DUP in crisis: Liam Clarke interviews Peter Robinson

I have had hundreds of e-mails from people of nationalist background, from priests, literally hundreds from the Irish Republic. A very large group from the Irish Republic and a massive number, it goes into thousands, from people from a unionist background.

I have never on any issue combined in the past had as many e-mails or messages. I have probably never needed them more, but it does let you see that there is more than one kind of person out there. They have been positive at a ratio of about a couple of hundred to one. On two hands, you could count the nasty ones, and the nasty ones aren't really coming to me.

With some of the communications people have taken a lot of time to write them, they have put a lot of thought into the issues. They haven't allowed themselves to be simply led by what the media want them to think and young people and people who are clearly more mature. It has been a massive comfort and I shouldn't say it's a surprise because I see the goodness of people at all times, but for somebody to take the time to do it is very comforting at a difficult stage in your life.

LIAM CLARKE: Where is Iris now?

She is in a residential facility and will be for some considerable time.

You have said that you find it difficult to get answers from her on financial subjects

I suppose the more accurate way to put that was you are always getting answers but she isn't in a state where you could rely on the answers you would get.

You have said that she had two other periods of about 6 weeks in residential care

She had two stays, one of about 6 weeks and one of about two weeks. It might be a week either way in both of those. There was only about a week in between the two. It was around May last year. Possibly earlier than that. I became aware that she was having mental problems after the first of March. I obviously can't go into her medical condition, it would be wrong for me to do so. But you can imagine somebody in my place who had been trying to find some rationale to explain why, after a 40-year relationship the kind of events that we now know about, could occur.

There has been speculation in the press but did you ever suspect any other affairs?

I don't believe that there were other affairs, but this is one of the difficulties. If somebody has betrayed you once and somebody says in the press they have betrayed you two other times do you believe them? I have to say that in terms of defamation it would be fairly safe to accuse Iris because if somebody has committed adultery once it is not going to be a defamation case to say she did it more than once. It would be a defamation case if they identified who she is supposed to have had the affair with. They identified somebody who is deceased and an unnamed party person doesn't run them any risks in the matter. I hear what they say. I would suggest that those people instead of putting me through torment would let me see the evidence that they have.

I have decisions to take about my future and Iris's future. We indicated that we were going to try to make the marriage work, that was very much on the basis that I knew everything and, while there were bits and pieces in the Spotlight programme that I didn't know about, I am not talking about fine detail of the financial arrangements or some of what was in the text messages which I didn't know about, but clearly if my wife had had a couple of affairs and some of the other things she was accused of that would make the road much more difficult.

If it was said about somebody else, I would probably dismiss it fairly quickly on the basis of the argument that I advanced to you. But when it is said about somebody who has let me down, then you have that niggling doubt, which I would have thought, on the basis of humanity, somebody would have let me see the strength of their evidence. Privately. I realise people have sources to protect. I will betray no source. I will take no legal action. I just want to see for myself whether this is something I should believe or not.

A letter was discovered by a member of the family…

Finding a communication, which I think fits into what psychiatrists will probably judge to be part of the self-destructive behaviour, somebody not just acting irrationally but somebody taking risks, somebody almost wanting to be self-destructive and found out. The communication wasn't found 'til after the attempt to take her own life.

What was it, a letter or a text or what?

A letter, which hadn't been sent. It made it clear what was going on.

Was that found by you?

No. Another member of the family.

When was it found?

It was all on the first or second of March.

Was it an overdose? Did you ring for medical advice?

The issue is intensely private and personal. I don't really want to go into details but by way of a skeleton of what happened .... There was always a consideration of whether this was a cry for help. How many drugs had she taken? And the family were here. After we had ensured that any drugs that were in her system came out of her system we took immediate medical advice at a very high level. We were asked a series of questions about her and how she was responding to various things - her eyes and all those kind of things. We followed the instructions that we were given.

You got her to be sick or something like that?

