:01:41. > :01:44.In Northern Ireland: it is a special relationship, but what does
:01:44. > :01:54.the rout offered the Attorney General's content case mean for
:01:54. > :01:54.
:01:54. > :30:42.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1727 seconds
:30:42. > :30:46.The hello and welcome to the Sunday politics in Northern Ireland. The
:30:46. > :30:51.controversy over the Attorney- General's decision to prosecute a
:30:51. > :30:57.former secretary of state has gone harsh judgments from Westminster.
:30:57. > :31:02.Hanging in the balance the rights of an individual for fair comment,
:31:02. > :31:10.verses do respect of the independence of the judiciary.
:31:10. > :31:13.The Alliance Party held its conference. It prepares to lose a
:31:13. > :31:20.seat at the executive. It looks as though Stephen is about to
:31:20. > :31:23.establish a record, the First Minister threatened with the sack
:31:24. > :31:31.because both he and his party are successful in what they are aiming
:31:31. > :31:41.to do. Find of what happens when descend master paid a visit to
:31:41. > :31:49.Stormont. - that the Zen master. It is not that often we have a row
:31:49. > :31:56.between politicians and did judiciary. The go round made it to
:31:56. > :32:00.the floor of the House of Commons. The former shadow home secretary
:32:00. > :32:06.David Davies at the ball rolling on Monday. I draw your attention to an
:32:06. > :32:13.action taken by the Attorney- General of Northern Ireland when he
:32:13. > :32:21.started proceedings against against the Right Honourable Member for
:32:21. > :32:25.Neath. It was about scandalising the court, it was described.
:32:25. > :32:30.ven David Blunkett raised it again and Prime Minister's Questions and
:32:30. > :32:35.this was the response. I have a great deal of sympathy with what
:32:35. > :32:40.the Right Honourable Gentleman says. Parliamentary privilege allows
:32:40. > :32:46.members to express their views in Parliament. Outside Parliament,
:32:46. > :32:51.there are occasions when judges make critical remarks about - about
:32:51. > :32:55.politicians and vice versa. To meet this is part of life in a modern
:32:55. > :33:05.democracy and we should keep these things out of the Court Room.
:33:05. > :33:06.
:33:06. > :33:12.joined by Patsy McGlone. Is this exercising politicians in Stormont?
:33:12. > :33:15.Not particularly. We are living in a free society and in that type of
:33:15. > :33:20.society politicians can be criticised, but equally I see
:33:20. > :33:25.nothing wrong with criticism of judges and the judgments they make.
:33:25. > :33:29.That is freedom and the nature of democracy. Interference in the
:33:29. > :33:33.judiciary is something different and something to be totally avoided.
:33:33. > :33:43.In this case, as the Prime Minister outlined, this is the normal course
:33:43. > :33:49.of events. Just cut and thrust, then? No, not according to the
:33:49. > :33:53.Attorney-General. The judge in question was so scandalised that it
:33:53. > :33:57.undermined public confidence in the judiciary. That is envisaged under
:33:57. > :34:05.the article 10 of the Convention would the guarantee of freedom of
:34:05. > :34:10.expression carried with its the condition that it could not be done
:34:10. > :34:14.if it would undermine confidence in the judiciary. The law is there and
:34:14. > :34:18.has always been there and has not been changed by the contempt of
:34:18. > :34:23.Court Act past 30 years ago. The Attorney-General has recognised
:34:23. > :34:26.that the law exists and has taken the view that there is evidence
:34:27. > :34:32.that the scandalising of the judge was so severe that it undermined
:34:32. > :34:37.public confidence, therefore he has applied to bring an prosecution
:34:37. > :34:42.against the individual and his publisher. I enjoyed by by Nigel
:34:42. > :34:49.Dodds. Should politicians keep out of this and let the judicial system
:34:49. > :34:55.and the courts run its course? There is an a principle that
:34:55. > :34:58.politicians should not interfere in the way that judges come to
:34:59. > :35:02.decisions because that would undermine it the independence of
:35:02. > :35:12.the judiciary. I do think that politicians should have the right
:35:12. > :35:16.
