§ Mr. SpeakerYesterday I was asked to give a ruling. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) made a considered submission to me on how the Chair should exercise its discretion in permitting reference to be made to matters that are sub judice before the civil courts, in the light of the resolution of the House on the Question of 28th June 1972. I now want to reply to the important issues that he raised.
In the first place, I draw attention to the fact that the resolution of 1972 is prefaced by the phrase
subject to the discretion of the Chair".This governs all that follows, and places upon me the responsibility of exercising my judgment in each particular case. The remainder of the resolution constitutes guidance by the House as to how it wishes me to exercise my discretion in certain classes of case. Of course I pay very close attention to that guidance.I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the case with which he is particularly concerned I have considered whether the ministerial decision was one that could be challenged only on grounds of misdirection or of bad faith, and also whether the issues of national importance set out in the resolution of 1972 applied. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to seek to define those issues more closely than the resolution itself does, although the hon. Member invited me to do so.
I should like to say a word about the sub judice rule in general. It is, as the hon. Member quoted from the 1972 report,
the fundamental responsibility of Parliament to be the supreme inquest of the nation with 883 the overall responsibility to discuss anything it likes.It is to enable them to perform that function that hon. Members enjoy absolute privilege to speak in this Chamber without any court being able to question them.It is also an important principle that Parliament shall not influence, or seem to be seeking to influence, the administration of justice. The sub judice rule is therefore a self-denying ordinance instituted by the House in order to protect that principle. The fact that newspapers sometimes feel free to comment on issues that are still sub judice, as the hon. Member remarked, is another matter, since the courts may deal with them for contempt, and their views do not carry with them the weight of having been delivered in Parliament.
Having made those general remarks, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I recognise that the resolution of 1972 constituted a deliberate relaxation by the House of the sub judice rule in the area of public policy that it does go wider than the Industrial Relations Act; and that I shall exercise my discretion in favour of freer debate in every case in which I consider that I may properly do so.
The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made a final point about the freedom of Back Benchers to make submissions to me about the exercise of my discretion in particular cases. I assure them that I am always prepared to consider submissions—provided that they do not anticipate my decision by commenting on the matter that is awaiting judicial decision or contain comments that are out of order on other grounds.
In this particular case the hon. Member's object on Tuesday was to submit to me arguments that this particular issue did not fall within our rule on sub judice matters. Had he put forward his argument purely on the basis of the resolutions of the House and past precedents, as indeed he did yesterday, I would certainly have been prepared to hear him out. It was solely because, in my view, he began by reflecting on the courts that I intervened.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for that ruling, which has clarified the 884 matter. The 1972 resolution mentioned, among other things, that you should take into account "the essentials of life". I asked you to rule on that, but I understand that you have not felt able to say what it means, just as previous Leaders of the House have not felt able to say what it means. I submit that it can cover social issues, such as the row we had earlier this week, which is continuing, as well as economic and national defence issues.
I very much hope that you would be willing to see the 1972 resolution in that wider context, which includes social issues, when using your proper discretion on this matter in future.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Member very much.