MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL (Hansard, 22 February 1977)

§ Mr. Arthur Latham (Paddington, North)
May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a quite different matter, but one which is quite important constitutionally? Will you inform the House of the information that I understand you have received concerning legal proceedings relating to one of the two men whose cases we were to have discussed tonight? May I ask whether you will allow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or my right hon. Friend the 1368 Home Secretary to make a brief statement to dispose of two points? The first is to make it clear that if it is not possible to proceed with the debate tonight there is a definite undertaking that there will be a proper debate in the House in the near future. Secondly, will my right hon. Friends give some undertaking that there will be no question of deporting Mr. Hosenball or Mr. Agee until this House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not know whether anyone is trying to catch my eye on this point, but I understand that a writ has been issued today and that proceedings will take place tomorrow. The matter concerning Mr. Agee is therefore sub judice.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the Government's intention to have a debate today. It is still the Government's intention to have a debate. I feel strongly about the matter because it is my responsibility. I am prepared to justify my actions to the House of Commons but the fact that the matter is sub judice prevents this from happening.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Prime Minister—Business motion.

§ Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)
Not moved.

§ Mr. Speaker
May I indicate that the Government have not moved the Business motion but have moved the ordinary Adjournment motion, and that from now on any points of order will come out of the time allotted to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Christopher Price
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), who has the Adjournment debate, but important matters are raised by the position in which we find ourselves. The distinct possibility exists that while the sub judice element for one of these two people may be disposed of, the other may continue for some time. It might be that the case which is sub judice will continue during a period in which the other man is deported. We ought not to leave the matter until we get some firmer assurances from the Government on this point.
May I put one further point about your discretion, Mr. Speaker, on sub judice, which you will remember I have raised in the House before? Under a resolution of this House in 1972 we altered the rules under which you could use your discretion to allow a debate, even though a matter was technically sub judice. If in the future one of these gentlemen was about to be deported but the other was, for one reason or another, technically sub judice, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider being prepared to use that discretion which the House invested in you. under certain instructions in the 1972 resolution, then to allow a debate on this important matter. This would ensure that one or other of the two men was not deported without the debate which the Leader of the House had already advised the House of.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Government did not move the Business motion and I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) to open the Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Whitehead
Shame.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is quite unheard of—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is quite unheard of for hon. Members to take a Private Member's Adjournment time on points of order when obviously they can consume the half hour, after which I shall leave the Chair because the time will have run out. I must make it quite clear that the Government have not moved the Business motion.

§ Mr. Whitehead
Shame.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
With respect—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am on my feet. The Government have not moved the motion.

§ Mr. Rose
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), but this is a matter which involves the civil liberty of a person who is to be deported and perhaps should take precedence. In the Business motion the proposed subjects for debate are Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. As far as Mr. Hosenball is concerned the matter is not sub judice, and it is quite proper that a debate should take place about him.
Equally, the procedure adopted in this case is not sub judice. Therefore, there seems to be no justification for the sudden decision, against all promises, not to hold this debate, and no reason, on the basis of the sub judice rule, to prevent a debate on Mr. Hosenball.
If this were an indictment, it would be severed, because these are two distinct cases and they could be debated distinctly. In any court of law they would be dealt with separately, and I ask that they be dealt with separately now, with a debate on Mr. Hosenball.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
May I suggest that the Government move their Business motion, in order that we may at any rate discuss the sub judice issue without taking time from the Adjournment debate? Then if it is decided that the matter is sub judice and that we cannot continue with the debate, we should not take any of the half hour allotted for the Adjournment debate. I am sure that the Government would be willing to do that and that the matter could be resolved thereafter.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am bound by the rules of order, and it is not possible for the Government, when we have started the next debate, to come back to a previous one for which the motion to begin it was not moved. We are on the half-hour Adjournment.
On the sub judice question, I can only say that my advice to the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was given on advice.

§ Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can speak only for myself, but I think that if the Government will give a clear undertaking to provide time for debate of both cases, and further undertake that neither Mr. Hosenball nor Mr. Agee will be deported before any such debate many hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the matter will feel at least some feeling of contentment. Unfortunately, that is not now clear and is not on the record. You decided last week, Mr. Speaker, that this was not a 1372 matter suitable to be raised under Standing Order No. 9. Many hon. Members who are deeply concerned about it want some assurance of the kind I have suggested. If both those commitments can be given I think that they will go some way towards meeting the concern of some hon. Members.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his earlier intervention that he had favoured a discussion and that he was to open the discussion had it not been for the ruling on the sub judice position and the action that led to that ruling. But we shall provide time at some future date for a debate on the subject in exactly the same kind of circumstances as we had envisaged. We shall of course take into account the representations that that debate should be held before any deportation takes place.