Legal Advice: Prorogation

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I wholly understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend, and I agree with almost all of it.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Attorney General accepts that his legal advice was wrong—that the Government got this wrong. Whether in law or not, it was patently obvious to everybody watching that it was wrong to prorogue Parliament in that way. The United Kingdom Head of State was asked by the Prime Minister to agree to an illegal course of action based on incorrect advice. What does the Attorney General believe should be the consequences for those responsible?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

One group that has made its position very clear is the North East England chamber of commerce, which represents 3,000 businesses in my region. It has said that the north-east is hugely reliant on the EU for global trade, that 62.3% of exports go to the EU and that remaining in the EEA will reduce barriers and give chamber members the best chance to make a success of Brexit. Should the Government not be listening to the creators of thousands of good jobs in my region?

[The Solicitor General]

Of course we are listening to the job creators—I have mentioned that in the context of my own constituency experience, which is not dissimilar to the hon. Lady’s—which is why we have committed ourselves to the most frictionless possible trade. That said, any deal will have to represent Britain’s position as a third country rather than a part of the EEA structure.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I completely agree. My new clause may offer some form of compromise, which I shall set out in due course.

How many of our colleagues actually understand what the Bill will do? Why do the Government want to avoid open and transparent debate? Why is there not a specific clause in the Bill that makes it clear? The answer is obvious: the Government are doing everything they can to avoid an explicit vote on whether the UK should leave the EEA and the single market. They are worried that there might be a parliamentary majority for a so-called soft Brexit, in which we put jobs first and anxieties about immigration and so-called sovereignty second.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I did say that I was not going to give way to anyone, so I am not going to do it again.

New clause 22 would not decide on the substantive question of EEA membership, but it would guarantee that at a future moment the House could have its say. If we do not change the Bill accordingly, we will have sold the pass.

Mr Hoyle, if you think the democratic arguments for the new clause are strong, I can tell you that the economic arguments are even stronger. The Government seem finally to have listened to business and have accepted the need for some form of interim arrangement to fill the hiatus that will exist between the conclusion of the article 50 negotiations and the signing of any new UK-EU trade deal. They claim that they want trade to continue on the same practical terms as today, for a time-limited period, even though they envisage that we will have legally come out of the European Union. That is basically an extension of EU membership, but without political representation: no British Members of the European Parliament in May 2019 and no representation at the Council of Ministers—no influence. The Government claim that that will not be the same as our remaining in the single market and customs union, although to all intents and purposes, it will be.

Banks, car manufacturers, IT firms, chemical producers and pharmaceutical companies all need clarity about their ability to sell into the European market and the continued viability of pan-European supply chains. The Government are right to want to give them certainty for a two-year period post the conclusion of the article 50 negotiations, but those companies need more.

If we are not going to lose jobs and investment, businesses need to know what tariffs will and will not apply on exports, what checks will be conducted on goods at the border, and what overall regulatory regime will apply to them in the future—not just in 2020, but in 2022, 2025 and beyond. A fudge might cut it for a few years, but it will not last forever. As a country, we will face a fundamental choice: do we align ourselves with European standards, or do we deregulate and go for weaker American or Chinese ones? There is not some fantasy mid-Atlantic option out there that the Government can conjure up, which is why continued membership of the European economic area could be so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, that is not a stretching of the question; it is a departure from it. Ingenious, but flawed on this occasion.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The sad reality is that hate crime is a growing problem. A young Muslim woman, Ruhi Rehman, was racially abused when travelling on the metro in my home town of Newcastle on Saturday. Thankfully, her attacker was chased off by outraged passengers, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have “Geordie angels”. More than 27% of prosecutions for hate crimes are currently failing because of victim issues, a significant rise since 2010. Do the Government share my concern that victims are being let down, and that serious crimes are going unpunished as a result?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that case. When I attended a hate crime training conference at the College of Policing a few weeks ago, not only disability hate crime but the type of hate crime to which she has referred was very much on the agenda. She will be glad to know that the CPS is enhancing training for all the leaders in their regions, which I think will result in a renewed emphasis on the need to make victims confident that the system will work for them rather than against them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I think the hon. Gentleman means that the rate has fallen slightly. I think it important to continue to prosecute more and more of these cases. For too long, many victims have found that their cases have not even been brought to court. Looking at the analysis of rape convictions, I am encouraged to see that the number of convictions that have not been brought because of a prosecution failure is reducing, so drilling down and looking at the reasons for the non-convictions is very important. We have to continue progress in that direction.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Successfully prosecuting rape and domestic violence cases clearly requires a properly resourced CPS, yet the budget has been slashed by 25% since 2010 and the rate of ineffective and cracked trials owing to prosecution issues is at a five-year high. With senior respected personnel leaving and expressing grave concerns, do the Solicitor General and the Attorney General really believe that the CPS can sustain more cuts on the same scale and still deliver justice?

