HIGH COURT ATTENDANCES (OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE) (Hansard, 21 July 1975)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
Mr. Speaker has not selected the two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), but he has selected a manuscript amendment to be moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department. Copies of the manuscript amendment are available.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of Mr. Speaker's statement this afternoon, in which he pointed out the apparent discrepancy, at first reading, between the two passage in Erskine May, and as on Friday at 11 a.m. we were following that which said that the petition could be placed without notice, and as most of the speeches were therefore disorderly as they should have stopped as soon as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made objection to it, will you rule, Mr. Deputy 221 Speaker, that in this debate anyone who spoke on Friday morning may speak again, for the simple reason that he should not have been speaking then?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, but I have to rule in the opposite sense. Those who have spoken in this debate may speak again only with the leave of the House, and if any hon. Member shouts "Object", they cannot speak again.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Regarding the remarks you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say, with great respect, that this motion was slipped in at the last moment on Friday? Due to the vigilance of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I am pleased to say that eventually it was put down very late at night—or very early this morning. That was done with knowledge—one might say "malice aforethought"—on the part of the Government or of the sponsors of the motion. But now you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tell us—rightly; I do not object because Mr. Speaker has decided not to call my hon. Friend's amendments—that one of the Ministers has put down an amendment, but none of us has seen it. The original reason for this motion being postponed was that we were not given notice of it. Now we are told there is a manuscript amendment and, although I could probably go out now and get a copy the Government knew on Friday that this was going to come up today and they should have given us proper notice of the amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member knows it is not open to him to question Mr. Speaker's choice of amendments. I can only inform the House of Mr. Speaker's selections.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to that point of order. I am not criticising the selection, but it was agreed on Friday that we should not proceed because we had not been given enough notice. Now there is an amendment which none of us have seen, and I am objecting to the Government doing this.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand the hon. Gentleman's objection, but it is not a point of order. It is an objection to the 222 Government's way of dealing with its business.

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
On a point of order. I listened with great interest to Mr. Speaker's ruling after Question Time today and I understood him to say that if hon. Members had said "Object" on Friday, the debate would have been abandoned and there would have been no further application by the Solicitor-General for his motion. Would it be in order for me to say "Object" now. I cannot see how it would be any different to me saying "Object" on Friday morning.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I can explain to the hon. Gentleman. The debate has begun and the time for shouting "Object" has passed.

§ Mr. Ridley
Object.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman has left it too late to shout "Object". We are continuing a debate which began on Friday morning last.

§ Mr. Ridley
On a point of order. If this is a new debate, can I say "Object" as I could have done on Friday morning?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I have already ruled that this is not a new debate. It is the same debate. It was adjourned and those who participated in the debate on Friday—I believe the hon. Gentleman was one—are unable to participate tonight.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
On a point of order. If the manuscript amendment was not accepted by the House, would the proposal be valid and would the point of my hon. Friend for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the inaccuracy of the original petition prevail? Will the House be given the opportunity of a separate vote on the manuscript amendment?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not for me to say whether the motion would be valid. It is for me to put the Question, and Mr. Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
On a point of order. As I understand the situation, no hon. Member can speak twice in the debate if another hon. Member shouts "Object". As I was unaware 223 that this motion was to come up on Friday morning, I was not present to hear the arguments of my hon. Friends. If objection is taken on extremely thin grounds, this debate might go on until 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have no control over the length of the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here when I explained that hon. Members can only speak a second time with the leave of the House. My responsibility is merely to see that the rules of the House are observed.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston-upon-Thames)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Presumably your ruling applies equally to the Solicitor-General, and he, too, can speak a second time only if we give him leave.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
This is a case where all men are equal, but some are more equal than others. By the rules of the House the Solicitor-General has the right to speak again.

§ Mr. Ridley
Further to the point of order. As the Solicitor-General has already spoken twice—he spoke in introducing the motion on Friday and he spoke again at about 11.45 a.m. the same day—is it acceptable, even for those more equal than others, for someone to speak on three occasions without the leave of the House?

§ The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I explain the position as I see it? My desire tonight is to be as helpful to the House as possible. I am actually on my feet now since I was on my feet when the debate was adjourned on Friday.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I find it difficult to deal with two points of order at once. The Solicitor-General is entitled, as the one who moved the motion originally, in a resumed debate, according to "Erskine May" to speak again.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
On a point of order. With reference to the Solicitor-General's last remark, surely he moved the adjournment of the debate, and the motion was accepted. That motion surely has been dealt with.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The issue is quite clear. My ruling is supported by "Erskine May". The Solicitor-General is entitled to address the House again.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Solicitor-General was speaking as a member of the Government on a Government motion he would be entitled to speak twice. However, he went out of his way on Friday to explain to the House that he was not speaking as a Minister on a Government motion. In that case he does not meet the condition of a Government Minister speaking to a Government motion, as set out in "Erskine May".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I read what "Erskine May" says. On resuming an adjourned debate, the Member who moved its adjournment is, by courtesy, entitled to speak first on the resumption of the debate".

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That situation applies where he had not already spoken once before.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. No, the hon. Gentleman is not correct on that. "Erskine May" is quite clear and I must now ask the House, whether there are differing views on the proposal or not, to allow the Solicitor General to address the House.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just so that we do not waste our time, I believe that through an unhappy accident the Solicitor-General has drafted his amendment defectively. Is it meant to read so that the amendment comes after "Mrs Anne Patricia Crossman" or is it meant to follow any record of such discussions and". It is not clear which is line 4.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member is patient the Solicitor-General will explain that matter. It is not my responsibility to do so.

§ The Solicitor-General
Mr. Deputy Speaker, they say that all things come to those who wait. In order to assist the House and before attempting to explain my motion, may I say that the manuscript amendment which in due course my 225 hon. Friend will seek to move, is necessary simply because in consequence of the vigilance of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) certain defects in the copying have been pointed out. In those circumstances it would be wrong of me to invite the House to pass the motion without the amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will not obtain a benefit as a result of the amendment, but, in a sense, is making a concession. It would be wrong to move the motion without the amendment.
This is a debate from which I have learned a great deal—

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what is happening. Is the Solicitor-General moving his amendment?

§ The Solicitor-General
If I may, I shall come to the amendment in a few moments. I am not moving it. May I now begin where I originally intended to begin? This is a debate from which I have learned a great deal and on which I have reflected a great deal—and to judge from some of the conversations I have had with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides, I am not wholly alone in that.
To the apology which I tendered to the House on Friday, I wish now to tender a further apology to Mr. Speaker, because when I rose on Friday I was not myself aware that he had not been informed that the petition was to be presented, and I understand today that that was the position.
When I rose to speak, I did not appreciate that the whole matter had been shrouded in such mystery. It was certainly no part of my intention to slip something through the House, and, as I ventured to say on Friday, that allegation has not often been made against me.
The situation arose because those who were preparing the case which is to be heard by the court decided in the course of their preparation that the court would be assisted if certain reports of proceedings in the House were before it. Such preparation, as hon. Members know, is an ongoing process. That decision was taken at a fairly late stage in their preparation, and it led to a somewhat hurried sequence of events, culminating in 226 the presentation of the petition on Friday.
The matter arises in this way. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is engaged in certain actions in the High Court which are described in the petition and which are known to hon. Members. In this debate, as I understand it, it would not be open to me to discuss the merits of those actions, and in any event it would be wrong if I were to express views on matters which are to be considered by the court.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Why is not the Attorney-General presenting the matter to us?

