John Downey

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that judges should interpret and implement the law, but I have to say that I have no reason to fault the judgment in this case. As well as the public interest in prosecuting, clear issues of fairness in the way in which prosecutions and investigations are conducted are involved, which are subject to the potential for abuse of process applications—that is what took place in this case.

The judge provided reasons, clearly set out, as to why, in respect of one of the four grounds advanced, which centred on the letter that had been sent, it would in his view be wrong and an abuse of process if the prosecution were allowed to continue. That centred on the fact that the person concerned, Mr Downey, had been misled by the letter. I do not think that I can say any more than that.

As to the principles underlying the other letters, this was an administrative process—one that was certainly lawful—in providing information solely to those who were not wanted. As I said earlier, it is quite clear from this instance that something went badly wrong. Whether it went badly wrong in other instances is not a matter about which I can, at the moment, help the House.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has described the process as lawful? Will he confirm that it was overseen by the Law Officers, including the Attorney-General? The fact of the matter is that the process was designed to address 200 or so individuals. The whole situation was an anomaly. To achieve and lock in the peace process following the 1998 Good Friday agreement, 400 prisoners were released, some of whom had committed terrible atrocities. That angered victims at the time, which I understand, but it was an essential part of getting to where we are now. Similarly, addressing the question of the 200—that anomaly—was part of that as well.

As for the idea that this was some secret thing out of the blue, I told the House on 11 January 2006 that, in withdrawing the legislative approach to addressing the anomaly,

“the Government still believe that the anomaly will need to be faced at some stage”—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 288.]

No one should have been surprised that we had to do that. It was necessary to get to a position in which Northern Ireland could escape its hideous past of evil and terrorism and enter into a period of almost universal peace and stability, with old enemies negotiating and governing together. That should be welcomed and our role as a Government in achieving that should be commended, and I hope that the Attorney-General will do so.

[The Attorney-General]

I am extremely mindful that the right hon. Gentleman and others on both sides of the House worked hard during the peace process. Indeed, they continue to do so, as this process is by no means complete. I am the first to pay tribute to him for the work that he did.

There is an important distinction between releasing prisoners under an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, as part of a peace settlement, and any suggestion of an amnesty. Those two things are rather different. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was no such amnesty. Indeed, any suggestion that we might move towards an amnesty was firmly rejected by widespread views expressed in Parliament.

[Mr Hain]

And by the Government.

[The Attorney-General]

And the Government accepted that. For those reasons, we have a system. The right hon. Gentleman says that he explained to the House—he certainly did—about looking at other methods. I think that it is best for him to explain what publicity or otherwise that may have attracted. He is quite right that the system of giving an assurance to an individual that they are not wanted because they are indeed not wanted and there is no current basis for wanting them is not an unlawful process in which to engage.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman raised the oversight of the Law Officers. He is quite right that, during this process, the office of the Attorney-General operated as the co-ordinating point, because the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland could not and would not communicate directly with Northern Ireland Office, and therefore collated the information that was supplied. In fairness to my predecessors, it is probably right to say that they would have had no independent means to verify whether or not someone was wanted, and reliance for that was placed on the PSNI and its links with other police forces in the other jurisdictions of this country.

Welsh Assembly Legislation (Attorney-General)

Lord Hain Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the Conservative party. Because of the social event that Conservative Members are attending tonight, it managed to engineer a little under two hours for me to make the important points that I wish to make, which is just about adequate time.

We have a Government who are Janus-faced on a vital issue. I had the pleasure last Thursday of listening to the new Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), talking about his view of the principle of devolution. He is the one that is facing forward, but I believe there is another face to this Janus. Lurking in the Attorney-General’s Office is a little nest of devolution deniers who are doing great damage.

The Minister of State said last week:

“This has been something that, as you know, I have always been passionate about. Way back in Opposition, I wrote books on the need to transfer power from the centre to the places in our country. As you probably know, I am Middlesbrough born and bred, and the founders of the infant Hercules did not need to ask permission from central government to grow and prosper. I think we need to get back to the spirit of people, the leaders of our cities, towns and counties across the country, feeling that they have the right to initiate policies, do things differently, and have greater control of financial resources.”

Hallelujah. Amen to that.