[The Solicitor General]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is in error when she suggests that the number of ineffective trials is at an all-time high. As I have said, the number of cases being prosecuted continues to increase, and there is no question of prosecutions not being brought because of a lack of resources. Rape and serious sexual offences units are well resourced, and they will continue to be resourced by the CPS.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

Again, that is not my role within government, but the hon. Lady knows that the Prime Minister was extremely eager to come to Parliament and explain the basis of the decision to take the drone strike of 21 August, and he did so on the first available opportunity.

In terms of setting frameworks, it is important of course to treat every case on its merits. In relation to the legal position, as in relation to a political decision making process, each instance will be different and each must be considered on its own facts.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The recent drone strike in Syria was described by the Prime Minister as a “new departure” and a first in modern times. The Prime Minister said he is

“happy to look at what other ways there may be of making sure these sorts of acts are scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 31.]

Given that any action must be necessary and proportionate to meet the key legal tests, will the Attorney General update us on the discussions between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee on reviewing the action and any framework that will be put in place to ensure proper scrutiny in future?

[The Attorney General]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities and wish her well in them. I have no doubt that the new Chairman of the ISC will be discussing with the Government what inquiries they wish to take forward. On my engagement in the process, as the hon. Lady understands, the Law Officers convention makes it clear that legal advice is not disclosed outside government, nor in the generality of cases is even the fact of legal advice disclosed, but she knows, too, that in relation to this incident I thought it was right and proper that the fact of legal advice having been given should be disclosed, and it was. I hope she will understand how difficult it is to go any further than that without undermining the good reasons that I believe lie behind the LOC.

Alun Richards and Kashif Shabir: SFO

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on securing this afternoon’s extremely important debate on behalf of her constituent, Mr Kashif Shabir, and the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), Mr Alun Richards. This is my first outing in the role of shadow Attorney General, which I am pleased to be taking on, in particular in a shadow Cabinet that for the first time has a majority of women. I am thoroughly looking forward to holding the Attorney General and the Solicitor General’s feet to the fire, but also working constructively with them when appropriate.

As with all Serious Fraud Office cases, those of Mr Richards and Mr Shabir are complex, but they have been carefully and passionately set out by my hon. Friends. There is much to be passionate about. As many of us know from our constituency postbags and surgeries, there are many more cases such as those we have heard about today throughout the country. Since the financial crisis, small, medium and even large firms have been brought to their knees by the banking system, with serious allegations of malpractice being made. Good and credible businesspeople such as Mr Richards and Mr Shabir have seen their credit ratings destroyed, after having worked hard for years and decades to build up their businesses. We only need to look at the Bully Banks campaign to see just how many firms and individuals have been affected by allegations of malpractice over the past few years.