§ The Solicitor-General
I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question at once. The reason my right hon, and learned Friend is not presenting the petition is that the practice, I understand, is that one does not present one's own petition.
It was thought that it would be helpful to the court in considering the reasons for what has come to be known as the 30-years' rule if there were before the court records of what had been said in the House on the doctrine of collective responsibility. For that purpose, leave of the House is required. It is required because it has long been a privilege of this House that what takes place here is not to be called in question elsewhere. That was reaffirmed in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which declares that freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament". In 1818 the House resolved that no Clerk or Officer of the House should attend court for the purpose of producing records of proceedings of the House without the leave of the House. It is for that purpose that my right hon. and learned Friend seeks to petition the House.
The motion which I moved on Friday, that leave be given, may be moved without notice. It is normally moved, I understand, without notice, and I was merely endeavouring to follow the practice in what I did.
In fact, the contents of the petition were read in the House on Friday, and they were subsequently described by one of 227 my hon. Friends as gobbledegook. He almost implied that lawyers liked using gobbledegook.

§ Mr. English
For a fee.

§ The Solicitor-General
Personally, I am not receiving a fee.
It would be arrogant of me to speak for lawyers in general, but let me say that this lawyer does not enjoy gobbledegook. I much prefer to be able to explain things if I can in plain English. That is what I would have done on Friday, but, not having had the opportunity of looking at the precedents, I had understood that it would be contrary to precedent and practice for me to offer an explanation. I believe that in fact there are some precedents for petitions of this kind being presented when a brief explanation has been given, but it was for that reason and that reason alone that I did not venture an explanation originally on Friday.
May I try to explain one other matter which was raised today as a point of order? This debate arises this evening as Government business. As I explained on Friday, it is not a Government motion. The petition of my right hon. and learned Friend arises in his capacity as guardian of the public interest. But it was important if tonight's debate was to be relevant to the proceedings in court that it should be debated this evening, and if that were to happen the motion would have to be adopted by the Government. As I understand it, in that kind of situation the Government from time to time adopt a Private Member's motion.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
It may be within my hon. and learned Friend's recollection that last Monday I asked the Attorney-General about the distinction between his rôle as guardian of the public interest and his rôle as Attorney-General. Could it be explained at some time of convenience to the Solicitor-General what is the financing of a case conducted by the Attorney-General in his rôle as guardian of the public interest?

§ The Solicitor-General
I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend a complete answer to that question later in the proceedings. This sort of situation is the same as that with actions by the Treasury Solicitor or by other public officers who have a 228 non-political or quasi-judicial function. The fact that they are financed by public funds does not mean that my right hon. and learned Friend is acting in his rôle as a Minister of the Government.
The Government take the view that the House would clearly not wish to impede the courts or the administration of justice, and they would risk being impeded if this motion were not ultimately passed by the House, or if it were not to be debated tonight. It is in that sense and that sense only that the motion comes before the House as Government business.

§ Mr. Cryer
If the petition is not passed, in the pursuit of his public office will the Attorney-General have to withdraw the case completely in his attempt to suppress the Crossman Dairies, or will the case go ahead but impeded?

§ The Solicitor-General
The action would not be withdrawn. The court would have to arrive at a decision without the assistance of the pronouncements in the House. I should like to add a further word on that matter later.
I certainly do not wish to detain the House and I have no doubt that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I should like to add two further comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was kind enough to point out to me before I had an opportunity to check it that there were two clerical errors in the references in the petition. They arise from copying errors and all I say about them is that they did not occur in the Law Officers' Department.
It would be wrong for me to invite the House to give leave with reference to a petition when a citation was not in accordance with the description, and so for that purpose I would seek to move an amendment, if that were permissible, to delete these two false references. That would mean that the court would be deprived of those references, but that is the inevitable consequence.
As it would be contrary to practice for me to move an amendment to my own motion, I have asked by hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) to do so formally in the course of the evening. I have endeavoured to ensure that hon. Members I knew wished to take 229 part had a copy of the manuscript amendment, but I have not been able to ensure that every hon. Member interested in the debate had a copy.

§ Mr. English
It would assist the House if the amendments were moved at an early stage. I say that because, I regret to say, I have found a defect in them.

§ The Solicitor-General
The House is always indebted to my hon. Friend for his vigilance, but certainly if it will be of any assistance I shall ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to move the amendment formally at an early stage. Copies of the amendment are now available in the Vote Office.
I understand that one other party to the action has already included in an affidavit an extract from a record of this House. That affidavit has been served on my right hon. and learned Friend. As I understand it, that party did not seek the leave of the House. I take no point on that as a matter of privilege, and I do not invite the House to take a point on it. I would not seek to penalise or pressurise that party. I mention it only because it would produce a curious imbalance if a reference included by another party without seeking the leave of the House were before the court, whereas a reference which my right hon. Friend and learned Friends seeks to include, having sought leave, was denied to the court, because the House denied leave.

§ Mr. English
Surely the High Court will take notice of all parts of the law, including the law of privilege of this House, and will therefore not admit the evidence?

§ The Solicitor-General
I should be wrong to venture an opinion as to how the court might deal with any particular situation. If that were to happen there would be one further reference which would be denied to the court. Further than that, I would be wrong to comment. Then the imbalance would be eliminated, but it would be eliminated by denying to the court access to all the references. [Interruption.] This would be on the assumption which I was originally propounding, that the House refused leave to my right hon. and learned Friend.
230 This House has traditionally been anxious to assist the courts in their function of administering justice. It would be impeding the court in its attempts to arrive at a conclusion on the matters before it if it were denied access to the records of what has been said in this House.

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
As I understand it, Hansard may be freely quoted almost everywhere except in the courts. On this occasion somebody is trying to suppress and limit the publication of information. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman make quite clear to the House whether it is the Attorney-General who is seeking to suppress information, or the defendants to the action?

§ The Solicitor-General
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have tried to keep this contribution to the debate uncontroversial. My right hon. and learned Friend is trying to make the maximum information available for the purpose of what the court will have to decide. Anyone seeking to deny that information to the court would be seeking to inhibit access to information.

§ Mr. Peyton
That is not quite the question. What I was asking was whether it was the Attorney-General who was seeking by his action now to make available to the public the maximum of information, or the other parties to the action.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am reluctant to become involved in a discussion on the merits of the action, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but what my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do is to give effect to the existing rule. Whether that rule is desirable, whether it might be amended on another occasion, is a matter which is neither before the court in these proceedings nor before the House in tonight's debate. My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to enforce the rule as he finds it. In those circumstances—

§ Mr. Cryer
Would the effect of producing this information assist the Attorney-General in seeking to obtain an injunction to prevent the publication of the Crossman Diaries?

