Earl Alexander of TunisMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether public comments on the Falklands crisis which obviously give succour to the enemy can be deemed treasonable and what action they intend to take.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, the constitutional position is as follows. It is for the courts and not for Her Majesty's Government to decide what conduct is capable of constituting a criminal offence and in what circumstances. So far as the institution of prosecutions on behalf of the Crown is concerned, it is for the Attorney-General, acting in his independent capacity as legal adviser to the Crown and not as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, to institute any necessary proceedings.
Earl Alexander of TunisMy Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the so-called "balanced reporting" in the media is totally out of place in the circumstances? Would he not agree that we should give more moral support to our task force in their attempt to relieve the Falkland Islands?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am sure my noble friend is correct in saying that every possible moral support ought to be given to our task force, but I was asked a question of law and I answered it, I hope, in appropriate terms.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, while agreeing with what the noble and learned Lord has just said, may I ask whether a charge of "treason" is not absurd to the point of hysteria, especially when the BBC, and the ITV for that matter, are demonstrating to the world what a free country is really about? If the balance appears wrong occasionally, is that not due mainly to the sparse and limited information coming from the Ministry of Defence, compared with the flood of misleading and self-righteous propaganda cascading from the controlled and repressed media in Buenos Aires? Is there a prospect of improvement? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is able to comment on this. Also, could the reports coming from the Ministry of Defence be a little less funereal and a little more inspiring? It seems at the moment that all that is needed is a harp accompaniment.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, there are many parts of that supplementary question with which I find myself in sympathy, but I think I must confine myself to answering questions of law.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform your Lordships whether, under the law of the United Kingdom and bearing in mind the realities of this sad situation, there is not now a state of war with the Argentine?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I think I am right in saying—that is rather a fast ball, if I may so describe it—that whether or not a state of war exists is a question of public international law. Her Majesty's Government, on such matters, are advised by the Foreign Office and, so far as I know, they have not received positive advice in that direction.
§ Lord BoothbyMy Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will bear in mind that we are not fighting a colonial war to capture an island in the South Atlantic? We are fighting for freedom and democracy, and freedom includes freedom of speech. Will the noble and learned Lord also bear in mind that if Parliament were to attempt to make the latter treasonable we should be embarking upon a course of great danger and one which might betray our cause?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, what Parliament does is for Parliament to say, but I must tell the House that it is treason to kill the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, am I not right in recollecting that it also carries, in addition to the penalty of death, that of disembowelling?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, without notice, I am not sure that I could answer that question, but I have some reason to believe that in recent cases such a course has not actually been insisted upon.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I agree with him absolutely on his comments regarding the task force? What I find difficult is that if there is a possibility, as the noble and learned Lord said, of the officials who have this responsibility to examine statements, would he advise that perhaps the next Question on the Order Paper ought not to be asked?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, without my spectacles, I am afraid I have not read the next Question.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is it not undesirable that parliamentary immunity should be used to intimidate broadcasters, with the result that Mr. Robert Kee has felt it necessary to recant in The Times this morning, thereby letting down his colleagues? Is it not the case that we ought to be rather careful that we do not move into the sort of society which we are opposing?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I recollect a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, last week in which he accused the Government of murder. I think he should be very glad of parliamentary immunity and the tolerance which is extended to him.
§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this Question, to some of us—particularly since we are sending the Welsh Guards down to this part of the world, with relatives in Patagonia and perhaps even with some of the Falkland Islands and without having declared war—is absolutely absurd? If a Welsh Guardsman drops a love letter to a girlfriend in Patagonia, what kind of position is he going to be in?
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesEmbarrassing, my Lords.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I think that is a private matter.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, with respect, I think that on that happy note it might be appropriate to move on to the next Question.