Indeed, I have a constituency case involving the now acknowledged mis-selling of interest rate hedging products, or swaps; my constituent’s family, and the many who rely on them for good, skilled employment, have been reeling from the consequences of that ever since. We are not discussing the swap mis-selling scandal today, but the activities alleged by Mr Richards and Mr Shabir, and the consequences of those activities, bear a striking resemblance to the situation suffered by my constituent. I have a real fear that that indicates a systemic failure in our banking system across the country.

As my hon. Friends for Cardiff Central and for Ogmore have explained, the cases of Mr Richards and Mr Shabir involve allegations of the deliberate under- valuing by Lloyds of their properties—known as down valuation—in order to put them in breach of their loan-to-value ratios on secured debts, and thereby engineer defaults on their loans. That in itself is an extremely serious allegation. I believe it has been rejected by Lloyds, but was covered in some detail by the 2013 Tomlinson report commissioned by the Business Secretary in the coalition Government, Dr Vince Cable. In his report into banks’ lending practices and treatment of businesses in distress, Lawrence Tomlinson commented:

“This has been one of the most common complaints in the evidence received for this report. Revaluation of assets appears to be used on frequent occasions to put businesses into default of their loan agreements.”

He went on:

“Many businesses have submitted evidence demonstrating what appear to be unquestionable under-valuations of properties. They are so stark compared to original and current values of the property that their accuracy has to be called into question as well as the reason behind such an inaccuracy.”

The report concluded—and this is the crux of the matter, particularly in the cases we are considering:

“Not only is the undervaluation itself a concern, so is the relationship between the bank and the valuers. Often, much of a valuer’s work will come from the banks and there is therefore an inherent conflict of interest as there is a natural incentive for the valuer to act in the interest of the bank.”

In March, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee took evidence as part of its inquiry into the insolvency industry. Witnesses conceded that it is becoming more common for property receivers to be seconded to banks. Sometimes even surveyors and receivers have been known to be seconded within lenders’ restructuring divisions, therefore working on lenders’ distressed loans books. As even the industry witnesses to that inquiry conceded, in such a situation there is potential for a serious conflict of interest.

In both the cases we have heard about this afternoon, Lloyds bank utilised Alder King LLP for its property valuations. Yet Alder King also had staff seconded to Lloyds, working within the bank’s recoveries department—the very department that was responsible for receivership appointments. As reported by both the Financial Times and The Times, such staff were engaged directly in work on the cases of Mr Shabir and Mr Richards, but allegedly gave the impression that they worked directly for the bank, not Alder King LLP, the firm that was to benefit financially from the businesses going into receivership. It is that alleged conflict of interest, and its very significant consequences, about which Mr Shabir and Mr Richards have lodged their complaints to the Serious Fraud Office.

As we have heard, as no response had been received from Lloyds to the complaints since September 2011, Mr Shabir’s and Mr Richards’s cases were referred to the SFO in September 2013. Two meetings were held with the SFO, during which a substantial amount of evidence was provided to corroborate the allegations, but it was not until 7 November 2014 that the SFO’s director, David Green QC, responded and acknowledged the gravity of the issues raised. I understand that nothing has been heard from the SFO since, some 10 months on from that communication.

Of course, Mr Shabir and Mr Richards are not the only ones making such allegations about the activities of Lloyds bank and Alder King. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central mentioned earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was shadow Attorney General, she wrote to the SFO director about this issue on behalf of two other Labour Members of Parliament and their constituents. In his response, also dated 7 November 2014, David Green stated:

“I can assure you that we are taking appropriate steps to pursue this serious issue.”

Like my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff Central and for Ogmore, I look forward to receiving an update from the Solicitor General—or, subsequent to the debate, in writing from the Attorney General—on the actual progress that has been made in investigating these serious allegations. We all appreciate their complexity, but it is now two years since the matter was first referred to the SFO.

There is also clearly a significant public interest in the matter, not least because we are, after all, discussing a bank that was bailed out by the British taxpayer and remains part-owned by the public purse. In addition, since 2010, the Serious Fraud Office’s funding has been cut by just over 12%, with potential serious implications for its ability to prosecute serious and complex cases of fraud and bribery effectively and in a timely manner.

