§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the office and conduct of the Attorney-General.First, the matter is specific, since it arises from the evidence of Sir Robert Armstrong, whereby he withdrew his earlier testimony that the decision not to seek to prohibit the publication of the book "Their Trade is Treachery" was the decision of the Attorney-General.Secondly, the matter is important in that it is commonly understood that a decision on what is in the public interest is a matter for the Attorney-General and does not engage the collective responsibility of the Government. That was the understanding of Sir Robert Armstrong. Among the precedents are the Crossman Diaries and the Gouriet case, where the decision to seek an injunction was taken, if hon. Members did not know it, by the Attorney-General.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister told the House that in the Wright case the decisions were taken by the Government, not by individual Ministers. She said that the Government were indivisible. If that is what has happened, it is a radical departure. The matter is urgent because, apparently, there has been a departure from the well-known and established convention. The role of the Attorney-General as the independent legal adviser of the Government is deemed superfluous. Other anonymous lawyers supplant his role. Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, as in the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter in the Westland affair, arrogantly assume to themselves the Attorney-General's long-standing constitutional duties. The Attorney-General is answerable to this House. If his role is now understood to be different, the matter should be debated urgently by the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. and learned Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the office and conduct of the Attorney-General.I listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given preference over the Orders set down for today or tomorrow, and to take into account the criteria of the Standing Order. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which he has raised meets all those criteria and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.