§ Mr. HainTo ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16573]
§ The Attorney-GeneralAccess to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in my Departments in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. No records are kept of the proportion of time spent by persons in my 283W Departments in considering the Government's response to the Scott inquiry in the course of their duties. It is not therefore possible to estimate the costs incurred.
§ Mr. JannerTo ask the Attorney-General what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16631]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have had no such communications from Mr. Muttukumaru.
§ Mr. McNamaraTo ask the Attorney-General what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that his advice to Ministers about signing public interest immunity certificates was based on a fundamental misconception of the principles of PII law. [16648]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe advice I gave on PH at the time of the Matrix Churchill trial was entirely in accordance with the law as it then stood. It was based on careful, detailed advice from a team of distinguished independent practitioners, was fully supported by the case law, and has been publicly endorsed by three of the defence counsel and a number of other eminent commentators.
Since the Matrix Churchill trial the decision of the House of Lords in Ex parte Wiley (1994) has brought about a change in the law on PII. The Government will consider carefully the recommendations on the subject made in the Scott report.
§ Mr. Tony BanksTo ask the Attorney-General if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. 116530]
§ The Attorney-GeneralA very small number of civil servants in my Departments had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.
§ Mr. JannerTo ask the Attorney-General how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16548]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.
§ Mrs. Jane KennedyTo ask the Attorney-General how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16559]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister today.
§ Mr. MaddenTo ask the Attorney-General at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16501]
284W
§ The Attorney-GeneralDuring the afternoon of Wednesday, 7 February 1996.
§ Mrs. DunwoodyTo ask the Attorney-General when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16587]
§ The Attorney-GeneralWednesday, 7 February 1996.
§ Mrs. GoldingTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16569]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not envisage making such changes. Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.