Yes. We continued throughout the whole night. I stayed with her throughout the whole night. By early morning she was talking quite lucidly. I had a conversation with her, and we took advice three times from the same person and at the end of it, on the basis of our conversations, suggested that she should be allowed to sleep. She had three members of the family here and she was asleep and I went on to carry on my duties at that stage, with updates from the family along the way, and I went to the hospital as soon as she was admitted. A doctor, from the point of view of being certain about these matters, (had recommended that she go to hospital.)

Attention has been drawn to the fact that you went to the assembly and you were joking about agriculture?

It shows the intentions of the BBC Spotlight programme that out of half an hour of first minister's questions where there are twenty nine and a half minutes of seriously answering of questions they look for the one spot where a question was put in a slightly jovial way and there was a slightly jovial response.

Did you think it was all okay at this time or were you in shock? After the letter had been found you must have been in terrible turmoil.

The turmoil lasted for much more than one day. You don't come to terms with any of those issues quickly. There is a sense that you have to do your duty and in a week's time we had the killings. It was not a time to cower in the corner.

You didn't feel it was in your or her interests to make it obvious what had happened?

It certainly wasn't in her interests. I think (that raising) those kind of issues, as I have seen from public responses, would have brought sympathy to me but I don't think that is the real issue. I don't think it is going to be helpful to somebody who has tried to take their own life to have public scrutiny on these matters. I suspect that if that had happened there would have been inevitable consequences.

You met her at Castlereagh College. We have talked about that in a previous interview. You had known her for a long time.

We were both students and although I had first seen her there it was actually after she had left that I first went out with her. A friend of mine knew her sister.

What was wrong with her physically? She has talked about physical and emotional problems and the two seem to have been linked.

She has had between ten and twenty operations for various physical illnesses, a number of gynaecological operations, ulcers, cysts, all sorts of things. I don't want to go too much into her medical history. There is a tendency for someone with her mental illness to translate it into physical symptoms. So the two may not be unrelated.

Is she bi-polar?

I am not going to enter into her condition. I suspect, in fairness to the psychiatrists, they will want a lot more time to make assessments. The issue that probably, selfishly, comes to the forefront of my mind is the issue of how (this could happen) after forty years of, I have to say, what anybody who was close to us would recognise as a good marriage. We were happy together, we had fun together, a close relationship in every way, how I have now moved from that position to finding that somebody has had an affair. I clearly look to the questions of the extent to which there is a link between her psychiatric problems and her uncharacteristic and self-destructive behaviour.

She always gave me the impression of being devoted to you and she would have stuck up for you fiercely.

And still would. All of those things make it all the harder to bear. People say, on the one hand, forty years, one mistake. If you sit where I am forty years, on the one hand, does indicate a number of things but on the other makes the betrayal bigger. Psychiatrists will say that her mental illness provides an explanation but not an excuse.

Is it true that she intended to go to Chamonix?

I am not sure where that comes from. I think they may have been testing some sources to see who was leaking. There was only one place where Iris was ever going to be spending some weeks and that is ... (where she is now)

She had been very outspoken and I had wondered 'is this woman firing on all cylinders?' Although it wasn't a reversal of her previous views she was ringing into Stephen Nolan's radio show (to criticise homosexuality), she was quite outspoken in the assembly and parliament. Did that seem strange to you?

It was taken to a new level. I think that period of time had a very significant impact on her mental stability, not for the reasons that are now being proffered. You would need to, if you knew more about her mental health issues, you will know that her personality disorder is such that she needed approval. She needed to have a sense of herself and on that basis she had been a very popular local MP. She had substantially increased the party's vote in the area. She had worked very hard for people, she enjoyed the constituency end of it, and then suddenly from being this popular local MP she was the Wicked Witch of the North. She went on to the programme (Stephen Nolan's show) to talk about another issue.

Mary Whitehouse?

Yeah, and was very deliberately, for whatever agenda was being followed, taken down a road that led her to make comments that she had not intended to make when she went on.

Well she rang (the show) a second time.

Yep. As soon as you start a road then you are into the position of defending your position thereafter. But I think the campaign, which she then faced, had a very significant impact on her health. She received all sorts of vile communications. It went on for a sustained period of time and I think, given where she was from her health point of view, she rationalised that in a way that made her feel isolated.

