LAW OFFICERS BILL (Hansard, 27 June 1944)

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At the moment, I am in an optimistic frame of mind, since I doubt whether the most controversial person could find any matter of controversy at all in the Bill, which I am about to submit to the House. It deals with the possibility of the Solicitor-General acting for the Attorney-General. If hon. Members will look at the Statutes with which the office which I have the honour to hold is involved, they will find, that in all these Acts the provisions which Parliament has made fall into three categories. Parliament has said that either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General can give consent, Or whatever it may be. It does not matter which. When that has been done, we can arrange the work between us, as 639 the needs of the moment demand. These Acts this Bill leaves untouched. Then there is a group of provisions which provide that the Attorney-General may act, but make no provision for the office being vacant, or for the Attorney-General being absent or sick. It is provisions of that character which have led to this little Bill being submitted to the House. There is a third class which provides, in differing terms, that, in certain circumstances, the Solicitor-General can act. Some of these provisions only make provision for the office being vacant, but do not make provision for absence or sickness. Others do make provision for absence or sickness.
I hope the House will agree that, in order to avoid delay, it is right and proper that, if either of the offices is vacant, or if the Attorney-General is absent or sick, the Solicitor-General should be able, in all cases, to act for him. That is what this Bill brings about. In many cases, of course, the delay through sickness would not matter appreciably, but delays are always better avoided. If either the prosecution or a person convicted desired to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the House of Lords, they have to get a certificate from the Attorney-General that there is a proper cause for appeal and so on, and that certificate is not often given. If application is made by a man convicted of murder who wishes to appeal, it is, obviously, of very great importance that it should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. A case of that kind did occur when I was out of the country last year, and, on the law as it stands at present, the man had to wait for my return before the matter could be considered. The Solicitor-General refused to act and had he not done so the man could have said, "I have not had my statutory rights, as the Attorney-General himself should consider it."
There are one or two other cases where it is desirable and necessary to act promptly. There is a Section in the Coal Mines Act of 1911 under Which the Attorney-General may take proceedings to restrain the working of a mine where it might be said that the continued working would involve danger, although I have never been asked to take proceedings under this Section. That is a case in 640 which, obviously, prompt action would be necessary. Although as I have said the trouble has very seldom arisen, looking through the list of powers and having in mind the recent example which I have just given, it seemed to me clearly right that the Solicitor-General should be able to act, in cases where the Attorney-General alone can act at present, if there was a vacancy in that office, sickness or absence. We are taking the occasion also to enable the Attorney-General to authorise the Solicitor-General in a specific case. What I had in mind is that it is conceivable that you might get a case in which the Attorney-General had some personal interest. He might have been briefed on one side before he became a Law Officer or had some personal interest which made it desirable for him to say, "You had better deal with this."
If this Bill is passed, it will prevent certain delays, and my general view about the law's delays, some of which are inevitable, is that I am against them. Therefore, that this Bill may help to minimise them is a good thing. We all know that they manage most things better in Scotland, and I was, therefore, relieved to find, when I had this Bill under contemplation, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, though he had not had any actual trouble, felt that the position would be better if similar provisions were made with regard to Scotland, because there was the possibility of delay and embarrassment there also if there was not a provision of this kind over the whole field. That is Clause 2.
Clause 3 deals with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, who, when he saw that I was proposing to advance, said that he would like to come in also. His problem is rather a different one. There is no Solicitor-General in Northern Ireland. They have one Law Officer and the original Government of Ireland Act did not make any provision for substitute or deputy. But in 1923 the Northern Ireland Parliament made provision for a deputy to be appointed in the case of a vacancy, or if the Attorney-General was unable to act, but they could not, of course, affect in any way the Imperial Acts which applied to Northern Ireland. Their Act providing for a deputy could only operate on their own Acts, and could not operate on those Acts which deal with matters which are within the com- 641 petence of this Parliament but are not within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. No inconvenience appears to have been suffered in the intervening 21 years, but as we are now dealing with the Law Officers, we thought we would make a clean sweep of it, and Clause 3 provides that the deputy appointed under the Northern Ireland Act can act within the limits which are laid down, that is, if the Attorney-General is unable to act, in matters which come under Imperial Acts affecting Northern Ireland as well as those which come under Northern Ireland Acts. That explains the Bill, and, as I say, I do not see how anybody could find any controversy in it, and anyhow, I hope that the House will accept it.

