I am glad Deputy Mitchell raised a number of questions in regard to the Office of the Attorney General because it gives me an opportunity to put certain matters on the record.
The Government is entirely happy with the advice it has received from the Attorney General since his appointment and with the manner in which he has discharged his functions. Much of the criticism of the Attorney General voiced by a number of sources, usually the same sources, both inside and outside this House, are very wide of the mark. Even though some of those critics are lawyers they do not seem to have grasped the fact that the courts have repeatedly stressed the independence of the Attorney General's role where the upholding of the Constitution is concerned. In the past few years a number of difficult and complex cases arose for consideration by the Attorney General which required to be litigated by him in his independent constitutional role. In those cases he was invariably found to have acted correctly in initiating the proceedings and almost invariably the arguments which he advanced in the proceedings have prevailed. Only the courts have the competence to decide on the appropriateness of the actions of the Attorney General in those areas.
In the light of the court's vindication of the Attorney General's actions it is regrettable that critics persist in misrepresenting the position. Many of those critics have rushed to utter their criticism before the court had given any judgment and were then proved wrong, but have refrained from acknowledging that they were wrong. It is regrettable that that should be the case and where the courts have upheld the advice of the Attorney General and his actions Members at least should accept that he has acted in accordance with the highest traditions of his office.