There was a critical stage show about her and everything, but I think some people did slap her on the back in the street and tell her she was right.

She got many, many letters and messages of support and I suppose the bottom line of what she said is what a minister in any pulpit would say if he was reading the scriptures but I think most people if they want to look at those issues will want to look at them in a context of love and understanding. I am not sure that that is how her remarks were interpreted. You can't undo the past.

There are lots of things described as abominations in the Bible, it is a very common term. Did you agree with her comments?

I have made two public comments on it. One is that the comments were not hers but were a quotation from the scriptures and I believe the bible to be the word of God and that is where I left it on Hearts and Minds (BBC Northern Ireland's flagship political TV show). In the assembly I think I was being asked in the responsibilities I had in relation to equality issues. I indicated that I would defend everyone's right to equality of opportunity, to treat them fairly.

You are not trying to roll back the legislation of homosexuality?

No. There has been no attempt to do that. I have been very strong in terms of the responsibilities we have on homophobic attacks and the rights to protect people on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.

What effect has her illness had on the family?

I think there is a tendency for the media to consider people who are in the public eye as objects and to close any thought of the impact of what is said or done on those people. Even if you do that it doesn't take account of the ramifications beyond the individuals themselves - children, grand children, the friends around them and the turmoil goes well beyond Iris and myself. The impact is much greater than anybody knows.

How many grandchildren do you have?

Two.

Are you still First Minister?

I am First Minister but the duties of First Minister have been handed on to one of my ministerial colleagues.

You have said that you were pleased by the support you received but were you surprised by the lack of public support for your colleagues in the course of last weekend? They were slow to come out and that is one of the things that got the press going.

I am sure you were ringing around and making an assessment yourself. In any political party there are one or two people who will see and opportunity to sharpen the knife. I have no doubt that somewhere in the dark recesses there were some people like that.

I met with party officers on Friday (January 8). I made it clear to them that if I had to take decisions on a personal basis there is no doubt what that decision would be. The easiest thing for me would be to leave the First Minister's office and leave the leadership of the party. That would be something that would not only be easy but preferable in personal terms. If anybody thinks it is easy, as it was on the Wednesday, to go out to talk to the press about matters in my life I can assure you I have had no more difficult day in my life than that.

There was always going to be, for anybody who has a public life, a time when they have to put what can grandly be described as public duty beyond their own personal preferences. On Friday I indicated to party officers that I felt that, for the protection of the public office that I held, that it seemed to me, and my inclination was, to stand down. I told them that as far as the party leadership was concerned that there was a press pack out there who were going to continue to shake the tree until they could find something which would fall out. While I was absolutely certain that there was nothing that I couldn't stand over it wouldn't stop them asking questions, making insinuations and the focus being on me rather than on the policy. My natural tendency was to curl up in a corner, foetus-fashion, and turn the lights out and I had told the party officers that rather than have the party go through an election dealing with this as the main issue I would stand down.

We agreed we would come back on the Monday to look at that issue. I was dissuaded from taking any decision. Needless to say there was some considerable lobbying over the weekend to ask me not to follow through with it. I suppose the support I received from colleagues was the main factor though no small additional factor was that there were some political opponents who thought that they would use the circumstances gain some political advantage for themselves.

(Break while Robinson takes a call). What is that?

It pulls down. It is a treadmill.

Do you use it when you are watching TV?

It is the only way you can do it, it is boring stuff and unless you were watching the TV you would be bored out of your skull.

And you have lost a fair bit of weight. Is that because of this (the scandal) or because you are trying to lose weight?

I needed to lose weight. I have lost about 33-34 lbs since this all began. Since March.

Martin McGuinness expressed sympathy. How do you get on with him?

Yes he did. He very kindly sent me text messages, then voice mail messages and spoke to me privately about the issues. I can't think of any assembly party that didn't have anybody writing to me or speaking to me during that period of time.

Have you ever shaken hands with him?