:35:16. > :35:19.to criticise on the basis of free speech. However, I think there is
:35:20. > :35:26.an issue about whether it is up to the individual judge to bring
:35:26. > :35:30.proceedings. Peter Hain has written this book and there are things
:35:30. > :35:33.amiss but I don't agree with, but if the judge is there something
:35:33. > :35:38.libellous in its I believe it should be open to him to bring
:35:38. > :35:44.proceedings. Should the state in the 21st century be taking this
:35:44. > :35:49.kind of action? I don't think it should be. As David Davies said
:35:49. > :35:55.there in 1899 the Privy Council said it was obsolete. Ind the
:35:55. > :35:59.United States this concept was done away with in the 1940s. Lord to
:35:59. > :36:05.clock in 1985 said it was obsolete and rarely used. I think it is a
:36:05. > :36:08.bad principle to have an officer of the states in terms of the judicial
:36:08. > :36:13.appointment that it also has a Attorney-General to be bringing the
:36:13. > :36:17.proceedings in this way. I think it's cent at the wrong signal.
:36:17. > :36:22.There appears to be a difference between how some people in the
:36:22. > :36:29.legal world here arguing this case compared to barristers who have
:36:29. > :36:35.given their opinions. The general view I have picked up in
:36:35. > :36:41.Westminster, and I think it is fair to say even here in Belfast talking
:36:41. > :36:44.to legal figures, that there is a great sense of caution about
:36:44. > :36:49.whether this is the right thing for the Attorney-General to be
:36:49. > :36:55.involving himself in. And it is not often that you get an early day
:36:55. > :37:00.motion begets immediately 120 MPs signing up to its, which he has got
:37:00. > :37:05.on this issue. Including former Home Secretaries, former
:37:05. > :37:09.chancellors, senior backbenchers. It totally cross-party motion. It
:37:09. > :37:13.was no good for Northern Ireland's and I would say to the Attorney-
:37:13. > :37:18.General that he should step back, reconsider and withdraw this
:37:18. > :37:22.misconceived notion which she is bringing to the court. It is up to
:37:22. > :37:27.the judge to bring libel action if you so which is, and he may well
:37:27. > :37:31.have a case for that. I think it is wrong for the Office of the
:37:31. > :37:34.Attorney-General to be used in this way, to bring an action which is
:37:35. > :37:41.something that is regarded as obsolete in many other
:37:41. > :37:44.jurisdictions. Do you think it is a storm in a teacup or has it
:37:44. > :37:50.damaging ramifications for the future given that having a locally
:37:50. > :37:56.appointed Attorney-General is still relatively new? Title think it has
:37:56. > :38:00.major ramifications for devolution, but I do think it has some
:38:00. > :38:05.implications for the reputation and standing of the Office of the
:38:05. > :38:09.Attorney-General. The Attorney General is a more independent
:38:09. > :38:14.appointments in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, were it
:38:14. > :38:18.is a political point. Here in Northern Ireland it is an
:38:18. > :38:23.independent position. He is that legal adviser to the executive, but
:38:23. > :38:28.he has threatened to bring action against apartments and so on.
:38:28. > :38:37.you back in for another term? remains to be seen. He still has
:38:37. > :38:41.two years to go. I do think you would be well-advised to
:38:41. > :38:45.concentrate on the core responsibilities of his office,
:38:45. > :38:50.which is giving legal advice to the executive and looking after the way
:38:50. > :38:55.in which the devolved settlement operates rather than getting
:38:55. > :38:59.involved in this operation, which I don't think has gone down well
:38:59. > :39:04.anywhere. I think it will damage his reputation more so than
:39:04. > :39:08.anything else. Thank you for joining us. Tony, let's look at
:39:08. > :39:12.this issue of public money. That is something that people have given
:39:12. > :39:19.their opinions on, but it shouldn't be up to the public purse to pay
:39:19. > :39:25.for this sort of case? The public pay for prosecutions in every case.
