That would mean removing the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior Law Officer, from the most important cases; no doubt, those being taken in defence of the Government. That would not be a wise move.
Much of today’s debate has been on what appeared to be the unanimous decision of the House that greater independence was needed and that politicians should not be in the job of appointing judges. Now we have the proposition that the judges should appoint those who will go into the political arena to answer questions in the Assembly and to represent the politicians in the Government, and that is not a good way forward either.
The actual outcome was one of the easiest for the Deputy First Minister and I to come to an agreement on. I think it took only a few hours for us to agree who the best person might be for the post of Attorney-General when the moment came to make such an appointment, and we publicly said that our choice was John Larkin, QC. I have not heard one word of disagreement from any section of the community about that choice. The politicians were able to make that choice in a way that was responsible and would have merited confidence in the community. I suspect that the proposition offered by the Conservative party would not do that.
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 c951 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:03:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536416
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536416
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536416