25/10/2012 The View

On The View tonight, tough talk of time warps and a need for grown-up

politics. Sinn Fein hits back at the DUP. We ask the Deputy First

Minister Martin McGuinness what he makes of the First Minister's

criticisms. I was surprised. I think he over-reacted. Marie Stopes,

gay adoption and the Attorney General, has the executor's chief

legal adviser overstepped the mark? Baroness O'Loan and Eamonn McCann

give us their views. If you did not laugh, you would cry. How political

humour helped us get through the dark days. More from that later,

and keeping a straight face to discuss all of that, our

commentators at Sheila Davidson and Paul McFadden. And of course you

can follow us on Twitter. First tonight, it is the political

marriage between Sinn Fein and the DUP turning into an unstable

partnership? Last week, the First Minister said he was disappointed

with his partner in Government and he told him so. Last night the

chairman of Sinn Fein, Declan Kearney, accused Mr Robinson of

speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Today the First Minister

weighed in. I asked him for his response to the comments made by Mr

Robinson. I was surprised it was a knee-jerk over the issue of welfare

reform. He over-reacted. Given there was a lot of attention on

Nelson's performance and his reluctance to condemn those who

were involved in a blatant act of sectarianism left him open to all

sorts of criticism. You are in Government together. He will be

cross if you as his partner in Government try to get one of his

colleagues sacked. That is not a knee-jerk reaction. I do not think

Peter would have been surprised there would have been a mood in the

Assembly on the Nationalist Republican side that Nelson's

behaviour left a lot to be desired. Take that as said. The whole issue

of welfare reform, I think we dealt with that very responsibly. I think

the SDLP opportunism trying to get a petition of concern was

irresponsibility of the worst kind. I think the criticisms that were

levelled at Sinn Fein from Peter work and justified. Off the Nelson

said he did not do anything wrong. Peter Robinson said he did not do

anything wrong. That is the most worrying aspect, that Unionist

leaders do not comprehend the impact of these parades and the

total disrespect that is shown by the bans. I met a number of orange

men earlier this week. I did not pull any punches. I told them how

people felt. I visited St Matthew's Church in East Belfast and I have

spoken to the priest and I know how people who are church-going

Catholics, how offended they feel about the activities of the bans.

The bans and the Orange Order are two separate things. You met those

orange men under the radar, privately presumably. Did they not

say, we are a different institution from some of the bans also taking

part? Do you see that distinction? No, because the bans are

participating in Orange Order parades and there is a duty and

responsibility on the Orange Order to deal with the bans. To be fair

to the Orange men I spoke to earlier this week, they expressed

their total disapproval of the activities of these bans. The

Orange Order need to very forcibly challenge the activities of these

bans. Let's go back to Declan Kearney's comments last night. He

said Peter Robinson is in a time warp and should start doing grown

up politics and he needs to start talking out of both sides of his

mouth. Those are not constructive comments. There will be occasions

when the DUP have the right to criticise Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein

have the right to criticise the DUP. Is this tit for tat? You are taking

this opportunity to hit back. it is not tit-for-tat. I am on this

programme because you invited me. We are very pleased you are on the

programme. You are being pretty tough on the way Peter Robinson has

conducted himself. I heard that Declan Kearney's comments were a

return of serve straight back at Peter Robinson. I have a lot of

respect for Peter Robinson and the work he did in bringing the DUP

into these institutions. I work with him on an ongoing basis. We

have a good working relationship. Peter felt he had the right, he has

the right to criticise the stance the Sinn Fein took, that is fair.

He is a party leader and he has every right to do that. I disagree

with him, I think Nelson's behaviour was totally wrong. Of

course Peter has the right to express his view in relation to the

whole issue of welfare reform. people might not understand this.