§ The Solicitor-General
I am rather surprised by the levity with which some of my hon. Friends seem to regard the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I thought that it was a sensible question. I think that I can only answer my hon. Friend by saying that those who are preparing the case believed that the information would assist the court in arriving at a proper conclusion. They have nothing personally to gain or lose. Their function is to assist the court in arriving at a proper conclusion. If the court decides that my right hon. and learned Friend's action does not lie, so be it. All that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do is to give the court an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. It may be that when the court considers some of the extracts it will take the view that they provide a reason for refusing his application, I do not know. I honestly believe that those who advised that the debates should be placed before the court were sincerely trying to give as balanced a picture as they could to the court. I cannot give a better answer than that.
As I think I have said three times already, I hope that the House will pass the motion. At some subsequent stage, and if it is the wish of the House, I might have the opportunity to reply to any further questions that are raised.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
Before I call anyone else to speak, it might help the House if I remind it of Mr. Speaker's rulings on Friday, which I repeat for greater accuracy. Mr. Speaker ruled: The matter is purely evidential. I would not be prepared to allow discussion of the merits of the case in which it is proposed that Officers of the House should be given leave to give evidence. In column 1926 Mr. Speaker ruled: Today's motion relates purely to the question of whether certain Officers of the House should be given leave to give evidence."—[Official Report, 18th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1923–6.]

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
To the layman the position appears to be clear. Indeed, it is set out in the Order Paper. The petitioner is the Attorney-General and his petition is for an injunction to prevent certain information being published. If nothing 232 else, that seems fairly clear. This may be put in a vulgarised version as assisting the court.
As I have had the honour to be mentioned, I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that I appear to have an interest.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Not financial.

§ Mr. Grimond
I shall not go into what that interest is supposed to be as various maters are sub judice, but I am afraid it is not financial. I shall not pursue my interest at this moment because if I did so I should get into trouble with Mr. Deputy Speaker and probably with the court.
This seems to be a curious procedure. Whatever the reason may be, this is now a Government motion. One of the defendants is a member of the Government. The Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), has been put in some embarrassing situations lately. He appears to be on the side of censorship of the Press and he is engaged in defending a Bill which might well lead to some form of statutory incomes policy. I suppose he passes off these matters on the basis that Church of England parades are entirely voluntary because everyone is an automatic member of the church. However, the right hon. Gentleman is in various difficulties—he is the great upholder of free speech—by the Government now being a party in the Attorney-General's petition.
I suppose that there are precedents in which one member of the Government has moved a petition of this nature to produce evidence against another member of the Government. No doubt the Solicitor-General can point to that. On the face of it it seems a strange situation. It is no good saying that this is purely a private affair. We know that the Attorney-General is not a politician. We know that he has been dragged into politics against his will. Nevertheless there is a curious aura about him. He sits on the Government Front Bench. He is usually a member of the governing party, although I dare say that there have been exceptions. He occasionally makes political speeches. In this case he is acting in his official capacity and he is acting in an action against another 233 member of the Government. We would like some explanation about that.
The Solicitor-General said that the House was jealous of the possibility of its reports being "called in question." I should like to know what exactly will happen. Are we merely giving authority to the Officers of the House to appear in court to say that these are true copies of Hansard? Incidentally, it is as well that the Solicitor-General is not being called because he would not be able to produce true copies of Hansard. We let that pass. Are the Officers being called as witnesses are occasionally called to swear to the nature of the document they are producing or are they being called for other purposes? Is the document simply to be used as a record of the proceedings of this House?
If so, what is called in question? Is there to be argument in court about what the House meant when certain speeches were made? I have read my own. It seems to be an admirable speech—clear as daylight as always, but possibly open to misinterpretation by ill-disposd people. What will go on in court? What are we guarding against? We are giving authority either for the production of Hansard and a guarantee that it is Hansard or else we are going much further and I do not think we have been told what more we are authorising.
What more may happen? I noted in particular the phrase about the House of Commons being very jealous in case its proceedings are called in question. Who is to call them in question? What is the danger of having them called in question and is that what we are guarding against in having to pass this motion before anyone in court can read Hansard?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
The hon. Member will need the leave of the House.

§ Mr. Palmer
I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to seek leave because I made a few remarks on this matter on Friday. By leave of the House. My difficulty remains the same as it was on Friday. The Solicitor-General said that it was the duty of the House of Commons—a natural obligation 234 —to assist the courts in arriving at justice. That was the word he used. As we understand it, and we cannot refer to the matter in great detail, the proceedings in question have very little to do with justice, or even an abstract search for truth. They are an attempt on the part of the Attorney-General to suppress certain—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. May I ask the House to help me in this matter. I cannot go away from Mr. Speaker's ruling on Friday—which was clear—that he would not allow discussion of the merits of the case in which it is proposed that Officers of the House should be given leave to give evidence. The only question before us is whether evidence should be given.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would considerably shorten the debate if the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment could be moved at an early stage, when I would be willing to explain why I think that it might shorten the debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman made that point of order in the middle of another hon. Member's speech.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled that the merits of the case could not be discussed but I do not believe that he ruled that the merits of the decision to bring the case could not be discussed.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious, but I must tell him that the "merits of the case" are enough for me. I understand what is meant by that and I shall try to keep the House to it. The only reason why the amendment has not been called is that once it is proposed it limits the debate.

§ Mr. Palmer
I was doing my best not to discuss the merits of the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely referring to something which was referred to earlier: that it is rumoured that an attempt is being made to suppress certain information contained in certain diaries. That is common knowledge. Unless we refer to that occasionally, I do not see that we can talk about the thing at all.
My point, however, is this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West 235 (Mr. English) referred to it. On Friday I put this question to the Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is necessary for him to come to the House in order to get leave of the House for its Officers to be released. If leave of the House is asked for, presumably it can be refused. What would be the result if we were to refuse leave? My hon. and learned Friend replied: If leave were refused, the court would have to decide the particular issues before it without the advantage of having these documents."—[Official Report, 18th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1936.] It does not seem to me, therefore, as if the court would be handicapped a great deal.
Since some of us hold the view—I suppose that I can say this without discussing the merits of the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that these proceedings are somewhat dubious in themselves, why, therefore, should we have to give leave to one of our Officers to go to the court to assist in these proceedings, of which many of us do not approve, when my hon. and learned Friend has already told the House that it would not make very much difference anyhow? I would therefore like my hon. and learned Friend to explain himself a little further. He seems to think that it is a great obligation on the part of the House to assist the court, and yet at the end of it he says that it would not make a great deal of difference.
I put that point to my hon. and learned Friend. I think he will have to give the House a much better explanation than he has done so far. He may well wish, of course, at the end of the day that he had not brought this motion before the House at all.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)
I seek to oppose the motion, because I believe that there are several fundamental defects in the Attorney-General's petition and also in the Solicitor-General's motion relevant to the petition.
The first defect lies in the Law Officers' basic reason for needing these documents and excerpts from Hansard. The Solicitor-General said on Friday: all that is being asked is that the courts…should have the advantage of having before them certain documents without which they would be inhibited in arriving at a conclusion".—[Official Report, 18th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1936.] If that is the justification, I believe that it might well be based upon an error.
236 I realise that the Solicitor-General may have been too busy reading certain diaries himself lately, but if he looks at Halsbury's "Laws and Statutes of England", volume 36 of the third edition, at page 410, he will find a section, No. (5), headed Matters which are not legitimate aids to construction". Paragraph 622 goes on to say: Even when words in a statute are so ambiguous that they may be construed in more than one sense, regard may not be had to the bill by which it was introduced…or to what has been said in Parliament". At an earlier page of Halsbury, page 392, there is a paragraph headed Speculation as to Parliament's intention not permissible and the same thing is more or less said again.

