§ 37. Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to amend the law relating to the disclosure of official information in the light of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Attorney-General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd. and Times Newspapers.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) on 22nd January 1976.
§ Mr. DalyellIf the authorities' attitude towards the publication of volumes two and three of Mr. Crossman's memoirs is, as we understand it, chivalrous and generous, does not the fact remain that the Lord Chief Justice's judgment is ambiguous? If these matters arise in the future, what do the Government propose to do about them?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThat is precisely what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the Question to which I have already referred. The Radcliffe Committee has reported, and its recommendations have been accepted by the Government and will be carried out.
§ Mr. WhiteheadDoes my right hon. and learned Friend expect to have to appear before the courts again over the publication of volume two of the Crossman diaries? Might it not be best to leave volumes two and three to be published so that we can judge the veracity of his comments for ourselves?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have not been privileged to read as far as volumes two and three, but my hon. Friend will have noted that the Radcliffe Committee recommended that such questions should as far as possible be dealt with without litigation or legislation—that is to say, as a matter of honour. There are certain exceptions that the Radcliffe Committee felt to be essential, and we shall have to see whether they arise in the case to which hon. Members have referred.