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes (Carmarthen)
When I first read this Bill I wondered why it had taken this form and why it should not have been sufficient to say that the Attorney-General should act, and failing him, the Solicitor-General. But after listening to the explanation which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has given, I can well understand, and I think the House will understand, why it is necessary that the Bill should be expressed in the more elaborate terms which we have before us. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is not here, because he is to some extent being elevated by this Bill. The office of the Solicitor-General, and indeed the office of my right hon. and learned Friend, were created very nearly 500 years ago, and at that time the Attorney-General was directed to have regard to the common law side of the King's business, while the Solicitor-General was charged with the duty of looking after the Chancery side of the King's work. He has been elevated since those days, because he now looks after the common law side as well. But there is really no reason why, as far as this House is concerned, the Solicitor-General should not, in every sense of the term, be the assistant and the deputy of the Attorney-General.
Again and again, this House has passed Measures which place the duties charged upon the Law Officer in the hands of either the Attorney-General or of the Solicitor-General. That has been done on many occasions and, from my personal knowledge of the Law Officers of the 642 Crown, and what I know of their history in the past, I can confidently say that holders of the office of Solicitor-General have been chosen and appointed by His Majesty, on every occasion, as potential occupants of the office of Attorney-General. One may wonder from time to time in the course of history as to how some of them obtained the eminence of the appointments which were given to them, but whatever may have been the qualifications, it always has been that the Solicitor-General was one held to be worthy of filling the Attorney-General's office when the occasion should arise. Therefore, it is proper that we should, in this Measure, bring before the House the authority when the occasion properly arises for the Solicitor-General to act in the room of the Attorney-General, and for these reasons I —and I speak for those on these benches as well—welcome this Measure.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes), I welcome this Measure. It is a step which is obviously overdue, though it is amazing to all of us that it has not occurred to the Law Officers in the past to put forward a Measure of this kind. It indicates great longevity or very good health on the part of past holders of the office whoever they may have been. The amount of work which falls on the Law Officers is considerable, and as my hon. and learned Friend has said, in most cases a Solicitor-General is a potential Attorney-General and frequently succeeds to that office when the Attorney-General is elevated, either to another place or to another office. I think that on all sides of the House—this is not a party matter —we should welcome this Measure because it obviously fills a gap and provides for contingencies which the learned Attorney-General said sometimes arise. We want if we can to speed up the law and not to prevent legal redress being duly provided, as it should be.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
A point has been missed out in relation to the conditions under which one or other of the Law Officers should act. I am very pleased to see that the Attorney-General is anxious to get over the law's delays as far as possible. That is desirable, but I was not at all clear about the examples he gave. He said that while he was away a man was found guilty of murder and that the Solicitor-General, if he had 643 been able to decide on it, would have decided, as he did when he came back, against an appeal. However, he said, the man was satisfied with the due processes of the law.

§ The Attorney-General
My point was that the Solicitor-General could not, under the Statute as it was then, have given a decision one way or the other.

§ Mr. Gallacher
But if he could, he would have given the decision, which the Attorney-General later gave, against appeal. I do not think the man would be very satisfied when he was going to be hanged.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
He would have welcomed delay.

§ Mr. Gallacher
He would have welcomed anything. The Attorney-General said you may get a situation where an Attorney-General is prejudiced because of some previous connection with the subject under consideration. What sort of a fix are you going to be in if, not only the Attorney-General, but also the Solicitor-General has had some previous Dissociation with the particular subject under discussion? You will just have to draw lots as to who is to make the decision.

§ The Attorney-General
We could both resign.

§ Mr. Gallacher
With regard to the conditions under which the Solicitor-General will act, I will take the position of the Lord Advocate in Scotland as an example. The Lord Advocate is unable to act owing to absence or illness, so the Lord Advocate authorises the Solicitor-General to act in some particular case. Should something not be inserted in the Bill to provide against the Lord Advocate or Attorney-General committing an offence? I took up a paper one day and to my horror I saw that a man had been found guilty of an offence which I had committed. I went to see one of the Law Officers of the Crown when I got down to the House. I showed him the paper and his eyes bulged. I said, "I am afraid I must have committed an offence," and he replied, "For goodness' sake do not say a word to anybody, I have committed an offence myself." Therefore, it is always possible that the Lord Advocate or the Attorney- 644 General or the Solicitor-General may be liable to offences like this, but a small Bill of this kind is welcome in so far as it is going to end the law's delay.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
When I picked up the Bill this morning it took me some time to follow what was actually meant. I was interested to hear the Attorney-General explain its contents. I was always under the impression that when the Attorney-General was absent, the Solicitor-General was looked upon as his "second line" and followed in his foot-Steps, as is the case in the pit with regard to the collier and the drawer. When the first man is not present, the second man does his job. If anyone had said that is not the position, I would have denied it, and would have said that, if one officer was absent, the other could take his place. This is not so.

§ The Attorney-General
It is so over almost the whole of the field and this Bill makes it so when the Attorney-General is absent or ill, over the limited part of a field not already covered.

§ Mr. Tinker
I take it that in all cases now, both will be on an equal footing, and if the Attorney-General is not able to be present, then the Solicitor-General will be authorised to take his place. It is rather surprising to me that in all these years this difficulty should not have been brought to light, and the question that arises in my mind is, Has the Solicitor-General ever acted in the place of the Attorney-General? Has this question never arisen, before the case referred to by the Attorney-General? It is an amazing state of things, and very interesting, that for 500 years this flaw has been evident but has not been dealt with before. However, when we do find flaws in our laws it is essential that they should be examined and put right. That is why everybody approves this Bill so that the matter can be put right for the future. No one can take objection to a Bill of this kind; in fact we appreciate the diligence of the Law Officers in bringing it to our notice.