§ The Solicitor-General
I hesitate to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what is before the court is not the construction of a statute.

Hon. Members
Ah.

§ Mr. Aitken
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for tripping over that banana skin which I was trailing before him. He has now admitted that the whole case for suppressing the diaries is not based on a statute. That is an extremely interesting and rather damaging admission.

§ The Solicitor-General
The rules which the hon. Gentleman has quoted from Halsbury relate to the suggestion that the court might be invited, in the construction of the wording of a statute, to look into Hansard to see what was said in the debates on that statute when it was a Bill. That is not happening in this case.

§ Mr. Aitken
The motion does not say that. It simply states: That leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports of Debates and for the Editor of the Official Report or other proper Officer to attend the trials of the said actions and to produce the said Reports. It does not say what they are being produced for. I do not know how many the hon. and learned Gentleman may have up his sleeve. Some may relate to statutes or precedents.
To give a more recent example, which seems to indicate a case of double standards, hon. Members may recall that the most recent case fought in the courts over 237 the issue of open government was one in which the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and myself were among the defendants. In that case there were two and a half days of legal submissions. During that time counsel for the defence tried to show that the Crown's whole interpretation of the law on open government was wrong and attempted to quote from Hansard to show that it was wrong. My recollection is that during those legal submissions counsel for the then Attorney-General agreed that such quotes from Hansard were not permissible, precisely on the grounds quoted from Halsbury, and the learned judge agreed.
In other words, it seems to me that in the one previous recent major case on open government counsel for the Law Officers claimed that quotations from Hansard could not be used in court. Now, in the coming case on open government, they are proposing the opposite. I find that somewhat inconsistent and suggest that it could be a case of double standards. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to reassure me on that matter when he winds up.
Turning to the extracts from Hansard which the Attorney-General wishes to quote in court—the Solicitor-General says "in order to be fair"—I think they are highly selective and, in some cases, rather defective.
I suggest that they are defective because some, we were told, indicate that the 30-year rule is a good thing. Yet many of the quotations come long before the 30-year rule was dreamed of or conceived.
I said that they are selective. A great deal has been said in Parliament at various times which suggests that the Attorney-General's present thesis is wrong and undermines the argument which I believe is about to be presented in court.
There are some startling omissions. There is the startling omission of any quotations concerning the controversy which surrounded the publication in 1923 of Mr. Winston Churchill's, as he then was, book "The World Crisis", which breached the then rules of Cabinet secrecy. Questions were asked in Parliament and the Prime Minister, Bonar Law, rejected all requests for the kind of action that the Attorney-General is now contemplating.
If we probe behind some of the statements which have been made about 238 Cabinet collective responsibility and secrecy, we find some great oddities.
In 1916 Asquith made a ringing affirmation of the importance of Cabinet secrecy. Yet, a few years later, it was discovered that he had been writing daily notes to his mistress, Venetia Stanley, describing exactly what was happening in the Cabinet. Therefore, these quotations, however fine they may sound when read in court, may have a subsequent episode which completely destroys them.

§ Mr. English
The hon. Gentleman will realise that this rule stems in part from the existence of the Bill of Rights which applies to both Houses. I think that the late Lord Beaverbrook's memoirs were an even more remarkable breach of Cabinet secrecy.

§ Mr. Aitken
I think that with almost whatever figure in contemporary or past history to whom one looks, one finds that the rule has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance of it. I think that it is a very shaky rule over which to start fighting.
The reason I object to the selectivity of the quotations is that the Editor of Hansard, who is to be asked to appear before the court, is a respected and independent figure. He is not the Government's or the Attorney-General's poodle to be bossed around and told to affirm in court the validity of one set of selected quotations. That is wrong.
Lastly. I am still puzzled about the extraordinary contradiction which emerged during Question Time last Monday. The Attorney-General was answering questions from his hon. Friends about his writ-issuing activities and he took the unusual step of referring them to The Guardian for an accurate statement of his views.
Those who followed that advice found that The Guardian said that the Attorney-General had given evidence to the Radcliffe Committee, saying that the rules relating to the publication of Cabinet Ministers' memoirs should be relaxed and liberalised. He was pressed about the matter at Question Time and asked whether there was a contradiction between the hawk-ish line which he was taking in his present activities and the dove-ish line that he was apparently sounding out to the Radcliffe Committee. 239 He replied that his job was to uphold the law and that his personal independent views about what the law should be did not matter.
Here we come to the question of the law on which this argument is based. Where is the justification for suppressing Press, newspaper or book information? Is it based on statute or on judicial precedent? I believe that it is based on the Attorney-General's discretion. As the New Law Journal said in an editorial article not long ago, the law is as long as the Attorney-General's foot. If the Attorney-General believes that the law should be relaxed, his duty is to exercise his discretion and relax the rules. It is not to apply rules which are in need of relaxation.
The law is a muddle of confusing conventions, disputed ethics, muddled precedents and gentlemanly club rules which have been broken many times by many people. The whole thing is a mess, and Parliament must clean it up. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to the judiciary, still less can we abdicate it to a politically-motivated Attorney-General.
I oppose this motion because it is one more step in a Government conspiracy to suppress the politically embarrassing Crossman Diaries. The truth may hurt the Government, but it is the duty of the House to bring home to the Government that suppressing the truth about history hurts much more.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
I am astonished that members of the Government committed to a radical approach to society should present a petition which is designed to uphold a tradition which is no part of the Labour movement and which will result in a very narrow interpretation of material which it is proposed to publish.
The Labour Party manifesto said: It is part of the very purpose of the Labour Party's existence to protect and extend the processes of democracy at all levels. It was a Labour Government which introduced the law which allows a citizen to sue government itself: established the Parliamentary Commissioner; and legislated against racial discrimination and to enforce equal pay. Now we want to give a much bigger say to citizens in all their various capacities…". 240 The Solicitor-General will no doubt argue that he wants the court to be able to make a better informed decision by providing it with information dating back to 1806, but the House knows full well that the reason and motivation for the provision of the information is to restrict publication of some diaries which we are not permitted to comment on. Therefore, this information is in the background of the petition.
Surely it is accepted by the House that if this information impeded the Attorney-General in his aim he would hardly be seeking permission from the House to place the information before the courts. One assumes that it will support the Attorney-General's somewhat eccentric whim in seeking to suppress this set of diaries.
We have some excellent principles which were enshrined many hundreds of years ago—for example, the Bill of Rights has been mentioned. At the same time, we on this side of the House as a radical party should examine traditional principles to see whether they serve the interests of the people whom we represent. We should be wholly opposed to upholding traditions of closed information and producing quotations back to 1806 in support of those traditions. Of course, we must support principles that are of universal and time-enduring validity, but we should not support a tradition that inhibits the expression of ideas and opinion.
Therefore, I express surprise that the Solicitor-General has come to the House, on the basis of tradition and past precedent, seeking to support the application for an injunction by the Attorney-General. I suggest that we should express our opinion by rejecting the request. The Officers of the House have plenty of work to do without supporting activities of this sort.

