It is sufficient to say that I am not entirely persuaded by the argument that has been advanced so far. I will speak for only a few minutes, which may give the opportunity for a strategic withdrawal to be arranged, which would be sensible in the circumstances.
The amendment that I want to touch on relates to the Attorney-General. The Opposition spokesman is right that I intervened earlier to say that the Lord Chief Justice would be put in a difficult position by that proposition. The Lord Chief Justice would be asked to appoint an Attorney-General—one of the QCs, no doubt, who would be a member of the Bar—and any time that the Attorney-General would appear before the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice would be hearing the case from his chosen one, the one whom he had favoured, and unquestionably there would be people who would doubt the independence of any decision that would arise therefrom.
Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)
Proceeding contribution from
Peter Robinson
(Democratic Unionist Party)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Northern Ireland Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
488 c950-1 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:03:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536414
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536414
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536414