HC Deb 20 April 1978 vol 948 cc812-8

10.0 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the business of the House to seek your guidance and ruling. It is within the knowledge of hon. Members that during the course of this evening the Director of Public Prosecutions sent a memorandum to the editors of the national Press in Fleet Street consisting of two sentences. I wish to point out that this memorandum flies in the face of all that we thought this House stood for, in the sense that we thought that our proceedings could be reported factually, accurately and without prejudice to the public by the media.

The memorandum from the Director of Public Prosecutions reads as follows: The legality of revealing the identity of Colonel 'B' a witness in the prosecution of Aubrey, Berry and Campbell is the subject matter of pending proceedings for contempt of court before the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice. It is not accepted despite the naming of the colonel on the Floor of the House of Commons that the publication of his name would not be a contempt of court, even if it was part of a report of proceedings in the House. It is extremely important that this matter is settled speedily, that is, this evening, simply because if it is allowed to pass until tomorrow there will have been a fait accompli and the House and the public will have had taken away from them a right which they thought they already had.

This is really a simple matter. I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the detail of our proceedings earlier today because that is not in issue. The issue is a straightforward one, and you, Mr. Speaker, are the only person who can protect our rights and the rights of the public outside, in that the proceedings of this House are not the property of a civil servant, the Director of Public Prosecutions; they are the property of our constituents, the electorate. I ask you, if it is possible—and I have no doubt that you may have given some consideration to the matter during the evening—to rule on this important matter so that the public, hon. Members and the Press may know where they stand.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Director of Public Prosecutions had issued a notice saying that, because a certain name had been stated in the House, it did not necessarily mean that it would not be contempt of court to state it elsewhere, quite apart from fair reporting of our proceedings in this House, that would be obvious. But I think that what the Director of Public Prosecutions has said—and I have the report of it in my hand—is that even though it be fair reporting of our proceedings in the House, to repeat that name outside may be contempt of court. That seems to be contempt of Parliament—to give that direction to newspapers which are absolutely entitled and absolutely privileged to report cur proceedings in this House.

What the House will want to know, since the Director of Public Prosecutions comes directly under the Law Officers, is whether he has received any instructions from the Law Officers to make this statement. It is of vital importance to the newspapers. No doubt they have their presses already set up fairly to report what was said in the House. If they are to be told now, at this late stage, that this will be contempt of court and possibly contempt of the House, I hope that you will be able to correct the position at once.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Nelson and Colne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an anomaly here in that, as I understand it, this matter has already been reported on radio. Why should the Press be deprived of the same facilities as are now open to radio? Surely this raises an important issue which must be decided right away, particularly since it is giving an advantage to one part of the media as against another.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I further understand that these matters have been conveyed by television this evening, but I should also like to know whether the Official Report is concerned in a way by the steps which the Director of Public Prosecutions seems to be taking.

This afternoon, as you will know, several of my hon. Friends referred to this matter, and presumably at that time they were in order. I refer you to page 77 of the 18th edition of "Erskine May", which says: the publication, whether by order of the House or not, of a fair and accurate account of a debate in either House of Parliament is protected by the same principle as that which protects fair reports of proceedings in courts of justice, namely, that the advantage to the public outweighs any disadvantage to individuals unless malice is proved. I would have thought that, if the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions is upheld, it will be a substantial attack upon the freedom of the Press to report the proceedings of this House which has always been thought to have existed in the past.

I think that it is most urgent, in view of the new arrangements that we have for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, that you rule and make clear that there have been no changes to the proceedings and the protection which we thought to exist, and that, indeed, we should have the right to ask under what instructions the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken this step in regard to issuing his advice to the editors of the national Press.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out, the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions is susceptible of two constructions. One of these is, of course, a trite proposition of law—that if the identity of Colonel "B" has been reported outside this House, and independent of the proceedings of this House, that may well be a contempt of court. As to that, I do not propose to address you.

But if, on the other hand, the Director of Public Prosecutions is saying that the proper reporting of the proceedings of this House may in itself constitute a contempt of court, I would respectfully remind you, Sir, although I have no doubt the learned Clerks, if it were necessary to do so, have done so, of the case of Stockdale v Hansard in the last century.

As I understood the position, the point had been determined once and for all and the reports of proceedings in this House were absolutely privileged in all circumstances whatever. if that is the proper construction to be put on the Director of Public Prosecution's statement, I respectfully suggest that it may be very important, first, to summon him to this House to ask him to explain his proposition, and it may even be necessary to find out whether he was making that case on his own authority or on the authority and advice of the Attorney-General.