§ The Solicitor-General
If one of the other parties to the action were to come to the House seeking leave to adduce evidence it thought might assist its case, would my hon. Friend be in favour of granting leave for that?

§ Mr. Cryer
I would have to consider it on its merits and I should have to know the motivation of the person coming before the House. We have a good idea 241 of the motivation of the Attorney-General in this instance. I am in a difficulty because I cannot go too far into that motivation. Seeking information is a very good purpose, but the reason for the use of the information is what the House questions.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
The Solicitor-General invited us to believe that his motivation was a desire to assist the court. Were that truly so, he would not have limited his petition to those quotations which the Attorney-General wanted to make. If he had wanted to assist the court he would have drawn the petition in such a way that the defendants also could have asked the Officers of the House to give evidence which the defendants wanted to put before the court. He has not done so. Far from wanting to assist the court, he has wanted to limit the court to looking at those bits of parliamentary lore that will assist the repressive case of his right hon. and learned Friend and to deny to the defendants the same privilege.
The case is listed for 22nd July 1975, which does not give much opportunity to the other side to ask questions of Officers of the House. If we pass the motion, I understand that the Officers of the House will not be permitted to give views on anything other than the specific items which appear on the list in the Attorney-General's petition. This is an ex parte application, not an application to assist the court.
I find the Attorney-General's position an unpleasantly ambivalent one. We have been told that there is a star against item 5 on the Order Paper. There has to be to get it on tonight. But there is no star against items 3 and 4. Although the Solicitor-General was at such pains to tell the House this was not Government business, items marked with a star are Government Orders of the Day. Was the Attorney-General's action discussed in the Cabinet, or are we invited to believe that the Attorney-General closeted himself with himself and took this decision in a state of complete moral virginity? Clearly, he does not seem to have discussed this with the Secretary of State for Employment.
242 Will the Solicitor-General say for what the petitioner is praying? What does the word "etc." conceal? The fact that it has been done before is no good reason for us doing so tonight. I am sure that the Solicitor-General knows the full details of the position which he is putting before the House.

§ The Solicitor-General
The word "etc." is not part of the prayer or the petition. It is part of the conclusion. It is the standard form.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
The word "etc." is a shortened form of what?

§ The Solicitor-General
My recollection from the days when I read legal history is that it means that the petitioner would pray for the soul of the Lord Chancellor.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
I am sure that the Lord Chancellor would be most gratified if this were spelt out in full rather than concealed. This has added a piquant sauce to this debate.

§ Mr. English
For as long as the House of Commons has existed it has been taken to refer to the soul of Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are included in that benediction.
We are still in a state of grace. We are also perilously near 22nd July, when the case will be heard. [Hon. Members: "It is today."] Will the case be heard today? Has it been postponed? Is there no opportunity now for any of the defendants, including the Secretary of State for Employment, to petition the House? Does the Solicitor-General believe that this one-sided presentation will be conducive to the administration of justice?

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening when I said earlier that one party quoted from the debates in the House without first seeking leave.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
That is not my point.
Does the Solicitor-General think it fair to seek a leave restricted only to his right hon. and learned Friend's one-sided application without extending that leave to the cases which the defendants want 243 to quote? Does he think that he is asking the House to act in a way which is conducive to the administration of justice?

§ The Solicitor-General
I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining what he means. I am not sure in what form a petition could have been presented so as to include reports which some other party might want to quote but which it has not expressed a desire to quote. The other parties are, of course, advised by highly-skilled counsel, and if they had thought that some other report had been relevant, they would have taken the appropriate steps.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
The Solicitor-General has already referred to one quotation from the other party without leave of the House. That is an example of one which he has declared from his own knowledge could have been included in the petition so that it was covered. Why did he not include it in the petition? He has already told the House that it has been mentioned. Why did he not include it, so that the Officer could be asked about that too, if he was aware of it, as he has told us he was?

§ Mr. English
As I understand the situation—having just looked it up in the relevant books in the Library—the court will take notice of any part of the law, including the law and practice of this House. If, therefore, Treasury counsel should get up later today and object to the debates referred to in the affidavit mentioned by the Solicitor-General, the court will be bound to say that those cannot be admitted in evidence because they have not been the subject of a petition and leave of this House.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
In that case, would not the Solicitor-General like to move yet another manuscript amendment? I am addressing through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Solicitor-General. This is a serious point. Would he not wish, even at this late hour, to offer the Chair another manuscript amendment so that the case cited in the affidavit can receive the same treatment from the court as the cases which the Attorney-General wishes to cite?

§ Mr. English
And from us.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Indeed. It is not too late if it is true that the Solicitor- 244 General wishes to assist the court—if that is not just a phrase he uses without meaning what he says. We can test the sincerity of the Solicitor-General by this means: let him offer a manuscript amendment to bring within the scope of the motion, which the House may or may not pass tonight, at least an equality of opportunity for the declared pleadings of the defendants, even if there are procedural reasons—and I do not think there are any—why he should not widen it so that they can quote any proceedings of this House without specifying them.
As I understand it, the only reason for specifying them is to ensure that the Officers of the House cannot consume the time of the court by looking through the actual document and checking that it is authentic. In other words, they are specified to enable the Officers of the House to do their homework beforehand, arrive with an authenticated copy in their hands and assert to the court on oath that it is what it appears to be. Leave could be given in more general terms without specifying it.

§ The Solicitor-General
If it will assist, I should be happy to take that course. Perhaps the House will permit me to check that that is permissible, and I speak subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I point out that I have just been told that the passage which occurs in the affidavit is listed in the Attorney-General's petition.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Good. Let us also extend it by a manuscript amendment so that if the defendant wants to cite any other passages, he is at liberty to do so. If we are to lift the privilege of this House so that justice can be done, let us do the job thoroughly and not in a restricted sense. If that were done it would remove my principal objection to this motion.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
I have never heard so much confusion being compounded every time the Minister rises to speak. I say that with great respect to him. We all love him and his Parliamentary Secretary. There is nothing personal in this matter. However, is it not strange how this great legal luminary and this great legal Department—God knows how much it 245 costs the Exchequer and ratepayers and taxpayers—do not seem to know from one minute to the next what is happening? There was the kerfuffle and mix-up on Friday. It was then said that this matter was nothing to do with the Government. Then we were told that we must have it tied in with the Government to have the motion debated today.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a free vote.

