To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to announce the results of his review of public interest immunity certificates. [9940]

I made a statement to the House on the Government's new approach to public interest immunity on 18 December 1996. A paper setting out the Government's conclusions was placed in the library.

Does not the announced reform of the public interest immunity certificate system amount to a success for Lord Justice Scott? Would not the Government still have used it, even under the new system, to thwart justice in the Matrix Churchill case? Is the Attorney-General able to confirm that the blanket ban will go, and that real harm and damage to the public interest will have to be proved to a judge in every case? Will not that new system still facilitate cover-ups, especially in cases involving breaches of arms embargoes, the Prison Service and the police?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I emphasise very strongly that there were no cover-ups through public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case. It is about time that he realised that.

We consulted widely and paid great attention to the advice of Sir Richard Scott and the many others who responded. As I told the House on 18 December, the new test—that a certificate will be issued only if the documents or information in question, if disclosed, would be likely to cause real harm or real damage—was recommended by the Lord Chief Justice and adopted by the Government.

As I also told the House, many of the problems were put aside when the House of Lords, in the case of ex parte Wiley in 1994—two years after the Matrix Churchill case—changed the system and gave Ministers much more discretion. The hon. Gentleman will want to have those three important points well in mind.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem with the Matrix Churchill and other arms-to-Iraq cases involving public interest immunity certificates was that Ministers did not have discretion about whether to use them? Will he confirm that the new system will allow such discretion and will permit Ministers to attach notes describing the exact problem in each case?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right that one of the reasons for such wide misconceptions about the use of certificates in the Matrix Churchill case was that Ministers had little discretion and it was necessary to have more certificates than would now be the case. My hon. Friend will also realise that the matter was distorted out of proportion. Those who have followed it carefully will realise that.