In the light of what we have heard this afternoon, hon. Members need urgent reassurances from the Government Law Officers that the SFO does in fact have the resources it needs to investigate such cases. That question is even more pressing given the further £20 billion of cuts to public spending anticipated at the forthcoming spending review, with the Chancellor reportedly requiring Departments to model budget cuts of up to 40% by 2019-20.

Although allegations such as those made by Mr Richards and Mr Shabir may make for uncomfortable listening for the Government, it is deeply concerning that every time the Serious Fraud Office wants to take on a major case—LIBOR rigging being a prime example—it now has to effectively go cap in hand to the Treasury to apply for additional funding, sometimes referred to as blockbuster funding, in order to do the job. That clearly has implications for the vital independence of the SFO, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer potentially has a veto on what is investigated. Indeed, Transparency International has stated its concern about that situation:

“The process for additional budget approval may present a substantial risk of political influence.”

Again, I would appreciate an assurance from the Solicitor General that there is no need for such concerns, in particular with regard to the case we are discussing.

During questions to the Attorney General in July, the Solicitor General stated:

“It is important that we give our full-throated support to the work of the SFO because, as the hon. Gentleman says, if there are doubts about the integrity and efficacy of that important arm of the prosecutorial authorities, we are in serious trouble indeed.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1611.]

I could not agree more, but when we hear of cases like those of Mr Shabir and Mr Richards, who—like many thousands of businesses across the country—appear to have been badly let down by the system, such statements are understandably thrown into doubt. We need to know that the Serious Fraud Office does not just take such matters seriously but has the will, capacity and resources to investigate and then prosecute where appropriate. I look forward to hearing the Solicitor General’s reassurances in that regard.

Phone Hacking

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this emergency debate, and on his longstanding and tireless campaign to bring these issues to light, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).

There have been many thoughtful, powerful, comprehensive and brave contributions from Members in all parts of the House today, including from a number of the victims and alleged victims of the phone hacking scandal, and from several Chairs of Select Committees who have been involved in investigating the matter. It is clear that all Members of the House hold a common view that the ongoing criminal investigation into phone hacking activity must take priority.

It is important to be clear that we on the Opposition Benches would not support any course of action that could or would put the hard work of the police and investigators, or any future criminal prosecutions, at risk. Our priority and focus must be on ensuring that justice is secured for people who have been victims of that crime. In considering this issue, it is of course important to reiterate that the increasingly shocking and distressing revelations in this scandal should by no means result in all journalists and newspapers, whether national or local, being tarred with the same brush. The incredibly important role played by the tireless campaigning of The Guardian on the issue has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) paid tribute to the great work of local journalists too.

However, a criminal justice system that inspires public confidence and an independent, rigorously regulated media are two key planks of a functioning democracy, and it is clear that both of these have been damaged by this developing scandal. The allegations unfolding daily, and sometimes hourly, have thrown up many more issues than can be dealt with or resolved through criminal investigations and prosecutions alone. We are not alone in saying this. The Government should listen to the public and, as the shadow Home Secretary outlined earlier, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself. That is why we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment today to hold a public inquiry, or inquiries, into the issues that have arisen as a result of this scandal.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am afraid that I cannot, as time is very short.

As outlined earlier, given the potential conflicts of interest, we need reassurance about exactly what the Prime Minister’s role will be in this. I must also reference the widespread concerns expressed by Members across the House about News Corp’s takeover of BSkyB. I trust that the Attorney-General and the Culture Secretary will treat all these concerns with the seriousness they deserve and take action accordingly. Although the Attorney-General said that he was mindful of the comments that have been made during the course of the debate, we have not been reassured that positive steps to set up a full, independent, wide-ranging and transparent inquiry will be taken without delay.

