---

Armed Forces Bill

It is difficult not to be repetitious in dealing with this group of amendments, which goes to the question of whether a service man can question the legality of the war or of an operation in which he is asked to take part. I probably shall not avoid that difficulty, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is wrong to think that it is impossible to determine the advice of the Attorney-General. It is an important constitutional principle that the advice which the Attorney-General gives in so many words to the Government is not to be made public, but of course he is answerable to Parliament. He is brought before Parliament and he has to explain in what respects he considers that the action of the Government is lawful. Unless he is able to do that, the Government will fall. We remember the most recent instance of this, when the Attorney-General came before Parliament and explained the basis upon which he considered that the actions of the Government were lawful. It is not the case that everybody has to accept the opinion of the Attorney-General and nobody can find out what it is. I invite the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, to consider what his amendment means by the words, "““thereafter forms the likely intention””." I am not sure what a likely intention is. He might like to reflect on that because it brings into question who has the burden of proof and of what. I should be grateful if that could be explored.