§ 37. Mr. Aitkenasked the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library a copy of the evidence he submitted to Lord Radcliffe's Committee on the publication of ministerial memoirs.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, Sir. Publication of the text of my evidence will be a matter for Lord Radcliffe's Committee when it reports.
§ Mr. AitkenWill the Attorney-General explain the discrepancy between the dove-ish personal views favouring the relaxation of these rules, which he gave to Lord Radcliffe's Committee, and the much more hawkish argument which he advanced before the court in his efforts to get the Crossman diaries suppressed? As so many of those arguments seem to be legally wrong as a result of the Lord Chief Justice's argument, would not the Attorney-General be much wiser to stick to personal views throughout and save the taxpayer a great deal of money?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. Gentleman is mixing up two different points. As I explained when he asked the same question on a previous occasion, the duty of the Attorney-General is to ensure that the existing law is obeyed. Far from the judgment of Lord Widgery contradicting the arguments put forward, 25 it supported the main argument which I put before the court. The difference was in the application of the argument and the law to the facts of the case. I am entitled, like any other Minister, to express my views on the question whether the law should remain as it is. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference, I am sorry.
§ Mr. BrittanIn saying that he will not publish his evidence to Lord Radcliffe's Committee, will the Attorney-General confirm that he has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) saying that the account of his evidence which appeared in The Guardian did so as a result of an authorised leak from the Attorney-General? If that is right, is it not better for the whole of that evidence to be available to Members of Parliament rather than for a selected portion of it to be available to the readers of The Guardian?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, Sir, I did not say that it was a leak which had been authorised by myself. I said—this is the fact—that Lord Radcliffe's Committee gave me permission to express the gist of my evidence as I gave it to the committee. The Press notice issued on behalf of the committee under Lord Radcliffe stated in terms that any submissions made to the committee would be treated in confidence, unless otherwise agreed subsequently. To the extent that it was agreed that I could give the gist of my evidence, that permission was given.