He expressed sympathy to me and on that occasion put out his hand. I thought it would be wrong for me, in those circumstances, to do anything other than that.

That is a first. That is another little barrier broken down.

Yes.

Was that in Stormont?

Yes.

What do you think will happen in six weeks? The inquiries won't be over so you won't have your name cleared by then. What about the barrister (who you have suggested should look into it and assess whether you have breached any rules). Has he been appointed yet?

The DFM (Deputy First Minister - Martin McGuinness) sought legal opinion from the departmental solicitor's office (DSO) and received it. That opinion indicated that there was no requirement for me to register, that I was not in breach of the requirements of office.

Does that hinge on the fact that you did not know that Iris had kept £5,000 (from the money loaned or given by the developers to her lover Kirk McCambley at her behest). If you had have known about that you would have been obliged, wouldn't you?

If I had known about that or indeed if I had known that she had taken part in a council decision in which she had any interest I might technically have been in breach but as I wasn't aware of either it didn't arise. I suppose it would have given me a difficult decision to take in terms of shopping your wife, although some of the legal opinion suggests that even in those circumstances I wouldn't have had a responsibility to register.

The Deputy First Minister asked a series of further questions which all came with the same answer. I wanted to take it to another level and ask that DSO would take senior counsel's opinion on the matter and I await an outcome of that. I would even have been prepared, though there are difficulties in getting this kind of thing set up, to have a senior judge look at the issues involved. I am quite happy to put myself at the disposal of anybody who is willing to make such an enquiry.

DSO will appoint the counsel, I don't know who they will pick. It is up to them to do it. I don't know if it has happened simply because I don't think it anything that I should get anywhere close to. They must arrive at their decision. I was also mindful of the fact that whatever I could do there was simply for the purposes of getting an expeditious response so that people would be able to get the view of experts rather than taking the views of a BBC smear programme but that still there were the other options open which would be the standards bodies both in the Assembly and in Westminster and maybe recourse through the courts.

I wrote therefore myself to both the standards bodies on the same day. I reported the issue to them and asked them if they would investigate.

It was alleged by the BBC in a letter to Ken Campbell, which I have obtained, that you had bought your office in 12 North Street, Newtownards, from Ken Campbell for £1 in august 2007 and had sold it last year for £207,000. Is that correct?

You have left one minor fact out of it. We paid over £200,000 for it.

They say the land registry shows this.

The facts are inaccurate. The BBC were given the details including correspondence between me and his solicitor, along with a copy of the cheque that was paid and on the basis of the facts decided that they would not make the accusation.

It is a complex legal issue. Apparently it was bought in trust and the trust was bought out for £1 but the property was bought for over £200,000 and on top of that it is made clear that all stamp duties and other stuff was paid on it.

The trust, what does that mean?

It is a legal mechanism presumably that his solicitor thought was appropriate…….There's absolutely nothing in it and I'm quite happy for the facts to be looked at.

What do you think will happen in six weeks? Are you hoping to return?

It's not six weeks. It is a continuous period up to six weeks. It could be two weeks; it could be six weeks.

What does this mean for the political process? Some people are arguing that this has maybe pushed things on, given a new urgency to it. Before the weekend, we were all saying, it's wrecked, but now..

I suppose it's a dark cloud for me, but if there's a silver lining for the province, that would be good. I think the first aspect is that we had a crisis before this began, there is no question about that… disappointingly, we had a crisis, because in my view there shouldn't have been one. We had worked out a process between Martin McGuinness and myself in terms of working towards the devolution of policing and justice. We had been making very significant progress on it. I know somebody who is close to the trees will have a difficulty in seeing the whole shape of things, but back a year earlier we had all sorts of difficulties about what the structures would be, how the financial arrangements would work out, what the various processes would be for decision taking, and then all of those things were there. We have been working through, we have got legislation through the Assembly, we have got legislation through Westminster, we have agreed a financial package, we have agreed the structures. We are down to three issues; one of which is simply deciding who the appropriate Justice Minister would be; another is defining what issues have to come to the Executive in terms of policing and justice, because there are quasi-judicial issues that you can't bring into a political remit like that, urgent decisions, how you take them, cross cutting measures, matters relating to finance, so you can determine how decisions are taken, whether they are taken by the Justice Minister, whether they are taken by the Executive, so that's an area that we have to work our way through; and finally, the issue of parading. Those three issues are what we call the outstanding issues. That's very considerably reduced from what had previously been the case.

