§ 31. Mr. WinnickTo ask the Attorney-General if he will be giving evidence again to the Scott inquiry.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have received no request to give further evidence, but if I did, I would.
§ Mr. WinnickI note that reply. Would the Attorney-General do his very best to stop the way in which some Government supporters are undoubtedly orchestrating attempts to discredit the Scott inquiry before it reaches its conclusions? Should not the Scott inquiry be fully supported as it looks into the ways in which, undoubtedly, Parliament was lied to over arms being sent to one of the most criminal regimes?
§ The Attorney-GeneralEvery aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question seems to me to be one of conjecture.
§ Mr. BurnsIs not the best advice that my right and learned hon. Friend can give that people should await the announcement of the results of the Scott inquiry, and then he would not have to put up with silly questions such as that?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. John MorrisDoes the Attorney-General recall his recent answer that the special nature of the certificates signed by the President of the Board of Trade was expressly drawn to Lord Justice Scott's attention? He said that
it leapt from the page".—[Official Report, 25 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 14.]Is that the best answer that he can give? Does he still feel that he has carried out his obligation to the President? Does he recall telling the inquiry that his certificate was "ambiguous" and that it did not reflect clearly the President's view that documents should have been disclosed? Would not it be better for the Attorney-General to do himself justice and to volunteer to go back to the inquiry?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what I said last time, which was:
Nobody reading that specially designed certificate who had any understanding of the subject of public interest immunity could fail to realise that it was a special certificate designed to leave the decision on whether the documents should be disclosed to the defence to the judge."—[Official Report, 25 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 14.]I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that.
§ Mr. MaclennanDid the Attorney-General give the same general advice to both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to their duty on disclosure? If he did, why do their evidence and their public statements appear to be so contradictory?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn fact, I was asked to advise only one Minister, and that was the President.