Without jeopardising any criminal investigations or future prosecutions, the Government can begin the work of agreeing the nature and scope of the inquiry and who will take it forward before those criminal proceedings are complete. Criminal investigations into, and prosecutions for, phone hacking will certainly take months to reach a conclusion, and possibly years. If we are to start to rebuild the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system and the operation of our newspaper industry, the public and the victims of this dreadful crime need the reassurance of a public inquiry now.

Dr David Kelly

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Dr David Kelly and whether an application should be made by me to the High Court for an inquest to be held into his death.

As a Law Officer of the Crown, I am routinely asked to consider such applications as part of my public interest role. It is in that role that I make this statement. I would not normally present the result of my considerations so publicly, but given the interest that this case has attracted from Members of the House and in the media, I think it is right that this House has the chance to consider my conclusions and to ask questions.

The House will be aware that Dr Kelly was a distinguished Government scientist, who became one of the chief weapons inspectors in Iraq on behalf of the United Nations Special Commission and who, from 1991 onwards, was deeply involved in investigating the biological warfare programme of the Iraqi regime. Dr Kelly built up a high reputation as a weapons inspector, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally.

Against a background of allegations of information having been leaked to the media, on Thursday 10 July 2003 both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee requested that Dr Kelly appear before them to give evidence. He gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in a hearing televised to the public on 15 July, and he gave evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee in a private hearing on 16 July.

In the afternoon of the following day, Dr Kelly left his home to take a walk. By the late evening, he had not returned and his family contacted the police. A search was commenced that resulted in his body being found in the morning of 18 July in woodland on Harrowdown hill in Oxfordshire. It appeared that Dr Kelly had taken his own life by cutting his wrist. Thames Valley police nevertheless commenced an investigation into the case as a potential homicide.

That day, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, set up an inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly. The Oxfordshire coroner also opened an inquest into the death as he was obliged to do. In August, the Lord Chancellor exercised his powers under the Coroners Act 1988 to transfer the functions of the inquest to the inquiry. The inquest was adjourned on 14 August, after sending the registrar a certificate of death in which the causes were stated to be, first, haemorrhage and incised wounds to the left wrist and, secondly, co-praxomol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis. When the Hutton inquiry reported in January 2004, it confirmed the causes of death as they appeared in the death certificate. Thereafter, on 16 March 2004, the coroner indicated that there was no basis or need to resume the inquest, and that his functions were accordingly at an end.

Because of the interest in the political issues that formed the backdrop to Dr Kelly’s death, a significant number of people have raised concerns about his death and the process used to investigate it, and have called for a new inquest to be set up. At this stage, only the High Court can order an inquest, and then only on an application made by me or by another with my consent. I was asked last year to make such an application and have since been provided with a large amount of information that is said to support the case for an inquest. I am grateful to all those who have taken the time and trouble to put that information together.

As Attorney-General, I had then to exercise a non-political role as guardian of the public interest and consider whether any proper grounds existed for such an application to be made. Recognising the importance of the matter, I have sought the help of independent experts to review the evidence and the new information supplied to me. That has involved help from Dr Richard Shepherd, a leading forensic pathologist, and Professor Robert Flanagan, a distinguished toxicologist. I also sought and received the considered views of Lord Hutton; Mr Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner; Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who carried out the original post-mortem; and others in response to the allegations made against their handling of the matter originally. I have also been greatly assisted by officers of the Thames Valley police. I wish to record my thanks to all who have helped me in considering this matter, and in particular to the legal staff at the Attorney-General’s office who have helped me.

Having given the most careful consideration to all the material that has been sent to me, I have concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong. Further, nothing that I have seen supports any allegation that Dr Kelly was murdered or that his death was the subject of any kind of conspiracy or cover-up. In my view, no purpose would be served by my making an application to the High Court for an inquest, and indeed I have no reasonable basis for doing so. There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.

