§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Attorney-General on 6 November (WA 128–129), whether the study by Edwards, the Attorney-General, Politics and the Public Interest (1984) is correct in stating that the constitutional convention "enables considerations of political advantage or embarrassment to govern the decision whether to reveal" advice from the Law Officers; and, if not, what is their understanding of the correct position. [HL5480]
§ Lord GoldsmithBy long-standing convention, observed by successive governments, the fact of and substance of the Law Officers' advice is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. This enables the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence, as everyone else can. The exceptions to this are rare and are made where there is an overwhelming public interest in disclosure.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Attorney-General on 6 November (WA 128–129), whether Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice is correct in stating that the constitutional convention that the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown are confidential and so are not generally disclosed is subject to the qualification that "if a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, he is entitled to cite them in debate", and, if not, what is their understanding of the correct position.[HL5479]
§ Lord GoldsmithThe extract from Erskine May, to which the noble Lord refers, paraphrases a statement by Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister in a debate in the House of Commons in 1865. However, the statement was addressing the question whether there was anything contrary to the rules of the House in reading or citing any opinion of the Law Officers and not the circumstances in which the convention on non-disclosure of the Law Officers' advice may be departed from.