You talk about the cut and thrust of politics. Peter Robinson talked

about you both being mature politicians who could deal with

this. It looks as if the optics of this are not good. You have got two

individual's right at the centre of Government pulling in different

directions. It looks like your relationship is fractured. If you

keep saying things that are critical of Peter Robinson and if

he keeps saying things critical of you, that will persist and people

are getting mixed messages. Peter needs to reflect on the stance he

took at the time, which I thought was an over-reaction. And less

people go away thinking your analysis of our relationship is

correct, nothing can be further from the case. Did Peter Robinson

touched a raw nerve when he said the Executive is being held to

ransom by Sinn Fein looking over its shoulder at the SDLP? Nobody

believes that, we do not look over our shoulder at any body. The SDLP

either party who voted against two budgets during the lifetime of this

Executive and the last Executive. They voted against the transfer of

power. The SDLP came to Sinn Fein prior to the debate on the Welfare

Reform and put it to Sinn Fein we should sign a petition of concern

and we said no. We were more interested in dealing with the

issues, not killing the Bill, but bringing about the changes which

were absolutely essential if we were to stand up for the most poor

and disadvantaged in society. is the problem. When Peter Robinson

says that, at your party members think, I wonder if Peter Robinson

has got that right? I wonder if they are looking over their

shoulder and that is why you are so touching. I am never fazed by the

SDLP. If you are not fazed by them, are you fazed by comments recently

he said your party has refused to acknowledge the campaign of

violence was wrong. You are trying to have it both ways, refusing to

be open about your past or apologise for it. Bit that hurt?

that brings you into the whole debate on the need for a closer

reconciliation. Fine Gael have been involved in warring politics. He is

also a member of a Government which fell at the last election which

brought the economy to its knees. But all of this is wrapped up in

the debate which needs to be had, and that is, which we have offered

up our position and we are the only party to have done that

consistently, that we need to have a process of reconciliation. In the

process of reconciliation, and we had the spectacle of Foster

trotting off to Dublin, a motion in the Assembly looking for the Irish

Government to apologise for the troubles in the north while

Unionists are giving the impression they had no responsibility for the

troubles in the North when the perception and Duke very strongly

in the nationalist and republican community that the behaviour of

Unionists and their association with armed groups of all

descriptions and made a big contribution to the conflict for

far too long. What about today's City of Culture launch in your home

city? There has been a great fanfare about what that might mean

for you city, what it might mean for Northern Ireland and these

islands. Do you think it will live up to its billing? The yes, I

believe it will. I said this morning I was bursting with pride

and the people of the city, Catholics, politics, and the way in

which we all came together over the course of the last couple of years

to win this fabulous opportunity. Are you happy with it being UK City

of Culture? I am more focused on the advantage this can bring for

the City, the opportunity it can present for the City connecting

with the world. It is not a problem? Not at all. It would have

been a huge mistake on my part as a senior politician in the City and

in Government to pass up an opportunity that can improve the

lives of all of our people. Benburb was issued this afternoon by the

officer of the First Minister and the deputy minister in which Peter

Robinson expressed sympathy to the family of the young woman soldier

who was killed in Afghanistan recently. He was the only person

quoted in that. Do you envisage a time when you and the First

Minister could issue a joint statement of condolence? I would

like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy and condolences

to the family of the young woman who lost her life. I say that as

someone on the record who has been totally opposed to the war in Iraq

and Afghanistan where many innocent people have lost their lives, where

many soldiers in different armies have lost their lives. But we

should not ignore their reality that there are parents, brothers

and sisters who are grieving and I I think all of these things will be

dealt with in the way we know best. I was anticipating that I was going

to be asked. This is a grieving family.

Martin McGuinness talking to me at Stormont Castle today. The Attorney

General's stirred controversy with his offer to help the justice

committee with the Marie Stokes clinic.

We'll hear from Baroness Olone and Eamonn McCann in a moment. First,

Mark Devonport on John Larkin's role.

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland is the Stormont executive's

chief legal adviser. He gets to act himself in high profile cases like

the recent judicial reviews on the Department of Health's guidelines

on abortion and whether gay and unmarried couples here can adopt

children. Not only that, he also regularly

gives evidence to Stormont committees about various aspects of

the law. Recently, he offered the justice committee his services as

cross-questioner to examine whether the Marie Stokes clinic is

operating within the strict law on abortion here. He believes that's

within his remit as a guardian of the rule of law, but some people

are worried he's expanding his role too far.

