§ Harry CohenTo ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 835, what rules he is applying in respect of the release of the names of UK companies named in Iraq's declaration to the United Nations as supplying arms or weapon-making technology or material to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [91330]
§ The Prime MinisterInformation provided to us by UNMOVIC is done so in confidence, for the UK authorities to take appropriate action.
The task of analysing the Iraqi declaration is continuing. It would be wrong to conclude without such further analysis that companies whose names appear may have acted wrongfully. The premature publication of the names of individuals or companies that may appear in the declaration could therefore unjustifiably damage the reputations of such individuals or companies. Any evidence of wrongdoing disclosed by the Iraqi declaration will be vigorously investigated by the relevant authority and, where appropriate, further announcements may be made.
§ Mr. BluntTo ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral Answer of 15 January 2003, Official Report, column 680, to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), what the evidential basis was for his statement that the decision to seek an injunction is one for the Attorney General rather than the Government. [91864]
§ The Prime MinisterThe Attorney General has the power to apply to the courts for an injunction to prevent threatened criminal offences taking place. Under the common law, only the Attorney General can make such an application, because the courts have recognised that he represents the public interest before them. The power
86W
1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 Wales and West 17,168 16,203 14,071 12,254 13,097 Home Counties 11,643 10,996 10,477 9,697 6,514 London and South East 15,292 12,899 11,359 10,520 9,316 Midlands 11,113 9,160 8,834 8,138 7,494 Yorks and North East 11,926 11,292 10,996 8,421 8,862 North West 12,368 11,171 10,915 10,631 8,952 Scotland 10,970 8,784 8,477 8,204 8,372 Totals 90,480 80,505 75,129 67,865 62,607 is exercised in his independent judgment in that role rather than as a member of the Government. This is the long-established position in relation to functions the Attorney General exercises in the public interest. In 1951 the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said:
The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney General, and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in the matter. Nor, of course, can the Attorney General shift his responsibility for making the decision on to the shoulders of his colleagues. If political considerations which in the broad sense that I have indicated affect Government in the abstract arise it is the Attorney General, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations". [Hansard, 29 January 1951, volume 483, column 683].Although that was said in the context of prosecutions for criminal offences, it has been accepted by successive Governments ever since, that the same applies to the power to apply for an injunction.