:39:25. > :39:29.But what a libel action not have been the way forward? The judge has
:39:30. > :39:35.decided not to bring a libel action. It is difficult for a judge to
:39:35. > :39:39.bring a libel action as it could have far reaching consequences on
:39:39. > :39:43.the preceding independence of the judiciary. There is no suggestion
:39:43. > :39:47.that this particular judge has given any approval or encouragement
:39:47. > :39:54.to the taking up this prosecution. The Attorney-General has taken the
:39:54. > :39:58.view that there is evidence of a such defamatory material that it
:39:58. > :40:03.undermines the principle of the independent judiciary. What about
:40:03. > :40:08.the case undermining the principle of free speech? There is such a
:40:08. > :40:12.thing as free speech but it has to be constrained. It is even
:40:12. > :40:17.recognised under article 10 that there is free speech but people are
:40:17. > :40:22.not allowed to say things that can undermine certain organs of the
:40:22. > :40:27.state. This is a common lot that has been in place for hundreds of
:40:27. > :40:32.years and no one has taken a decision to repeal it. Parliament
:40:32. > :40:35.could do that it did so wished. It is not a question of the cut and
:40:36. > :40:41.thrust of criticising judges and politicians, that happens on a
:40:41. > :40:45.daily basis and no one is saying that should not happen. What we're
:40:45. > :40:49.- what is alleged to have happened here is that there was such gross
:40:49. > :40:53.defamation that I can amount to a criminal prosecution. The Prime
:40:53. > :40:57.Minister doesn't agree. He isn't always correct. I'd think it is
:40:57. > :41:00.improper for the Prime Minister to have expressed the view on the
:41:00. > :41:09.actions of the judicial officer before the matter has even been
:41:09. > :41:15.brought to court. I think it was wrong for him to do that and wrong
:41:15. > :41:20.for parliaments to pass that motion on an action which has not been
:41:20. > :41:24.brought before the court. I think it is interfering. You are going to
:41:24. > :41:30.be sitting on the justice committee and they have asked to see the
:41:30. > :41:32.Attorney-General. What will you be saying? To get back to the centre
:41:32. > :41:38.of this, it goes to the harder free speech. It is not about
:41:38. > :41:43.interference with the courts. It is about freedom of speech. I'm sure
:41:44. > :41:48.judges are up for criticising politicians. Likewise, if there are
:41:48. > :41:54.issues to be addressed within the judiciary we are elected to do that.
:41:54. > :42:04.The one concern I do have is that this could potentially cost the
:42:04. > :42:09.
:42:09. > :42:12.He wants a party of the fringes, the Alliance Party is now at the
:42:12. > :42:16.heart of government. It is enjoying the most successful period in its
:42:16. > :42:21.history with an MP and two ministers in the executive. Some
:42:21. > :42:26.troubled times lie ahead as they are about to lose some of its power.
:42:26. > :42:32.That will prompt some big decisions for the party. It can be popular to
:42:32. > :42:36.be among the movers and shakers, colourful, even fashionable. It is
:42:36. > :42:41.fashionable these days to be in government. Two places in
:42:41. > :42:46.government or even better. For one Alliance minister this will soon be
:42:46. > :42:55.a passing fashion. The big players in the executive are cutting the
:42:55. > :42:59.number of departments by one. is nothing other than cynical
:42:59. > :43:03.politically motivated manoeuvres to reduce our influence. Those who
:43:03. > :43:06.think that alliance can be prevented from delivering by
:43:07. > :43:15.lifting the bar higher clearly don't appreciate our determination
:43:15. > :43:20.and skill when it comes to overcoming all barriers. When the
:43:20. > :43:24.minister goes, but will lead to David Ford as the sole minister in
:43:24. > :43:30.justice, not by right but gifted by the two parties to are now pushing
:43:30. > :43:38.his party colleague out. How do you feel about being elbowed out of the
:43:38. > :43:43.way? We will see what happens. What I most care about is insuring that
:43:43. > :43:47.we do the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. You're
:43:47. > :43:51.the one who will have to fall on his sword? I don't see it in those
:43:51. > :43:56.terms. I see it as doing the right thing for the people of Northern
:43:56. > :44:01.Ireland's. We have been pure as a party that we have to protect the
:44:01. > :44:04.mandate that was given to us. are heady days for the Alliance
:44:04. > :44:08.party with more public representatives than ever before,
:44:08. > :44:12.all the way from local government to Westminster. With success comes
:44:12. > :44:16.new challenges. Can't Naomi Long hold her Westminster seat when a
:44:16. > :44:20.new boundary changes are introduced? Should David Ford
:44:20. > :44:25.continue as party leader and that any minister in the executive? A
:44:25. > :44:30.more pressing question for the Alliance party is should it even
:44:30. > :44:36.stay in the government when Stephen Farry moves aside? What is more
:44:36. > :44:40.important, principle or pragmatism? It'll be principle, but based on
:44:40. > :44:45.the realities of politics are Northern Ireland. We won't be
:44:45. > :44:53.throwing the toys out of the pram. We feel that we deserve the second
:44:53. > :45:00.post so let's hope we will be able to be accommodated. We want to see
:45:00. > :45:06.an alliance member making a contribution, but it needs to be on
:45:06. > :45:09.a clear and fair terms. Pragmatism for me, always. No absolute
:45:09. > :45:14.certainty amongst the delegates, so would be a speech from the leader
:45:14. > :45:18.give more of a clue? It happens all over the world but ministers used
:45:18. > :45:22.their posts. It looks to me as it Stephen is about to establish a
:45:22. > :45:27.record. He is the first minister anywhere in these islands
:45:27. > :45:31.threatened with the sack because both he and his party are
:45:31. > :45:35.successful and what they're aiming to do. That was pretty much it on
:45:35. > :45:42.this issue. They still have to decide if they stay in government
:45:42. > :45:46.or walk away. These delegates are very aware when a party like the
:45:46. > :45:51.Alliance party mixes with the big beasts of politics at Stormont,
:45:51. > :45:56.these big parties can give, but also sometimes take away.
