what I regret. Can you imagine? If a man came to the committee and two

women started saying the exact same comments, that Jim Wales... Hide we

know you do not say these things? You have to take this seriously. I

think you have to take it seriously. I think you're taking it too

seriously! I think you're making more of it. We need to get to work.

You are an equal of mine. I admire what you said. You give no quarter.

We need to leave it there. Agreement at last this issue. Would you like

your daughter or granddaughter treated like that? I certainly would

not like it done to mine. I was brought up to believe in equality. I

am going to speak to my commentators.

An age old debate that seems no closer to a resolution.

Let's get the thoughts of our commentators -

and this week I'm joined by Dawn Purvis and Chris Donnelly...

Welcome. We have had the first televised leaders debate of the

General Election in the Republic. You have been looking at it. Let us

have a flavour of the exchange -- Micro exchanges. To think anyone

watching this programme will believe you or the Taoiseach on your

election promises? They will certainly believe us, there are now

140,000... You're going to get rid of the HSC. You're going to bring in

a universal insurance, free prescriptions, you're going to bring

in medical cars, every single one of them stroked off. You said a red

line issue was disability, people are children with disabilities, you

broke that as well. Some lively exchanges, Gerry Adams in the middle

of it. We should not be surprised. It is clearly a boisterous debate

and we can expect more of those. It is a short campaign, three and a

half weeks. The first few days were dominated by discussion on economic

matters. What I found interesting was that Sinn Fein came out quite

well. They almost let their political commentator lead. Other

parties had to retreat. Since then with the gang killings in Dublin,

the focus has become security and an issue in terms of the special

criminal Court which has perhaps put Sinn Fein on the back foot. They

want to abolish that and that is something which is contentious. The

narrative was shifted by the killings. It was. I think every

party has united against them. We hear today about death threats

against journalists. So it has become an election issue that there

are lots of issues dominating the election, including abortion. We

have just been treated to a very adversarial robust lively exchange

there on the subject of sexism and equality in politics with my guess,

what would you make of it? I think to be flippant about the issue

really does not help the matter. There is sexism in politics, there

is sexism in society and if you read some of the staff on everyday sexism

on the Twitter feed you will see how bad it is. When you were an MLA, did

you witness that on a day-to-day basis? Yes. People are disrespected,

MLAs can be very disrespectful, talking to each other while other

members are talking in the chamber or while members are talking in

committees. There could be more respect certainly. What were used me

about some of the comments is that women in leadership are sort of

stereotyped as the these Aaron ladies or someone to be afraid of

and that stereotypes women in positions of power and why can women

leaders not be recognised as leaders? Chris, the DUP line on this

is that Jim Wells had a tough time and was not being deliberately

offensive and the DUP is committed to equality between the sexes, they

have a female leader and half its MLAs are women, do you buy that?

Know. Part of the problem is that the same argument was used to excuse

his conduct several months ago when he ended up leaving the health post.

Part of our difficulty is the underrepresentation of women in

Stormont and politics generally. In 2013, research papers showed that

only the Doyle is worse in terms of underrepresentation and they have

tried to address that, all the major parties in the South have signed up

to a gender code. 30% of the candidates have to be women.

That's about it from The View for this week.

Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35 here on BBC1 -

but here's something that caught our eye from the United States.

Who would have thought it could be quite so difficult to get seven

Presidential candidates onto the one stage?!

Jeb Bush! And lastly we welcome back to the debate stage, Donald Trump.