§ 31. Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Attorney-General why he has decided not to refer the matter of privileged communication to the Law Commission.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe matter was considered by the Law Reform Committee in its sixteenth report, published in 1967. It concluded that the law at that time was broadly right and, as it has undergone no significant change since that date, it is not thought there is any present need for a further review.
§ Mr. JannerIs not the Attorney-General aware that there is grave unease among journalists at the distinct possibility of their being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose their sources? Will not he consider my Bill, which is designed to protect journalists where the public in- 25 terest so demands? Will he undertake to introduce such legislation in the next Session, if the opportunity arises?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt would be wiser for the House to await the decision of the other place, which is likely to consider a case soon. In the meantime, there does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that the present law inhibits free expression or, in suitable cases, fails to protect confidential communications. In general, the court must still balance the interests of those involved against the need to reach a just conclusion in judicial proceedings.
§ Mr. ArcherDoes the Attorney-General agree that the type of balance to which he referred is essentially a political question? Does not he accept that whatever the existing law may be held to be it is ultimately a matter for debate and decision by Parliament?
§ The Attorney-GeneralWe cannot comment on the present case, but when it is concluded I am sure that the House will be able to discuss this problem.