There are matters of grave constitutional importance. I had hoped that they had been determined once and for all in the last century, but I have no doubt that you will be able to give authoritative guidance, and in so doing you will perhaps be able to take the case of Stockdale v. Hansard a little further than we had appreciated that it had gone already.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened with anxious concern to the right hon. and hon. Members who have raised this important question with me.

May I say first of all to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) that of course our Official Report is not concerned at all. We publish a verbatim report of our proceedings, and this is the High Court of Parliament.

Secondly, I also heard the report on the 9 o'clock news tonight when I was away from the Chair. It is not for me, not for the Speaker of this House, to rule what is a contempt of court. That lies in other hands. It is for the legal authorities to decide what they consider to be a contempt of court. My task is to protect the privileges of this House, and I never rule on contempt, as a matter of fact—all that I do is to submit to the House, or to give an hon. Member the right to submit to the House, a motion that has precedence for the House itself to decide whether a matter is an issue of contempt.

I do not know whether I am being asked whether there has been a contempt of this House. I have heard tonight the report of our proceedings, and our proceedings will be reported in Hansard tomorrow—I hope. I cannot, therefore, advise people outside the House how they are to deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions in a matter of this sort.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Your guidance, Mr. Speaker, does not seek to indicate to the assembled Press in the Gallery whether they can go ahead—[Interruption.] Could we therefore have your guidance with more clarity on the question whether a contempt is being engaged in, because we are confused. We are being approached by the Press, and have been approached all evening, to give our opinions about what is happening. The guidance does not seem to be—I say this with the deepest respect—as clear as we would want it to be.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Before I hear any more hon. Members, let me make the position perfectly clear. The decision is not for me. It is for those who wish to publish. If they wish to publish, it is their decision. I protect the rights of this House. It is for them to decide whether they will be breaking the law. Undoubtedly, there is a difficult situation, but the House can stay here until 4 a.m. and I shall not rule on a decision which must be taken by the people concerned.

Mr. Graham Page

May I, then, Mr. Speaker, move that the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions is prima facie a contempt of this House, and should be referred to the Committee of Privileges."?

Mr. Speaker

Following recent precedents, I never rule on privilege when the matter is raised. I always ask for time to consider it. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will not expect me to go further than that tonight. I am quite prepared to rule on it tomorrow morning, when I shall have had time to consider it.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the point you have made and, indeed, accept the general argument, but would you not agree that the broadcasting of the House puts a different perspective entirely on the question? It means, in fact, that there is a differentiation between the House's attitude—or, indeed, the attitude of the DPP—towards the broadcasting of the House and the Press, the members of which are at this time inhibited from reporting what is generally public knowledge.

Mr. Speaker

It only happens to be a matter of good fortune that it arose on business questions and not on Prime Minister's Questions; otherwise it would have been broadcast to the nation. But that is something for others to take into account, and not for me.

Mr. Madden

I am most grateful for the advice that you have given to the House, Mr. Speaker, and for your statement that you will give a further ruling. But I should like to seek your further advice with regard to the repercussions on those who may tomorrow seek to republish matters which are reported in the Official Report. As you have rightly said, we must presume that the exchanges on business questions will be reported in the Official Report, and therefore I should like to know from you what protection we have, in publishing the Official Report, from any attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against the Official Report on ground of contempt.

I think that this is a matter of consequence and one which requires clear guidance from yourself as to what rights of protection those who re-publish matters which are published in the Official Report tomorrow can expect to have from this House.

Mr. Speaker

Let me make it perfectly clear that the High Court of Parliament is sovereign, and we shall publish our proceedings verbatim.

Mr. Rooker

I am grateful for the statement that you have made, Mr. Speaker. When considering the submission of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will you accept that the real point at issue is not one of contempt of court? It is the fact that someone—in this case a civil servant—has interfered with the reporting of the proceedings of this House to the public outside. That is the crucial issue and we cannot let it pass without bringing this civil servant to book.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

When you consider this problem, Mr. Speaker, will you examine another important aspect? It would have been possible for the broadcasting authorities to broadcast extracts from our deliberations, as they do almost every evening. They have not yet started on one particular programme. There is now a possibility of a public servant setting himself tip as a censor of the BBC, ITN or anyone else if he feels that there might be something dangerous in broadcasting certain aspects of this evening's proceedings and as a result withholds them. That is bad enough, but it would also mean that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be automatically viewed by the media as a form of censor.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to all hon. Members. I shall take account of everything that has been said and give a considered ruling to the House tomorrow morning.