I answered the question on when we knew about this matter. The suggestion was made in late 2004. I compliment my officials on bringing this issue to my attention. I told them that there is a formulation which, if followed, is safe enough, that is, the issue is brought to my attention, analysed and the legal advice of the Attorney General sought. He will say whether an issue arises. That procedure was followed and it was decided that an issue may arise and that, in the interests of certainty, the word "may" was not good enough and that it was better to close a possible loophole. Once that was decided, the idea was to draft a Bill as quickly as possible and act on it. This issue was dealt with speedily, allowing for the fact that one must await the advice.
I always describe administration as being similar to playing tennis. When the ball comes to one, the object is to return it, but one cannot play the ball again until it comes back to one. We look for legal advice but until we get that, we cannot decide our next move. When the legal advice is available, the next move is decided and so on. That was done. In relative terms this issue has not been that long in gestation. On the other hand, the procedures must be followed. We are learning from this but if an issue is raised on which there is legal doubt, the official definitive view must be sought of the relevant authority, which in this case was the Attorney General, and depending on the view, it is then acted upon.
On the question of the identity of the then Attorney General, I am not sure if that issue is relevant for a number of reasons. It is a technical area of law and there are differing legal opinions ranging from "no problem at all" to "a serious defect". Perhaps the then Attorney General would still say there was no problem because, as Members are aware, Attorneys General differ.