The sort of thing you would imagine could be handled by sequencing?

Yes. My own view is that there is a really determined effort being made to resolve those issues. It could be done. And I think the Sinn Fein difficulty in all of that seems to be that it has gone on for a considerable length of time. They hear some remarks which they think are public remarks, which they regard as inconsistent with the DUP wanting to resolve the matters and therefore aren't keen to resolve matters. If we're not going to have policing and justice therefore they want a date, they say. The position, the genuine position within our party is that we want to get there, but we are condition-led, therefore we need to have those issues resolved first, so that we can move to the consultation and have decisions taken. So we have the same goal, we know the various points that we have to pass along the way, but we seem to be going in different directions to get there. It's trying to make some sense out of that problem.

Do you think it will work?

I have never thought it was insurmountable. And having talked over the issues, I am more convinced than ever that if a really determined effort were made by all of us over a very short period of time, we could resolve those outstanding issues. I have spoken to the people that I have put in, Nigel, Arlene and Sammy and they are all very positive in terms of wanting to work to resolve those matters. I think if there is some good faith and people would relax a little, I think we can get there.

Of course there are some members of your party, senior members, who are pouring cold water on the whole thing?

There are some people who don't believe that Sinn Fein want to agree various issues that are outstanding, and said so. But I have to say, this is a two-way street, and there are people in Sinn Fein who are making remarks which make life more difficult for me, so…I think we need to steady ourselves and with a clear head, I think we can resolve those outstanding matters. I do say this, Liam, and this is important, I will not allow the personal difficulties I have to make me move one second faster, or accept anything that I wouldn't have otherwise accepted. That's the benefit of having the kind of party arrangements that we have, because one person in our party doesn't take decisions, we take decisions as a team.

Your impression of Sinn Fein at the moment, although obviously you can't be sure, is that they may be prepared to do what is necessary?

I am convinced that their number one priority is not to walk away from the Assembly and bring it down; I think their priority is to get policing and justice devolved and, knowing what I do, as far as we can glean their position from conversation as to where they are heading, I think the issues are not insurmountable, if people don't get themselves back into positions where they are laying down conditions, because, I have indicated this many times…I go all around the Province in the role I have as party leader and up until December, I hadn't heard any negative responses, outside of Jim Allister and we don't hear anything other than negative responses from him, in relation to policing and justice. It wasn't a matter that people were concerned about. In the unionist community the big concern had always been, would Sinn Fein have the ministerial role? When that was taken out of the way, people were much more relaxed about it.

I think they were buoyed up by the financial package that we got, which was considerably more than we thought that we would get. There wasn't any sense of crisis from the community about this coming down the line in the way that there had been when it was for devolution itself seven years earlier. At the moment, when Martin McGuinness said that it had to be done by Christmas, people were saying, don't allow yourself to be pushed about, and it changed the atmosphere, very considerably. Now we have got past that point. We are starting to make progress in the discussions that we had. I hope that they recognise that we genuinely want to get there. In my view if the bits and pieces had been in place I would have wanted this done before the European election. I think going into a Westminster election with this still sitting out there is a disadvantage to us. If I was an opponent of the DUP I would say 'well as soon as the election is over they are going to do this deal anyway. We already know that but they are not telling you.' So I think it is far better if we can get those matters resolved, and let people honestly know where they are and give them the opportunity to give their views upon it.

Before the election.

Yes, but it is dependent on getting the outstanding matters resolved and dependent on public confidence.

You are not getting much cover from the Ulster unionists. Do you see any signs of a realignment amongst unionists? Have you any comments about that?

It goes beyond the parties. That therefore means that you have to look at other aspects of the community. There is no way that I can go out publicly and say 'yes there is confidence' if on the one side of me I have the TUV (Traditional Unionist Voice - a hard line party) saying 'never, never, never' and on the other side I have Reg Empey (the Ulster Unionist leader) saying 'no not now.'

So I think the Ulster Unionist Party do need to be indicating to us that this is the right time. We therefore need to be looking at the kind of issues that concern them and for them the stability of the Assembly is a key factor. These are important powers, is it appropriate for them to be put into an Assembly that has not been a glowing example of functionality? I think they might want to see processes in place that would ensure that decisions are taken and delivery is more effective.

Who will be the new MLA to replace Iris in Strangford and when will she be standing down?

Iris has stood down from all positions. Her resignation is in for all positions. The House of Commons have the letter. The Assembly letter is somewhere in the Assembly but I don't think their office opens till Monday so it will be there on Monday. The council (Castlereagh Borough Council) is already in. I have to pick a successor as MLA. I will consult with people in the constituency and with the deputy leader of the party and the chairman before that decision is taken.

Where will you be in three years time?

(Laughs) How about three days time?

I mean if you had stepped down on Friday as you considered doing, this would have been your memory, that your political career ended with this scandal. What do you want your legacy to be? How do you want to be thought of in a few years time?

Well when I became leader I made a very firm commitment to the issues relating to devolution, to getting delivery for the people of Northern Ireland, to ensuring that we had a stable and prosperous future here in Northern Ireland and bring unionists closer together. Those were all objectives that I set out so that is what I want to get to.

Do you see your long term future in politics?

I am not sure what long term is to someone who is already 61 years of age. I know that people can be very sceptical about politicians and why they do what they do. I have been involved in politics for more than 40 years and, quite frankly, it's never been about position. I would be the happiest man in the world being in the back benches if that was what was required of me. I am delighted that the party has confidence even in the most difficult of times, it had me as its leader. That is not just seen by the display by the Assembly members but messages of support from the associations and individuals within the party have been quite staggering over the past number of days.

So I am here as long as the party want me to be and if the time comes when I feel that I am standing in the way of the party making progress, that I am standing in the way of the political process nobody is going to have to ask me to stand aside.

Going right back to the time of O'Neill when leaders start seeking votes of confidence it is usually the first indicator that they are in trouble. The party customarily had avoided having those public expressions of opinion. I never asked anybody in the party to put their name on the letter asking me not to quit but I received such a letter which was overwhelming in terms of the support in the Assembly group, the MPs and the party officers. So from my point of view, even if people recognise that I am in difficult times, and they still want me to lead I will do that.

I have to say this to you. What is it I am supposed to have done? You have a hullabaloo out there, people saying, you know 'can he come back in these circumstances?' and I keep searching around. What was my crime. My crime was that one reporter on a BBC programme makes an allegation for which he has no facts to support him saying that I should have registered something that I didn't register and the facts are that there was nothing in what I knew that would have required a registration. That is the sum total of the allegation against me. Anything else is smear by association. My information was that £50,000 had been borrowed and I instructed that the money be given back.

It looks as if only £40,000 was paid back

That would all have occurred after the instruction that I gave.

Are you suing anybody?

My solicitor indicates that there are grounds if I want to proceed. The time line for doing it means that it is going to take me a year or two to get a result and the result is a financial result but this isn't about money at all, it is about my name, this is about my reputation, this is about me indicating that I have acted with all propriety on the issues that have confronted me in my office. If I felt reasonably confident that I could clear my name through the other channels that are available it becomes less of an onus for me to sue, but on the other hand I have the feeling that unless I proceed and take their money from them for what they have done then others will feel they can say whatever they like without consequences.

We don't rule out the possibility of taking legal action but the priority for us is to deal with the issue in a way that will get a quick result.

It was very, very strange that Iris could go to two building developers and get one of them to give twenty five grand as a gift and get the other to give it as an interest free loan. Had there been a previous relationship with these developers? Had you ever received payments from them for political contributions, for professional services or for any other reason?

