§ Mr. GalbraithTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, 17 May,Official Report, column 620, if he will give for each public interest immunity certificate the legal event which led to its being issued; and which of the certificates is currently in force. [34824]
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonThe four public interest immunity certificates signed by the then Secretary of State for Transport and the one public interest immunity certificate signed by the then Home Secretary in relation to the fatal accident inquiry were prepared in relation to matters or documents which it was considered should not, in the public interest, be the subject of evidence during that inquiry. Those certificates were signed for the purpose of the fatal accident inquiry. In the event, none of these certificates was relied upon and the inquiry concluded in February 1991 without any of those certificates having been produced in response to any line of questioning.
The two certificates signed in April 1992 by the then Secretary of State for Transport and the one certificate signed by the then Lord Advocate related to the taking of evidence from Dr. Thomas Hayes under a letter of request issued in civil actions then being pursued in the United States. One of these certificates was withdrawn in May 1992 by the then Secretary of State for Transport because the matters to which it related had entered into the public domain by virtue of disclosures made in the United States from official sources. The two remaining certificates did not require to be deployed because the High Court in England ruled that it was not competent to take evidence from a former Crown servant in that capacity under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
The final certificate signed in May 1992 by the then Lord Advocate related to the taking of evidence from a journalist under a letter of request issued in the aforementioned United States civil actions. This certificate also did not require to be deployed because the matter was referred to the High Court tin England but did not proceed to a hearing and the matter was not pursued by the parties to the United States actions.
429WAccordingly, all proceedings, in respect of which these certificates were signed, have been concluded.