But what has happened in Wales has been extraordinary. We have seen the other face of Janus that is looking backwards. That is where the devolution denial is coming from. The Attorney-General’s Office is suffering from an acute case of CPR—it is chronically power retentive in an era of devolution. This is not something that has come about as party propaganda. We have had votes on this. We have been through the whole process. We had a referendum to get devolution in Wales and we had a referendum to get greater powers.

I speak with some pedigree on this because I can fondly recall the day in 1953 when I marched through Cardiff with people from several parties. I had a Labour party banner that said “Senedd i Gymru”, “a Parliament for Wales”. It did not say, “hanner Senedd i Gymru”. It did not say, “LCOs i’r bobl”. It did not say, “half-baked policies that can be shredded by a national Government.” It said, “a Parliament for Wales”. We still do not have one, sadly. We have a form of democracy, but it is not tax-raising and the limited powers that it has for passing laws have been frustrated at every turn.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall also, on that theme, that in 1994 he and I and Jon Owen Jones, a former Member for Cardiff, Central, were censured by the Welsh Executive for speaking as Labour MPs at a conference in Llandrindod Wells for a Parliament for Wales?

[Paul Flynn]

I remember it vividly. It was a painful experience but one that resulted in promotion to Cabinet rank for my right hon. Friend. I saw the former hon. Member for Cardiff, Central today. At that time it meant challenging some of the views of the Labour party in Wales, which were not always progressive.

We got to the stage where Wales had the chance to make laws on its own soil, not for the first time in history, but for the first time in 1,000 years. Laws were made by Hywel Dda between 942 and 950, and they were very progressive. One stated that if a wife caught her husband in bed with another woman for the third time, she could divorce him and get compensation for the previous two occasions. Women had the right to own land, which was progressive in 942. There was also a law—it is rather better than the bedroom tax and other measures we have now—stating that if a person had passed through three villages asking for food but not been fed, he or she could not be punished for stealing food. That was progressive Welsh legislation, and it should have inspired the Government to realise that, as the great Welsh proverb states: Hawdd cynnau tân ar hen aelwyd—it is easy to kindle a fire on an old hearth. The old hearth was there, because we were law-makers in the past, and good law-makers at that.

Boldly the Welsh Assembly Government put forward their first law, which had the romantic title of the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill. They took it through the Assembly and it became an Act. One would not have expected it to cause an enormous amount of excitement, because it just cleared up a few other laws to allow local government to pass their own byelaws, which they have been doing without trouble for a long time. There was no hesitation and no excitement, but for some reason—I am sure that the Solicitor-General will explain it when he replies—that modest Bill, the first for 1,000 years to bear the royal Welsh seal, which made it significant, even if its content was not, was opposed by the Attorney-General’s office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has intervened, because I can remind him of the costs that the Government seemed indifferent to. The legal cost of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department for representing the Attorney-General in relation to the Bill was £59,000.

[Mr Hain]

That would cover a lot of the bedroom tax.

[Paul Flynn]

Absolutely. We could have saved lots of the bedroom tax if this had not been done. The legal cost incurred by the Welsh Government was £30,000, and about £15,000 was spent on civil service time in the Wales Office. The total bill was £150,000. Why? Because some pernickety piffle artist in the Attorney-General’s office was trying to make some kind of stand against devolution. He went through the might of the High Court. Five judges were there, looking dignified and wise in their wigs. The total number of judges who agreed with the Government was zero. It was a unanimous vote that this was a frivolous intervention.

[Paul Flynn]

I think that a number of them agreed and the judgment was won.

[Mr Hain]

I am not sure that it is entirely fair for my hon. Friend to put all the blame on officials in the Attorney-General’s office in the way that he graphically described, because it was the Secretary of State in the Wales Office who referred the matter to the Attorney-General. As the then Secretary of State, I was the author of the Government of Wales Act 2006, under which this process took place. I can tell my hon. Friend, and the House, that in no way was that Act drafted and designed to allow for this situation to occur. The drafting of the relevant clause dealt with cross-border issues where there were questions, for example, about rivers that flowed across the border or other environmental concerns about which there might be disputes after a Wales Act had been passed by the UK Government in Westminster. There needed to be a reserve power by which the Secretary of State for Wales could clarify or tidy up anything that resulted from such a cross-border issue. It was never intended to allow the Secretary of State to ride roughshod over the devolution settlement and veto what the Welsh Assembly had decided.

[Paul Flynn]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his expert view on this.

Another Bill was then presented by the Welsh Assembly.