Mark Devonport there. Do you have any concerns that John Larkin's

overstepped the mark? No, I don't. I think that there is an involving

understanding about what the Attorney General is like. We used

to have an English Attorney General operating from London. It didn't

iment pact much and people didn't know much about it. Now we have an

Attorney General and his function is to advise the Government, chief

legal advise tore the executive, but also to protect the public

interest in the courts sohe has a duty to look at what the law in

Northern Ireland to advise where policy changes are proposed but

also to protect the law. If we take that on board, he has a duty to

look at what is the law now in Northern Ireland and to advise the

Government on proposed changes, I think what he's doing is what you

would expect him to do. The question of, should he have write

tonne the European court of human rites or sought intervention there,

is a question which is the consequence of the fact that we now

have devolved justice. This is a separate jurisdiction with separate

powers. Is he on safe ground partly because the majority of our

legislators agree with him on abortion? I think this is where I'm

starting. It's not where the legislators agree with him, it's

what the law currently is at the present time. That's the first

question. He has to protect the public interest and the law as it

is at the time and then to add size Government on changes they are

proposing to make and to supervise the work of Government and legal

departments. When you put all that together, what he's doing, it's

really his views that don't matter. I've worked in the past with senior

counsel such as John Larkin. They will argue the case for the client

and that iris their job. What he's doing now is arguing the case for

the law subject to proposals to change it is. What can possibly

with wrong with that then, Mr McCann? What Noula said is right.

That's written into the remit. It would appear that Mr Larkin is the

arbiter. I would ask the question, what does John Larkin represent? He

writes to the European Court of Human Rights and interferes in a

case about a couple in Vienna who want to adopt a child and he writes

and says this might effect the litigation in Northern Ireland.

That was instigated by himself. This is a circular argument. He's

intervened in the case brought by the alternative A5 alliance in

relation to the proposed dual carriageway across the north. Who

asked him to do that? The point of this intervention, sort of the he

actively wins, will be to knock the alternative A5 out of the ring.

It's going well beyond the Attorney General as anybody's understood it

in the past. Was it right for him? Was it within his role and remit to

write to the committee, the justice committee to suggest he hold an

investigation? He's the lead tore the executive. The executive didn't

ask for his advice. He volunteered the advice and not only does he

volunteer the advice without consulting the executive and the

department, but he then goes and implements himself of his own

volition. That's true of the A5 alliance case. Perhaps this is the

point, Baroness O already Loan. Given that he used such graphic

language in 2008 before he was Attorney General, should he not

have been an awful lot more careful in how he handled the issue now

that he is Attorney General? -- Baroness O' Loan? I think the

language he used is the language of two rights he has in law. The right

of freedom of expression and the right of conscience, freedom of

conscience. These two things were his right four years ago when he

said this. Are you happy with what he said and how he said it? You can

question the exact words which he used. The graphic use of language?

I think what he was trying to do there rbgs as I saw it, he was

trying to articulate something that we find difficult. What we are

dealing with in abortion are what I would regard as right to life of a

child and the rights of the mother as well. Anyway, back to today -

was there grounds upon which he should sper vein - the opening of

the Marie Stokes clinic was interesting because the focus of

the media was on the fact that abortions would be performed up to

nine weeks in Northern Ireland -- intervene. My first thought was,

why nine weeks? Then of course, it's nine weeks because that's the

period within which particular medication is most effective. So

the nine weeks has nothing to do with the law. I think it was

generating a confusion as to what the law actually said. I think the

Attorney General's job is to protect the public interest, as

articulated by the politician who is make the law. It's the

politician who is make the law, not the Attorney General. Any problem

with that, Eamonn You are entirely missing the point about what John

Larkin said. His remarks were unacceptable. He's a private

citizen? He was. I wasn't aware of that in 2008 and I'm surprised

there wasn't more publicity about it. It came fresh to me and lots of

other people. Let's be clear what he said. John Larkin said that it

would be the same thing that a woman if she had an abortion, it

ought to be the same thing to her to put a bullet in the back of the

Head of A baby. Now, the suggestion - I know women - I know women who

had terminations precisely because they had children, one of whom was

severely disabled, they didn't believe they could give the care

and attention to that other child if they had a child. That was the

reason. The notion that that woman in that position would put a bullet

in the back of the Head of A baby is disgusting, unacceptable and I'm

surprised that nobody at Stormont called for the man's resignation.

In a sentence, Baroness, is the concern that he's simply making the

heedlines too much himself, John Larkin? It's his duty to intervene.

Who does make the headlines? Journalists select what they put

into the media as the headlines and that's one of the issues. There's

not much coming out of Stormont at the moment. This question of the A5

to which Eamonn referred very graphically. It's his duty to go

before the court. No, it's not. Eamonn, the functions of the

Attorney General actually require him to advise the Government.

know you have more background in the law than I have, but I'm

telling you as a flat fact that you are wrong about that. You said it's

his duty, that implies there is a requirement. It's different to say

that. He may have the potential to do that, he was not asked to do

that, he wasn't asked for advice on it, he doesn't do it in relation to

other matters. Are you suggesting that in every judicial review the

Attorney General should run forward? Sorry, we are clearly not

going to have a meeting of minds tonight, whether that's a good

thing or a bad thing. We can't say, but strong views there. Thank you

both very much indeed for joining us. I have no doubt it's a subject

to which we'll return in the months and weeks ahead. Thank you both

very much indeed. Politics is a serious business but so too is

comedy. 20 years since the Empire Comedy Club at the expense of our

politicians. I'm sure John Reid in the past 25 years spelt survival

for both communities. How did it all begin? I'll tell you. The -

King Billy... The King wasn't at the Battle of The Boim. What's the

difference between my wife and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a

terrorist. And this guy over here with the

long hair, you look as if you're... Well we know what you could be.

He's giving me that look "I am". What to you call that place that's

always being bombed and I say, I don't know, it's not there any more.

Order, orter. I would like to the First Minister Mr Robinson what

he'll be saying to the now Taoiseach why they discussed

Northern Ireland? That's none of your business, you interfering

busybody. I was wondering where we'd all be in the last 5 years if

he didn't have a laugh. Kevin looking at comedy over the years

there. Tonight's commentators, Sheila Davidson and Paul McFadden.

Paul, you did a bit of standup in your day way back when? I don't

know how many years ago, Mark, but I was more Susan Boyle than Frankie

Boyle. It was a one-night gig. That's as much as you need to know

about it. And you have never stooped so low? Never, never.

Others may say something else but I don't know, not deliberately.

thought it was great. Let's talk about Martin McGuinness and the

interview he gave to us this afternoon. First of all, he

revealed that he's met for the first time with a delegation of

senior Orangemen? A very interesting revelation. A sign of

progress. Sounds as though it was a forthright meeting, assuming that

the Orange Order gave as good as they got from Mr McGuinness in that

sense. Interesting to hear that kind of conversation's taken place

and I would say hopefully something good might come of it in the future.

What light do you think was shed on the relaceship at the heart of the

gecktive by what Mr McGuinness had to say tonight and what Mr Robinson

said -- the executive. They know it's basically choreographed so one

side can get out an argument against the other so it doesn't

look like they are getting cosy. The real problem here is whenever

that's a confusing message to people who aren't maybe politically

aware and take that as being an absolute position that these men

are in and they're not. It's not fair on the ordinary members of the

public and they need to get pwhor grown-up themselves and stop this

tit-for-tating. -- more grown-up. They'll get bemused looking at it.

The public must be baffled. Give them credit though in political and

historical terms. The two parties and constituencies, give them

credit for this leadership in action. They need to work harder at

it. Sheila, your Tweet of the week? Yes, my Tweet of the week is from

Anne, an American right-wing lady Anne, an American right-wing lady

who was, I mean just outrageous, her Tweet. She said, I approve of

Romney's decision to be gentle and kind to the retard, the retard

being Obama. Yes and the best response was a special Olympics

ambassador and when he was asking her does that mean that Obama is

like us, we get bad health and housing, but actually we've got

every day where life is wonderful. She's a striking looking blonde

with a TV profile? Yes. And that apparently is Anne Coulter, very

well-known to American audiences, so you can understand people being

offended? America a home of political correctness, I can't

understand how she can get away with it. Yours? Came from a

colleague of yours, Mark Simpson, and basically tapping into

relationships between Sinn Fein and the DUP. Yes, he suggested the

clock's already gone back in Stormont by about ten years? Yes.

Paul, what are you looking forward to in the next week? Halloween. You

have to wear suspenders. Looking forward to that. Pictures of

Halloween celebrations in Derry last year. Sheila, you are looking

forward to a programme tomorrow night? Have I Got News For You,

Conrad Black with Jeremy Paxman. Let us have a look at this -

remarkable stuff. Actually being able to endure a discussion like

this without getting up and smashing your face in if I had been

through what you put people through. Go ahead and do it. Not sure I

would have been able to pass up that opportunity! Pauck both very