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes—no Whips and a free vote on this.
Now we are told that we are doing this to help the courts. I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). If we are to have manuscript amendments, I should like to see an amendment which said "That this House agrees to allow the court and those who are not attending the court at any time"—I am not speaking of any particular case as that would be out of order—"to call anyone they care to call and to have any information they want and that any defendant or the Attorney-General may call for any Officer of the House or any information."
As I see it, it is a question of picking and choosing. I am wondering where we are getting to. I read in a newspaper this morning that some QCs attending some case—I must not mention the case—in the courts, which may come up at some time, are being paid thousands of pounds, and hundreds of pounds per day in refreshers. That is on the day after we have been talking about income restraints, and the £6 maximum. A fighter who has always been in favour of income restraint and who was a great Liberal candidate at the General Election, Mr. Comyns-Carr, QC, is to be paid hundreds of pounds a day in refreshers, plus the thousands of pounds for the briefs. In addition, if a case comes forward we are asked to let our under-paid, over-worked and hard-pressed Clerks go and spend time at a court.
I do not think that we should allow this sort of thing. I do not know whether such a case is coming up. I do not know why there has not been a court case about the memoirs of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan or, to be fair, the former Prime Minister, 246 Lord Avon. Even better still, what about the present Prime Minister? I believe that they have all written autobiographies and may possibly have breached this rule. I should like to know why some action has not been taken—perhaps it is to be taken; I may be jumping the gun—about other matters. Perhaps the Attorney-General will come forward with another petition. He may be taking action against Lord Avon, Mr. Harold Macmillan, Lord Marples or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I could go on from now until next week, naming a number of right hon. and hon. Members who have signed contracts to write autobiographies. Some have declared that they have already written them. They may be disclosing secrets which should not be divulged. We do not even have to go that far. What is to stop the Attorney-General coming forward tomorrow with another motion saying that as this debate is relevant he wants to have another resolution so that this debate could be made available to a court.

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
There is a problem. This debate will not be published in Hansard until Wednesday because it is now after 10 p.m. It will not be available in any proceedings before court later this afternoon.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am very much obliged. The hon. Member always helps me. We do not need Hansard. We could call the Clerks to give their views and information. The motion before the House asks for the Clerks to give views and information.
I am a little upset. I have been in this House for 30 years. Why am I not being called? I would give my views. I have nothing against the Clerks, who are very straight, honourable, able and capable gentlemen and I would not doubt their word. But there are some hon. Members who have been here for 30 years and perhaps some of us should be called. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would be willing to be called in respect of this debate.
Where will all this end? Why are we doing this in one particular case, which I will not mention as it might make you 247 cross, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not like cross men in this House. I must not mention particular cases and I will not do so.
I have a high regard for the former Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, and I would hate to think I had been party to his being taken to court because he had published articles in respect of which a petition might be brought forward and our Clerks might be directed to go against Mr. Macmillan. I have no objection to what Mr. Macmillan and Lord Avon wrote.
If any hon. or right hon. Member wants to divulge what happens in Cabinet, I do not mind; the more that is divulged, the better. We have all proclaimed at election time that we are in favour of open government, and our own manifesto included a commitment to open government. So let us have open government. There is nothing to hide, is there? It would be very good.
An old friend of mine—we used to sit in the same classroom—is now in another place. He is a straight, honest, able and capable man. I refer to Lord George-Brown, who has claimed in public that certain things he has said are 100 per cent. the Gospel truth. I believe him. But other people who are also 100 per cent. honest, straightforward and decent say the reverse. I do not know who is right.
I would like to see everything published, or, and I am being serious, we should introduce a rule to prevent Ministers publishing their memoirs in the first five years out of office. They would then cease to get the big money they receive now.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I got carried away because I was so interested in what the hon. Member was saying. I should have pulled him up earlier. The question is whether representatives of the House shall give evidence in court.

§ Mr. Lewis
I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I was trying to explain that if we introduced a rule that Ministers could not write their memoirs for a certain period, we would not have to argue about this petition tonight. The memoirs would be stale news, our Clerks would not be needed to give evidence, 248 and the Ministers would not be able to get the high fees they get at present. That would help our anti-inflation programme. We could stop Ministers from getting hundreds of thousands of pounds in that way.
I do not think that we should waste the time of the House with this petition. Let the courts deal with the matter in whatever way they think fit, or let us have open government and permit the courts to have any information they may call for. Let this House give the courts the right to demand whatever papers or documents they might wish.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
Whatever else this unmentionable book contains, will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that a lot of it is not stale news in the present context?

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes, but if we made it a rule that no Minister should write a book of what happened until five years after leaving office a lot of these problems would not occur.

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I agree very much with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It seemed to me that there might be something for saying that no Cabinet Minister should write his description of Cabinet events less than 30 years after those events had taken place.
I should like now to turn to this list of Hansard references. Having read all the debates I was annoyed to find that two of the references were not relevant. I read the whole of Hansard for 1886 and 1946 and could find no reference which could conceivably have applied to this case. I might have spent a happier weekend if the Solicitor-General had left the incorrect ones out of my homework.
There is some interesting reading in the debate of 1806 from Charles James Fox. It reads: But. to return to Lord Mansfield; it really surprised me to hear it remarked upon, as a new and surprising article of intelligence, that that noble Lord was so many years in the Cabinet, and that some gentlemen heard it this night for the first time. What, that Lord Mansfield could have been so many years in the Cabinet with such different administrations, with Lord Chatham, the Duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Grenville, and all the time have kept snug in the corner and be unknown". 249 I was wondering how that was relevant to this particular trial, and I supposed that the éminence grise comes in here in the form of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). They are trying to pretend that he has never been in the Cabinet and that no one has heard that he is a Cabinet Minister. This must be the basis of the prosecution in the forthcoming action. We want to know the real reason for quoting Charles James Fox. I do not see how the Editor of Hansard, with all the respect that hon. Members hold for him, can possibly know whether Charles James Fox actually said that or not.
It is a long time since Charles James Fox is alleged to have made these remarks, and it is asking a great deal of the Editor of Hansard to appear in court later this afternoon and say that this was what Charles James Fox said in 1806. He has no means of determining such a fact any more than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I, or, for that matter, the court. That leads me to the conclusion not only that this quotation is of dubious relevance, whatever the Attorney-General may wish to make of it in court, but also that it is, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said on Friday, a little silly. Anybody can read Hansard. One can buy it and, presumably, make a film of it. We quote it freely in this House. Yet it cannot be adduced as evidence in court, and Officers of Hansard have to be troubled to go to court and produce it.
Surely, the truth of the matter is that we should not insist upon this curious procedure any more. By a sidewind, it has been of enormous benefit to the House since it has enabled it to express its deep disquiet about the selective use of the injunction weapon against some Cabinet Ministers, unhappily deceased, who have seen fit to reveal what they thought of Cabinet proceedings, but not against others. This is really why the debate has arisen, because hon. Members have deep misgivings about the propriety of the present course of action.
Having said that, however, I feel that we cannot trust to luck to that extent in the future. If any future Government were to make such an asinine decision as the present Government have done in relation to this injunction, it would be asking to much of good fortune to 250 believe that we should be able to catch it up in debate simply by the chance of whether the prosecution wanted to quote Hansard in court.
I suggest that the House would be wise to consider whether it is imposing an unnecessary duty on the Editor of Hansard, and whether we should be quite so jealous of the record of proceedings up to 170 years ago and what hon. Members were recorded as having said. Ought we not to adopt new procedures and drop this whole thing?