:45:56. > :46:00.A I caught up with David Ford. He said he would like to see the
:46:00. > :46:06.Alliance party break into the big four parties. I asked me that was
:46:06. > :46:12.realistic. If you look at the trajectory of other parties
:46:12. > :46:20.compared to ours, it is realistic to say that we are no longer in the
:46:20. > :46:24.territory with the four parties are bigger significantly than us.
:46:24. > :46:29.your performance in the two ministries that helps you with
:46:29. > :46:35.electoral success? Wants to use a minister are you in danger of
:46:35. > :46:41.slipping back? Naomi Long got the largest swing in the United Kingdom
:46:41. > :46:48.in 2010. I had only been minister for two weeks! That didn't require
:46:48. > :46:58.us to be in government to get that victory! There wasn't much talk of
:46:58. > :47:00.
:47:00. > :47:05.opposition, though. The talk was about what we have achieved bands
:47:05. > :47:09.about solid work we had done about building assured future. That was
:47:09. > :47:15.the mood of conference. Clearly there are issues that led about
:47:15. > :47:21.what will happen in the future of the department and what's affect
:47:21. > :47:26.that will have on justice. could have used the conference to
:47:26. > :47:29.say we are pitting a marker down, we will not nominate again for the
:47:29. > :47:34.Department of Justice. Can we say that one not happen now? You can
:47:34. > :47:38.say that because that wasn't the issue - you can't say that because
:47:38. > :47:48.that wasn't the issue of Today. I did put down a strong marker about
:47:48. > :47:49.
:47:49. > :47:53.saying we should have a strategy on integration. What happens now with
:47:53. > :47:58.the Ministry once Stephen Farry goes? When you continue in the post
:47:58. > :48:01.of Justice Minister or would do step aside as party leader and the
:48:01. > :48:09.calm growth towards the next election? Those are issues that
:48:09. > :48:16.have to be discussed. I have been asked by journalists this week
:48:16. > :48:23.because I had been leader for 10 years. When the party is successful
:48:23. > :48:27.there is confidence in the leadership. We have a coherent
:48:27. > :48:31.party, we know what we are working for and are going forward together.
:48:31. > :48:36.They will come a point and we have to decide on changing posts around,
:48:36. > :48:39.but I personally think the department of justice needs
:48:39. > :48:43.somebody to be in post for a couple of years to start to get a handle
:48:43. > :48:49.on how things are going. We have a party with plenty of people with
:48:49. > :48:56.talent and we are happy to share jobs around the. Thank you very
:48:56. > :49:06.much. It is time now for our regular look at the political week
:49:06. > :49:07.
:49:07. > :49:11.and 60 seconds. - in 60 seconds the Attorney General's decision to
:49:11. > :49:16.begin content proceedings against Peter Hain was widely criticised.
:49:16. > :49:19.Public money is being used to take this action and the public offices
:49:19. > :49:24.being used as a vehicle for taking this action and I think that is
:49:24. > :49:29.wrong. Careful words were demanded at Stormont on whether Edwin Poots
:49:29. > :49:33.could call Kieran McCarthy a village idiot. The language used
:49:33. > :49:40.did fall short of the standards I expect and I asked the minister to
:49:40. > :49:44.apologise. Calm was restored when the Vietnamese Zen master arrived.
:49:44. > :49:49.The Orange Order got a million pounds to redress the legacy of the
:49:49. > :49:57.Troubles. It is that the most ambitious project that the Orange
:49:57. > :50:05.Order has taken on. Last orders for the bride and groom. The Arts
:50:05. > :50:13.Minister got her rappers mixed up. I was thinking am an EMS, chocolate
:50:13. > :50:16.or peanut! That is it for this week. The
:50:16. > :50:21.Attorney-General's contempt it is up in the Royal Courts of Justice