It is not possible in the short time that I have now to explain in detail the reasoning behind my conclusions. In order to inform the House, I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses today a more detailed statement of my reasons, copies of the independent reports that I commissioned, the responses of Lord Hutton and others, some additional material and a schedule—a 60-page list that I hope covers most, if not all, the arguments that have been put to me and my response to each and every such argument based on all the evidence available.

May I just say, in broad terms, that the suggestion that Dr Kelly did not take his own life is based not on positive evidence as such but on a criticism of the findings of the investigation and inquiry? It began with the views of a number of doctors, undoubtedly expert in their own areas of practice but not qualified as forensic pathologists, that Dr Kelly could not have died from loss of blood from the wounds described. To be fair to those who make such a claim, they did not have access to the material on which those conclusions had been reached in making their own reasoned arguments.

Once such a doubt had been created, those who believed that Dr Kelly was murdered looked for contradictions in the evidence given to Lord Hutton, for matters that were apparently not followed up by the police and for any other issues that might be considered suspicious. Much has been made, for example, of the position in which Dr Kelly’s body was found. Although all the witnesses bar two gave evidence to the inquiry that Dr Kelly was found lying on his back with, as the photographs show, his head very close to the trunk of a tree, the two witnesses who found the body stated that it was propped against a tree. Lord Hutton, who had considerable experience as a trial judge, recognised that honest witnesses, in genuinely seeking to explain what they saw, can and sometimes will none the less recall the same scene differently. Any Member who has any experience of the trial process will say the same. That is underlined by the fact that one of those two witnesses, in the statement that he made to the police closer to the time of the event, actually described the body as being on its back and not propped. That is not a criticism of that witness, but from that minor contradiction came the view that the body must have been moved.

If the body had been moved, then why, by whom and for what purpose? The issue has proven a fertile ground for imaginative speculation to take over. In fact, all the evidence provided by the very careful forensic examination of the scene at the time and the detailed review that, exceptionally, I have undertaken, supports the view that Dr Kelly died where he was found and from the causes determined. There is no evidence that I have seen that would suggest any other explanation, or that suggests any cover up or conspiracy whatever.

I wish to emphasise that my conclusions and decision are, as they must be, entirely my own and based on my assessment of the evidence. I have received no representations of any kind from the Prime Minister or any other ministerial colleague on this decision.

The material is in the Library for all to consider. I believe that anyone approaching this matter with an open mind, whatever their previous misgivings, will find it convincing. I would add only that I offer to the Kelly family my sincere sympathy, not simply for their loss, great though that undoubtedly is, but for having to bear that loss in the glare of intrusive publicity over such a long period. They have borne that load with great fortitude and dignity. Although I realise that it will always be impossible to satisfy everyone, I would hope for their sake that a line can now be drawn under this matter.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for early sight of both his statement and the detailed reasons for his decision not to apply to the High Court for an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Having been afforded the opportunity to read and examine the documentation relating to the Attorney-General’s inquiries, in so far as time has permitted, the shadow Law Officers are grateful for the opportunity to review the documents, from which we derive confidence that the Attorney-General has addressed himself fully to the issues involved. We have been reassured by the comprehensive nature of the inquiry and the quality of the reports produced. The allegations made have clearly been taken seriously and inquired into, and I should like to commend the thorough and extremely transparent way in which he has handled the issue. I hope that that will give Members of the House and members of the public the reassurance that he was seeking to provide.

The Attorney-General’s findings corroborate those of the right hon. Lord Hutton, who concluded in his 2004 report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly that he was

“satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life”

and

“further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly.”

The Attorney-General’s decision also substantiates the findings of the post-mortem and the toxicology reports conducted following Dr Kelly’s death and published by the Ministry of Justice last October

“in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the inquiry into how Dr Kelly came by his death.”

The Opposition therefore accept the Attorney-General’s decision today, on the basis that he has very carefully and clearly outlined his detailed reasons for not applying to the High Court to request an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death, due to the lack of new, compelling evidence that Dr Kelly did not commit suicide.