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
If I may have the leave of the House to speak, I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) put his finger on the nub of the matter, especially in his closing remarks. I wonder whether the time has come when the House should be a little less jealous of its precious possession, the rights to Hansard, rights which are freely enjoyed by the whole world except by our own courts of justice. It seems a rather odd situation.
I felt that the Solicitor-General was enormously helped—oddly enough—by his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who quite unnecessarily dragged in all that mumbo-jumbo about a radical approach, and even produced from under the carpet that hoary old creature, the Labour Party manifesto. At that point, I confess, any sympathy which I had—and I had a good deal at one time—for the case against the Government pretty well evaporated.
Then we had the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who spoke with his accustomed eloquence of his love for his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am bound to say that he did not give too much proof of it tonight, but the hon. Gentlemen is known for his restraint in these matters, and perhaps it is just as well. The hon. Gentleman wondered where we were getting to, and I think that he took the whole House with him in that, because I, too, began to wonder about our destination.
The hon. Gentleman went on to permit himself one or two liberal remarks, and suggested—horror of horrors—that he might be jumping the gun. I do not think that any of us felt that he was 251 going about his business too quickly. However, when the hon. Gentleman then perpetrated the most horrid pun I have ever heard, talking about cross men, he put himself quite beyond the pale for the evening, and exhausted all that enormous tolerance which he has earned over years of affection in the House of Commons. I hope that he never permits himself to commit such sins again. Nevertheless, I am sure that the glowing testimonies which the hon. Gentleman paid to Lord Avon and Mr. Harold Macmillan will bring blushes to their cheeks and make them warm with gratitude towards him.
The Solicitor-General graciously repeated the apologies which he offered the House the other day. This place has an almost insatiable appetite for apologies. I am sure that the House will be glad to accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. We also accept that it was none of his fault. He is here shouldering the blame for other people who failed to think at all. I am sure that on this occasion he at least can leave the House conscious of the fact that his own reputation is wholly unsullied. Indeed, he has done the honourable thing in shouldering the blame for others higher up the ladder.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made one or two remarks that should be mentioned very briefly. He said that the practice was that one did not present one's own petition. That should not go unchallenged. Normally petitions in this place are presented on behalf of those who are not Members and, therefore, have no opportunity to present their own petitions. The idea that Ministers, who are in a position to present their own petitions, should be excused from doing so has very little foundation. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will warn his right hon. and learned Friend that in future he must come and do his own work here.
The hon. Member told us that "this lawyer"—meaning himself—did not enjoy gobbledegook. In that case his will be a very worthy presence in the present administration. We wish him all good fortune in infusing a measure of good language and general literary hygiene throughout an administration which is given to even nastier language than is usual for an administration.
252 My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly questioned whether this was a Government motion, with an asterisk against it on the Order Paper and so on. This should be understood for the future: one cannot eat one's cake and have it, and motions must be Government motions or not.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) earned the gratitude of the whole House for reminding us, as if we did not already know, that the Attorney-General was not a politician. We have always held the right hon. Gentleman very close to our hearts, but this evening for that piece of news we are deeply indebted to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), in attacking the Government, went very near to giving a characteristic reason for conceding the case, which is the only issue, as being why we deny to the courts what is freely available to everyone else. The Solicitor-General was right to assume that the House would not wish to impede the courts. That must be right. At the same time, we should not wish to see the courts either unduly bored or unduly deprived.
I look at the schedule of delights to be extended to them for their enjoyment—Fox, Gladstone, Baldwin and Baldwin again, Morrison, Attlee and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. How can we possibly deny the courts those sources and Crossman as well? I do not see what the courts have done to have the last three entries inflicted upon them, those coming from the present Prime Minister.
The Government brought this entirely upon themselves. This is one of those parliamentary occasions that occur from time to time and that in the past would always have been a source of cries for the attendance of such odd animals as the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, strange people who have no possible interest in the proceedings. But tonight I have spared you these, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that on the whole my hon. Friends would be right to allow the courts the very great privilege of having the limited access to our records which is now proposed. I am awfully sorry that the Solicitor-General had to carry the burden of other people's incompetence and thoughtlessness.

§ Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell and Wishaw)
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General mentioned another affidavit referring to proceedings in this House. Would he care to say from whom that affidavit came?

§ The Solicitor-General
It was served on my right hon. and learned Friend by those acting for Times Newspapers Ltd.

§ Dr. Bray
I am not quite clear whether that gives the information that I was after. I was asked by the defendants to swear an affidavit, and in it I made a passing reference to certain proceedings of this House. Those proceedings are not listed in the petition.
As I understand it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you cannot accept a manuscript amendment, and if we wish to move one we must get Mr. Speaker out of bed, something which he may or may not be keen to have happen. So wide-ranging is the evidence which has been submitted to the courts in this case that it would be a restrictive list to confine the references to those mentioned.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It may help hon. Members if I tell the House that Mr. Speaker's consideration has been given to a manuscript amendment.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that whoever is the occupant of the Chair is at liberty under the rules of the House to accept an amendment, just as he is at liberty to call whomever he wishes in a debate?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand that this is the one area where we are restricted, and that the selection of a manuscript amendment is tied to Mr. Speaker. However, that need no hold up the House any longer.

§ Dr. Bray
That being so, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend could help us. If there are proceedings of the House which have been referred to in affidavits, and which will appear in court in this case, is the threat that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned in his speech, that this will rule the evidence out of court, to be enforced, so that the affidavits will not be admitted as evidence in the case?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before calling the Solicitor-General to move the manuscript amendment which Mr. Speaker has accepted, I want to call one other hon. Member who has been trying to catch my eye.

§ Dr. Bray
I gave way to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see whether he wished to reply to my points.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say that I should be prepared to move the manuscript amendment which would be in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). What course the court would take in admitting any specific reference is a matter that I must not attempt to pre-empt. It is entirely a matter for the court, but, as I now understand it, the House would be giving leave for any appropriate debate to be produced.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
So much wrath and scorn seems to have been directed towards my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the past hour and a half that I think it would be appropriate for me to say, as the late Dick Crossman's PPS, that this is a many-sided matter in the same way as Dick Crossman was the many-sided and complex man.
Some hard things have been said about the Attorney-General which are less than fair. However, I suspect that Dick Crossman's shadow might be laughing at the various parliamentary misfortunes that have overtaken him and the Solicitor-General in the past three days. It is exactly the type of thing that happened to Dick Crossman when he was Lord President of the Council.
I understand that the Attorney-General, as guardian of the public good, has taken certain initiatives. Of course, a great deal of money is involved in these matters. It is relevant to ask on whose authority a Minister has embarked upon such a massive expenditure of public funds. This matter could continue for day after day. 255 We have already seen some lawyers rubbing their hands and saying that this is a fascinating constitutional case. That may be, but I for one would think it wrong if, for instance, Mr. Crossman's widow were to have to bear much of the expense. If she does not and the defendants do not, who will bear the cost? There is a real issue as to what extent the Treasury and the State should bear the costs, however fascinating the case may be. I should like some explanation on that matter.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before the Solicitor-General replies, I must tell the House that the question of why the case is being held is not one for discussion tonight.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I purposely did not ask why the case was being hold, nor did I stray into the pros and cons of the case. The question I asked was directly concerned with the provision of finance. That is a slightly different question.

