| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Monday, 12 January 2004.
Ulster-Scots Agency
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 18 November (WA 273) concerning the 2003 budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency, who agreed to the budget in February; and whether an appropriate business plan was considered and agreed.[HL100]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I refer the noble Lord to my Answer of 10 July 2003 (HL3275) regarding the budget for the North/South Language Body. The business plan for the Ulster-Scots Agency for 2003 was the subject of ongoing consideration by officials in the sponsoring departments and the Departments of Finance, North and South, between its initial submission by the agency in 2002 and formal joint approval by Ministers, North and South on 11 November 2003.
North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 20 November (WA 352), whether they do not expect any underspend from either section of the Language Implementation Body for 2003.[HL188]
Baroness Amos: Since the Answer given to the noble Lord on 20 November, the Ulster-Scots Agency has confirmed that it expects to spend its budget for 2003. The Irish Language Agency has indicated that it may not spend its entire budget for 2003.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 15 December (WA 91) about the 2003 budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency, why the information requested was not provided; and whether they will now provide it.[HL503]
Baroness Amos: I have nothing further to add to the Answer given on 15 December 2003. (WA 91).
Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
Lord Alexander of Weedon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they agree with the view of Lord Palmerston expressed in 1865 that there are many occasions when it is proper and for the convenience of the House that the opinions of the Attorney-General should be made known.[HL303]
Baroness Amos: By longstanding convention, observed by successive governments, the fact of and substance of the Law Officers' advice is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. This enables the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence, as everyone else can. The exceptions to this are rare.
Lord Alexander of Weedon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- On which occasions since 1865 the advice of the Attorney-General has been publicly disclosed.[HL304]
Baroness Amos: The Government do not maintain records of occasions on which exceptions have been made to the convention against disclosure of Law Officers' advice.
I am aware of only two cases in which Law Officers' advice was disclosed. In both cases, disclosure was made for the purposes of judicial proceedings. In 1993, Law Officers' advice relevant to the subject matter of the Arms to Iraq inquiry was disclosed to the Scott inquiry. The advice was published in an annex to the inquiry report. Law Officers' advice on the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act was disclosed to the other parties in the course of the Factortame litigation in which Spanish fishermen were seeking damages from the Government for a breach of Community Law.
I am aware of three other cases in which the views of the Law Officers on a particular matter were disclosed, but not the actual advice. In February 1971, the substance of the Law Officers' advice relating to the UK's obligations to supply arms to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement was published in a command paper (Cmnd 4589). In February 1993, the views of the Law Officers' advice were disclosed in the debate in the other House on the Maastricht Treaty. In March this year the Attorney-General set out in a Written Answer a summary of his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.
Lord Alexander of Weedon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What was the reason for publishing the summary of the views of the Attorney-General on the legality of the war against Iraq; and why they have since consistently declined requests for information as to whether the Attorney-General gave any fuller advice on the legality of the war.[HL305]
Baroness Amos: In view of the high level of public interest in the proposed military action against Iraq, the Attorney-General, exceptionally, made a Written Statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.
The Government have not declined to answer requests for information as to whether the Attorney-General gave advice on the legality of the military action. It has been made clear in response to a number
of Parliamentary Questions that the Attorney-General's detailed advice would not be disclosed in view of the long-standing convention, adhered to by successive governments, that advice of the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. The purpose of the convention is to enable the Government, like everyone else, to receive full and frank legal advice in confidence.
Lord Alexander of Weedon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, in the light of the views expressed by international lawyers and Kofi Annan that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law, they will now publish the full advice of the Attorney-General so that his reasons may be open to public scrutiny.[HL306]
Baroness Amos: As I made clear in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on 13 October, there is a longstanding convention, adhered to by successive governments, and reflected in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code, that legal advice from the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4d of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In view of the exceptional public interest in the proposed military action against Iraq, the Attorney-General set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force in a Written Answer on 17 March 2003.
The Government's view remains as set out in the Written Answer referred to above and in the Foreign Secretary's memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 17 March. shirley
Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answers by the Lord President on 8 December (WA 39) and 10 September (WA 123), why the Answers did not explain the necessity of providing a car for the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body when other chief executives of cross-Border bodies were not provided with a car as part of their remuneration package. [HL405]
Baroness Amos: The previous Answers (WA 39 and WA 123) explained that the provision of a leased car for the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body was necessary because it was part of the remuneration package negotiated and agreed with the prospective chief executive of the SEUPB before his appointment to the post. Other chief executives of cross-Border bodies were not provided with a car as part of their remuneration packages because this was not negotiated and agreed with them prior to their appointment.
Special European Union Programmes Body
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why the first chief executive of the Special European Programmes Body was suspended; and why he was subsequently re-instated, before he then resigned within a week. [HL407]
Baroness Amos: Mr McKinney, the chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), was suspended from duty on 21 May 2003 because he was the subject of a police investigation, relating to an issue arising from his previous employment with Omagh District Council. The police investigation remains ongoing. It was agreed between the British and Irish Governments and Mr McKinney that it would be in the interests of all concerned, and in the public interest, to end the uncertainty arising from the suspension and enable the SEUPB and Mr McKinney to go their separate ways on agreed terms. Thus it was agreed that Mr McKinney would be reinstated as chief executive of the SEUPB with effect from noon on Friday 5 December 2003 and that he would then resign with effect from Wednesday 10 December 2003.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether a letter of apology was issued to the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body for his suspension, once he was re-instated.[HL408]
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What has been the expenditure of the Special European Union Programmes Body on (a) outside consultants; and (b) staff costs in each year since its inception. [HL457]
Baroness Amos: Details of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) expenditure on outside consultants and staff costs for the years available since its inception are provided below:
| 2000(1) | 2001 | 2002 | |
| Expenditure | |||
| Staff costs | £433,409 | £587,574 | £914,491 |
| Consultancy | £68,788 | £193,956 | £52,909 |
(1) Covers the period 2 December 1999 to 31 December 2000.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page