§ 67. Mr. Bellasked the Attorney-General what further legislation he will bring in further to consolidate the Contempt of Court Act.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNone, Sir.
§ Mr. BellDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that it is fitting to bring in legislation to prevent the Attorney-General from going on Radio 4 and discanting on possible sentences for contempt of court by Mr. Arthur Scargill, or telling the nation why he proposes to prosecute a senior civil servant for disclosing matters
which I say he had no right to disclose"?Is this not a case of "Physician, heal thyself."?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI had hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who wrote to me on that topic, would at least have taken the trouble to obtain the transcript of both occasions. The occasion involving Mr. Arthur Scargill was one when I was asked to explain, contrary to what Mr. Scargill had been maintaining, that this was a case, brought by two Yorkshire miners arising out of a breach of contract, about the rights of any member of any club, association or trade union when those in charge of that organisation are breaking the law. That is what I was asked to explain, and I did. During my explanation I made comments that came nowhere near the comments that have been made.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the case of Mr. Ponting. The question arose out of the publication of a book by Professor Edwards and as a result of many allegations that I had consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which was totally untrue. I was asked why I had not consulted in this case. I said:
It didn't strike me as something which was necessary. In this particular case—and again I've got to be very careful because it's coming up—it was simply a question of a very senior civil servant who had disclosed matters which I say he had no right to disclose. But that would be a matter for the court. That is the basis of the prosecution.410 That was the basis of the prosecution as published at the committal proceedings that preceded that interview.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggDoes my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most of his right hon. and hon. Friends believe that all that he did in the case of Mr. Scargill was to outline the powers available to the court and emphasise that it was entirely a matter for the court? That seems in no way objectionable.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was asked what the various powers were, and I answered. I was then asked in terms, "Can Mr. Scargill be sent to prison?" and I said that that was one of the powers that were open to the court, but that it would be a matter entirely for the court.
§ Mr. John MorrisDoes the Attorney-General agree that, in commenting as he did on the Ponting case on Radio 4, he has caused difficulty, particularly to the House, because, having regard to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask him to confirm here what he said outside? Therefore, would it not be more prudent if the Attorney-General did not comment on cases before the courts and bore in mind the limitations that we have here in questioning him on any statement that he makes outside?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe problem is this. That was a tiny part of quite a long interview. The whole programme took half an hour. I was asked in particular by the interviewer, who is reputable and highly respected, about Professor Edwards' comments on the duties of a Law Officer. That comment was purely incidental. What we were seeking to do was to discuss whether consultation had, or should have, taken place, or why it did not take place with other Ministers. That is what it was all about.