§ The Solicitor-General
This has been a lively debate and for many of us a memorable occasion. I make no complaint at this late hour about the nature of some parts of the debate. Without an element of levity our discussions would be burdensome indeed. I must take comfort from the love of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
But this is a serious matter and it is a matter which might become a serious precedent. I am grateful for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I can assure the House that the reason for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General not presenting the petition was not because he wished to take refuge in any procedural niceties. He would have been delighted to argue this matter himself. In a different situation I, too, would be happy to argue some of the issues which have been raised tonight. More than once I have been tempted to embark on a debate on the merits of the action or on political theory. Some day I shall take the opportunity of doing so, I promise myself that. However, it would be wrong to do so tonight and I shall not permit myself that luxury. It happens to be the case that the proper 256 course of action is for me to confine myself to the specific questions which have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked what it was precisely that the House was being asked to authorise. The answer is set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's petition. The House is being asked that it will be graciously pleased to give leave to the proper Officers of the House to attend the trials of the said actions and to produce the said Reports, and formally to prove the same accordingly to their competence. It is as limited as that.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that it is a little odd that the proper Officers of the House should be able to prove what was said by Mr. Fox in this House some 200 years ago. I accept that. It is a rule of evidence that a document can be produced to the court if it is produced from the proper custody, if there is no better evidence. The reason is as technical as that. Certainly it might be said that at this stage it is odd that the leave of the House is required for that to be done when it can be seen in every history book, textbook and magazine in the kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) suggested that I said on Friday that even if leave were given it would not make much difference. I did not follow that part of his argument because if I said that on Friday it was not intentional. Two consequences would follow if leave were not given tonight. One would be that the court would not have the advantage of these reports, and if it is hoped that the court will arrive at a proper and just conclusion that would be a serious matter. The second consequence is that there would be a precedent for this House having refused its assistance to the courts. I would hope that the House would feel that that is an undesirable precedent.
The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) asked whether these reports would be admissible because they may or may not be relevant. All I can say is that it would be wrong for me to try to suggest what conclusions the court might arrive at. It is for the court. If the court decided that, even though the House had given leave, these reports 257 were not properly admissible or not relevant the court would act accordingly.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)
Can the hon. and learned Member tell us whether he will be able to help us in coming to a conclusion by quoting one or two extracts from the diaries so that we can make a decision?

§ The Solicitor-General
The answer to that is "No."
The other question raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East was what was the legal basis for this action. It would be wrong if I attempted now to embark on the kind of legal argument which the court will be called upon to consider. Broadly, there is a distinction between the 30-year-rule, which we all know exists—whether or not it should—and the law. It may or may not be the case that in due course it will transpire that the law enforces the 30-year-rule.

§ Mr. Aitken
What law?

§ The Solicitor-General
That is precisely the question on which I cannot be drawn. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that. That there is a 30-year-rule we all accept. Whether there is a legal remedy to anyone for breach of that rule is the matter which the court will be called upon to decide. Clearly I must not embark upon an attempt to argue that question now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said that he assumed that what was now being required would assist my right hon. and learned Friend's case. I thought that I had attempted to answer that earlier. If any other party believes that any other debate will now be of assistance to the court, if the House accepts the amendment I am about to move it will be open to any other party to produce it.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
May I ask a question arising from the intervention of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)? While I do not ask the Solicitor-General to argue whether there is a law, may I ask him to give us a reference so that we may look it up? I would like to know whether my hon. and learned Friend can give us this information. Surely the Solicitor-General can tell us that there is a law which we can 258 look up. The hon. Member for Thanet, East and I could sit down together and check it for ourselves.

§ The Solicitor-General
I do not wish to be unhelpful but if I were to embark upon that it would lead the debate into such questions as whether my source was the appropriate one or whether some alternative source was better. The only advice I can offer to my hon. Friend is that if he looks in The Times Law Reports, possibly the day after tomorrow, he might find something that is of assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of the finance connected with this action. Whether this is a desirable action is a question on which I clearly cannot embark. But that it is financed out of the appropriate Vote is not surprising. Many prosecutions in this country are financed out of a Government Vote. They are not in any sense political prosecutions. They are not propounded by a Government Minister and they are not embarked upon for political reasons. That situation, therefore, is not unusual.
I do not think I have left any questions unanswered. What I think remains for me to do is to attempt to give effect to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which I rather felt met with the wishes of the House. I think that the proper course is for me to say what amendments I had in mind and then, since it is my own motion, to invite my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department formally to move them.
I must confess that my mind has been on things other than the draftsmanship of the amendments during the last few minutes. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me as I read out what has been drafted: in line 1, after "given", insert to all parties to the said actions"; and in line 2, leave out "the said" and insert "any". I think I am right in saying that that will give effect to what is desired. My intention throughout has been to invite the House to assist the court in the duty which has been imposed upon it.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
May I raise a point for the removal of doubt? The 259 word "said" appears more than once. The hon. and learned Gentleman means the final "said".

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am grateful. The word "said" is in line 2, but I think the hon. Gentleman is right that the word "said" also occurs in line 3. I think the answer to that would be that it would follow from the reference in line 2. I do not think there is a problem there.
Amendment proposed: In line 1, after "given", insert to all parties to the said actions".—[Mr. Davidson.]

§ Mr. English
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General because, although it was not apparent on the written copy on Friday when we discovered some of the errors, it is now clear on the printed document that there are four, not two, errors. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) might like to know that had they been taken out, he would have lost two out of the three references to "Prime Minister", which he advocated earlier. The more important point is that I hope that in future when we have petitions of this type they will be drafted in such a way, by whoever drafts them—I understand that it is not my hon. and learned Friend or his office—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
As it appears that 40 Members are not present, the Question is not decided and the business stands over until the next sitting.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not say whether Mr. Speaker had selected the manuscript amendment of which I had given him notice before he left the Chair and went to bed.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me. I began the debate by saying that Mr. Speaker had not selected the two amendments standing in the hon. Gentleman's name.

§ Mr. English
I am talking about the third amendment. You mentioned the two amendments on the Order Paper. I am talking about the manuscript amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I saw the hon. Gentleman's manuscript amendment as well. Mr. Speaker did not select it. I am sorry if I did not indicate that decision to him.

Division No. 290.]	AYES	[2.0 a.m.
Archer, Peter	Dalyell, Tam	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Armstrong, Ernest	Davidson, Arthur	Rooker, J. W.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Benyon, W.	English, Michael	Weatherill, Bernard
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Woodall, Alec
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Harper, Joseph
Cohen, Stanley	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Coleman, Donald	Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)	Mr. David Stoddart and
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Mr. James A. Dunn-
Cryer, Bob	Penhaligon, David

NOES
	Cohen, Stanley
	Coleman, Donald
	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
	Mr. Jonathan Aitken and
	Mr. Norman Lamont.