Pub Bombings
77.
To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with (a) Lord Lane and (b) Lord Donaldson.
Any discussion which I might have with the judiciary as a Law Officer would be confidential and not disclosed.
Is the Attorney-General aware that for some time a number of senior judges have been going round quietly saying that the Guildford Four and the Maguire family had their convictions quashed only on a technicality and were guilty all along? Does he agree that that brings the judicial process further into disrepute? It is about time that we had a resignation or two so that those gentleman can say out loud what they can say at the moment only in the privacy of their clubs.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. The remainder of the question does not arise.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing could be more deplorable than for the Crown's principal Law Officer to go round discussing with judges cases that may appear before the courts again? Is not it essential that there should be proper separation between the judicial and Executive functions, even those that exist for my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he ensure that he never speaks about any live case to any judge in his official capacity?
No, Sir. My responsibilities for controlling the administration of sectors of the criminal and civil law would, on occasion, make discussion with the judiciary appropriate.
Would not it be wrong for the Attorney-General to discuss matters of this controversial nature with the judges? Is not the right way to go about it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has views on it—to make a submission to the May inquiry, because it is equally clear that unless Ludovic Kennedy or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) writes a book, the BBC makes a programme, and a police force holds an inquiry, some miscarriages of justice will not be put right? Is not it time the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave evidence to the inquiry?
No, Sir, I set up the inquiry with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I await Sir John May's report of the first phase with great interest. He has promised it as soon as possible.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no proposals to discuss any such case with any of the judiciary. but—in response to a hypothetical question—I certainly do not propose to fetter the discretion that any holder of my office has, in the interests of the administration of justice, to do what he considers proper.Legal Aid
78.
To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.
On 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.
The Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.
Why is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.
I shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.
I thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.
79.
To ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.
A number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.
Does the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.
No, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.
Government Documents
80.
To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of Government documents are lost each year (a) unaccountably, (b) as a result of fire or water damage, or (c) otherwise; and if he will make a statement.
No information is held centrally about this. To comply with their duties under the Public Records Act 1958, Departments are obliged to ensure that their documentary records are properly preserved.
Does the Attorney-General agree that the majority of documents which disappear, shall we say, do so because of Government secrecy? For example, does he know that only 5 per cent. of Department of Trade and Industry documents reach his office and that 90 per cent. are destroyed?
No. What the hon. Gentleman describes as the Government's policy of secrecy certainly does not lead to the loss of any documents. By framing his question in that way the hon. Gentleman has proceeded, by fire and water, to a rather expensive platform for denying justice to a Government who have so notably liberalised the Official Secrets Act, for example.
While on the subject of documents going astray, will the Attorney-General look into the question of the documents that appear to be going astray at the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers? It has been reported that there will be a private investigation at the NUM before the police are called in. As that did not apply to Guinness or Barlow Clowes why is it applying at the NUM?
I have no responsibility for what is taking place or what has taken place at the National Union of Mineworkers. I certainly do not wish to emulate its representative in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), by straying into areas that are outside my responsibility.
Supreme Court Of Appeal
81.
To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of an independent Supreme Court of Appeal.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present structure of the appellate courts.
The Attorney-General will be aware, as are most hon. Members, that the people who are in prison for the Birmingham bombings are probably or very likely innocent. He is in an embarrassing position because he does not know how to get those people out of gaol. Would not it be better to have a totally independent and further Court of Appeal, so that the incarceration of innocent people could be dealt with without giving rise to the embarrassment which the Government obviously feel at keeping those people in prison?
Without making any comment on the assertions with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, I must observe that any change of the sort that he envisages is a matter for the Lord Chancellor or, conceivably, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but not for me. Any judicial process depends upon the evidential material that is presented to it and upon the limits of its jurisdiction. The remit of Sir John May's inquiry is broad enough to consider whether it is desirable to change the way in which our courts deal with what are treated as appeals on referral from the Home Secretary. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment.