Page 4022 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legal means by which we could prevent the closure of some schools. There was a range of legal advice in that circumstance. We had a choice in resolving that. One choice was to go to court and get the final statement from a judge. The risk there is that you pay the costs of the group that you are opposing. The other choice in that case, which we adopted, was to get advice from a silk. That is one way to attempt to resolve the problem.
I am given to understand from Mr Connolly that in this case no legal advice was ever gained from a QC or a senior legal professional. Therefore, I believe that the range of legal advice that we are dealing with loses some strength. The statement that Mrs Carnell quoted from Dr Scott goes something like this: The latest advice on AIDS/HIV means that infection with HIV at all stages is notifiable. It was simply the latest in a range of advice. Who was to know that there was not going to be a change in the next little while? The Minister, therefore, had to respond to that. Indeed, Mr Humphries, with hindsight, might say, "Well, perhaps I should have responded". It is very easy to do things with hindsight. If Mr Berry were to look back, with hindsight, he might say that this issue ought to have been resolved much more quickly. With my hindsight, looking back at how both Ministers operated, I would say that it should have been resolved more quickly.
Not being provided with the legal advice makes it much more difficult. I understand that the problem there is that another principle is involved - the relationship between a client and a solicitor and whether that applies to government. Is the Minister prepared to undermine it by testing that legal advice? Is it necessary to undermine it in determining whether or not the Minister has acted properly or improperly? It is important not to lose sight of the context of the words "properly" and "improperly". The context of it is the Minister trying his best to resolve a problem that has the potential to blow out in terms of population health. As I say, with hindsight, we can probably all do better, but a decision made in that light makes the decision that much more difficult.
Mrs Carnell: That is why you would get a silk's advice.
MR MOORE: Mrs Carnell indicates that that is why you get the advice of a silk. It would seem to me, with hindsight, that that is exactly what Mr Humphries should have done. That is exactly what Mr Berry should have done. The other choice, which is actually cheaper, is to set about changing the regulations. The evidence that I see presented to me shows that Mr Berry did set about changing the regulations. I would say, with hindsight, that he did so much too slowly. Perhaps that is how Mr Berry does everything. We would also say that he does some things too quickly, especially when he tries to put Bills through here too quickly. He is too slow in the lead-up to the Assembly and too quick once it gets into the Assembly. I think it is important to distinguish this.
If there is a clear breach of the law with no ambiguity, and the Minister recognises that, then he must act. There is no question about that. From the letters that I have received over the last four or five years from Dr Proudfoot, I think that that is what he would have expected. It seems to me that he was looking for the single piece of legal advice that happened to take his perspective. Perhaps it is the one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .