ANGUILLA (Hansard, 5 May 1969)

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
On a point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise this point of order, which concerns Anguilla. I have two points to put to you, both of which, I submit, are out of order in this House.
First of all, the Foreign Secretary told us some days ago that there had been a case of murder in Anguilla. It is now within the recollection of the House—it was spoken a few seconds ago—that there had not been any charge of murder whatsoever. It has now been reduced, at best, to an alleged case of manslaughter, and I submit that it is wholly wrong that this House should be used to charge that there was murder when there was no murder, and when the trial has yet to take place.
The second aspect of my point of order concerns the White Paper. The Foreign Secretary undertook to consider—I understood, sympathetically—the publication of a White Paper so that these matters could be set out on the record. Am I correct in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn that undertaking, which was given in a previous Answer?

§ Mr. Marten
On precisely the same point of order. I have here the quotation from HANSARD. The Foreign Secretary specifically said, "cases of murder". We are now told by the Under-Secretary of State that it was in the singular and not in the plural.
Second, on the question of the arson, the Answer which we were given today has been misleading, because one case of arson was purely a commercial case of arson and in the other there was no evidence of arson as such. We are getting into a position where we are not getting 32 the truth out of Foreign Office Ministers—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must not drift, when raising points of order, into points of argument between hon. Members and Ministers with whose Answers they are not satisfied.
I cannot comment on the question of murder, singular, or murders, plural, arson, or the promise or otherwise or the failure or otherwise to issue a White Paper. The only point of order which concerns me was that I heard that a case was still on trial, and therefore I ruled that the House could not discuss it, because it would be sub judice.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The Foreign Secretary will realise that he used very specific words—"cases of arson", "cases of murder". Would he take an early opportunity to clear up this matter personally?

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)
The actual words which I used were "cases of arson and murder". I did not intend to mean that both of those were in the plural. If I gave the House that impression, I apologise and I regret it. There seemed to be reason to believe that the case which has now been reduced to manslaughter was a case of murder.
The House will remember that the point which I was making was the general lawlessness of the island, which prevented these cases being brought to trial. If they could have been dealt with in the proper way, if law and order had been prevailing in the island, it would not have been necessary for me to make this reference at all. But the substance of what I said was true, that the law was being defied, that serious crimes were being committed, and that it was necessary to restore law and order in the island.
Since the further point of the White Paper has been raised, I should say that I promised no more than to consider whether one is necessary. I am still prepared, as I made clear this afternoon, to consider that, but I am bound to say that the amount of fresh argument for having one which hon. Members have so far produced I do not find very impressive.

§ Viscount Lambton
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not on a point of order at the moment. We are on a point of difference of opinion between both sides of the House. We cannot launch a debate under the guise of a point of order. I can only take points of order if they are real points of order.

§ Viscount Lambton
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already ruled that it was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, it must be a new one.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
On a point of order. I am sure that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter for the order of the House that a person, a citizen of the British Commonwealth, under trial, should not be the subject of a statement in the privilege of this House that he has been guilty of murder. It is wrong.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on my side. I am ruling with reference to a citizen who is under trial on a grave charge. The matter is sub judice, and cannot be pursued further.

§ Viscount Lambton
On a separate point of order. Is it in order for a Minister in the other place to say one thing and the Under-Secretary of State to say another? Or is that a matter of argument between the two?

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that we are not going back to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). We have heard with great respect what you have said, Mr. Speaker. Was it, then, in order, at the time of the debate on Anguilla, for the Foreign Secretary to refer to the case of a British subject in the island of Anguilla against whom a charge of murder, which has since been reduced to manslaughter, was pending? Was it right for him to mention that case and thus prejudice the case of this British subject?

§ Mr. Speaker
All I am concerned with is whether it was sub judice. I cannot rule retrospectively on sub judice matters. From what the Foreign Secretary said, I gather that the man was not on trial at that stage.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Paget
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am trying to reduce the number of points of order, but I am not prepared to shorten the time by taking two at once.