I have never tried to conceal the fact that these were not simply developers; they are friends. These are people that I have known for a very long period of time. In fact in relation to Ken Campbell I have probably known him long before Iris was ever in politics and long before he was property developer.

Never at any stage in my life have I taken any money from any businessman for personal advantage, never at any stage. Of course you ask people to go along to party fund raisers, we ask people to give support to the party when it comes to the elections and we have done that with hundreds of business people, maybe even more than that, over the years.

If the press have a great interest in the amount of money that is raised from the business sector for political parties they should look at the amount that has been received and they will find that the DUP probably has the lowest amount of all the political parties. I don't see them knocking on the door of the SDLP which probably has the highest amount and asking to deal with where they are getting their funds from. This is a normal process in politics for every political party. All of them do it and it is legitimate for them to do it providing they are doing it for party purposes and providing they are not returning any favours for it. I don't think anybody will be able to argue that people have been giving money to the DUP because they are getting favours from it.

Is there anything you want to add?

You never asked me about Selwyn Black (Iris Robinson's former adviser who was the BBC's main source). I am told by the ones at Stormont that I met him once. He was her adviser. Does that not give him a responsibility to advise her on the very matters which he thought were of such significance that he had to go public on them. Should he not have been telling her 'I am not prepared to do it'. Is that not what you would do? Should he not have been telling her 'I am not prepared to do it'? If he was not satisfied that his advice was being taken should he not have gone to the other parties to indicate that he was concerned about the steps that had been taken?

Why does somebody inveigle themselves into every part of someone's private life, present themselves as a friend, sit down and pray, giving them spiritual advice, talk about all the psychological issues involved, present yourself to want to go along to visit her mother in hospital and then betray. He clearly had been gathering information on her as he went along.

Did he never say to her 'hold on, this isn't the right way to do things?

I have no knowledge of it all.

He could hear you talking in the background when he called her and he believed you were telling her what to do in relation to the repayment of the money.

He said I was telling her 'that's not the way to do it' whatever it was "it needs to be done properly'. I would have thought Spotlight, if they had wanted to, could have very easily said 'he did absolutely everything you would have expected her to do'. I was telling her 'you don't do these things, that is the way you do it.'

Why didn't you go on Spotlight then?

Spotlight has a reputation for an anti-unionist stance. That was a hatchet job.

They might have let you see the programme and do a Q & A afterwards.

That was never offered.

So you decided to go out on the Wednesday before Spotlight to get your point of view across.

I suppose the truth of it is that right back from the first of March I was pretty clear that Iris's position was such that she wouldn't be standing again. She had spent a considerable period of time not just in residential care but since then she has been receiving psychiatric advice. She was never going to be standing, it was a case of whether she would see out the rest of her term. The party should be able to select, in the course of this month, for the Westminster seat. So we needed to get a statement and the statement was always going, in our view, to be made somewhere around the Christmas period. I started working on some of the issues that we needed to get into and she was fairly keen that she wouldn't hide the fact that she had had mental illness, her health position. She mentioned one particular television interview she had seen and she wanted to do something similar.

So there was always the intention to take that route and always, in my view, there was a certainty that some day what had happened in relation to her affair was going to come out. The route was already planned, it was simply a question of when it was appropriate to do it.

You said the main surprise was that Iris had kept the five grand and the fact that Selwyn Black had kept the texts.

It wasn't just the texts. It was, from a personal point of view that one of the texts in particular made reference to the relationship ending which indicated that there was still some regret at that stage but was beyond the time that I was told that it was over. There were some bits and pieces that were inconsistent as well but I haven't seen the texts, I have only seen what was on Spotlight.

How he can present himself as a whistle blower when he had a duty, it was his job to advise, he didn't advise. If he says 'I wasn't happy with what I was doing' then why did he do it? He should have advised her not to do it, especially since he knew her state of mind. She would have considered him as a trusted friend. It says something about her judgement.

How much does Iris know about all this? What is she saying?

Iris intends to tell her story herself at some point. At this stage she hasn't even seen the programme. She hasn't seen any of the television, heard any of the radio or seen any of the papers. The fear was that if she had she wouldn't have survived it.