We are grateful to the Attorney-General for the written statement and related documents that he has placed in the Libraries of both Houses, which will assist Members and the public in understanding the basis of his announcement today. None the less, I am aware that few in this House will yet have had the advantage of perusing the documents. I therefore wonder whether he will provide for Members of the House, and for members of the public, who may listen to this statement but not peruse the documents in the Library, a brief outline of the legal basis of his decision not to apply to the High Court for a new inquest; confirmation that he is satisfied that, as has been extensively raised in media reports, the evidential burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the cause of Dr Kelly’s death has been met, thereby dispelling concerns that a coroner’s inquest would return a different verdict; and a statement of whether he believes that his decision today would not rule out a future inquest should any new and compelling evidence about the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly’s death come to light.

Finally, I also wish to extend my sincere sympathy to the Kelly family for both their tragic loss and the undoubted difficulty that the extensive publicity surrounding the matter has caused.

[The Attorney-General]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words. I appreciate them and I have no doubt that they will be appreciated by all those who have been involved in reviewing this case.

The hon. Lady raises a number of important points, which I shall do my best to answer. First, I very much hope for the sake of all concerned that this will produce finality, but it is absolutely right that if some new and compelling evidence were to come to light at some point in future that suggests that there might be something wrong in the original inquiry findings, it would of course be possible for the matter to be looked at again, as in the case of any inquest or inquiry. In that sense, there is no bar as a result of the statement that I have made today.

Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me to explain my legal powers a little. The background is that the inquest process was replaced originally by a decision of Lord Falconer to have an inquiry, pursuant to section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988. That decision was never challenged at the time—somebody could have done so if they had wanted to, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that there was anything improper about the decision. Indeed, as I understood it, the decision marked the seriousness with which Lord Falconer took the matter at that time, and it marked his desire to have an inquiry that would be capable of going further in its scope than an inquest, particularly in respect of looking at some of the surrounding circumstances, which an inquest would not be particularly well placed to do.

Lord Hutton did indeed look at those surrounding circumstances, but they were not really the subject of this review. The review arose from the representations of the memorialist doctors who indicated that they thought that the lack of certainty specifically as to the cause of death was such that I ought to exercise my powers under section 13 of the 1988 Act to make an application to the High Court for the inquest to take place—we may have to face up to the fact that no inquest took place, because it adjourned without being completed.

I do not wish to get involved in legal technicalities, but those powers are of a slightly technical nature. However, I approached the matter on the basis that if there was an evidential basis for calling into question the inquiry’s findings on the cause of death, I would make such an application, whatever the technical difficulties might be, because of my view that in such circumstances, the Court would be minded at least to find a way to allow the matter to be reinvestigated. That was the basis on which I operated. That we have taken some time and, I must say, a lot of trouble, to look at this matter very carefully is a reflection of the seriousness, in my view, of the allegations that were being made, and of the fact that the allegations were being made by apparently sensible and reasonable people. I am grateful to them for bringing those problems forward.

That is the basis on which I operated, but having operated in that way and having reviewed all the evidence—the hon. Lady has seen the schedule, which I hope will be helpful to hon. Members who go to the Library to look at it—I decided that the evidence was overwhelming that this was a tragic case of suicide, and that suicide caused Dr Kelly’s death for the medical reasons that were correctly identified at the time that the death certificate was made out.

Legal aid

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Although the overall legal aid budget has spiralled out of control, I have real concerns about the Government’s proposals—they are based on the previous Government’s proposals, which is one of the ironies—for changing legal aid. I do have concerns, which I why I am here this morning.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and I agree with some of his points, but does he acknowledge that the previous Government reduced the cost of civil legal aid by 24% over 10 years? We have to disaggregate the civil and criminal cases and concentrate on where the Government’s cuts are having an effect—on the most vulnerable in our society.