HC Deb 24 April 1978 vol 948 cc1007-13
Mr. Speaker

Before calling the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) to make an application under Standing Order No. 9, which he has informed me concerns the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House, I have a brief statement to make.

On Thursday last when I did not intervene following questions naming the officer described as Colonel "B", the reason was that both my advisers and I were unaware that the matter was sub judice. I can only presume that my ignorance must have been shared by the rest of the House since our practice allows any hon. Member to draw the attention of the Speaker to any alleged breach of our rules, and no Member rose on a point of order.

Since then I have had inquiries made and it is quite clear to me that the identity of this officer forms an integral part of criminal proceedings and therefore clearly comes within the sub judice rule under which—and I quote from the Resolution of the House on 23rd July 1963— Matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction … should not be referred to … in any motion, … debate, or … question … including a supplementary question."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1417.] This resolution is expressed to have effect as regards criminal cases from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made and ceases to have effect only when the case is concluded. This is a rule of the House. All hon. Members are bound by it even if they do not like it and, as Speaker, I am bound to ensure that it is observed. The proper course for hon. Members who disapprove of the rule is for them to attempt to get it altered but not to flout or even to bend it.

Therefore, I must advise the House that I will not permit any further indentification of the officer nor any reference to the criminal cases in which he is involved.

Having put the House on notice in this matter, I must emphasise that I intend to enforce the rule and will continue to do so until the case is no longer sub judice.

I understand that a motion has been tabled this day that the communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Press concerning the publication of words used in this House should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Although my ruling about giving precedence over the Orders of the Day must, of course, stand, if the House eventually decides that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, I shall be content.

Mr. Hooley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few months ago, on my application, you were kind enough to rule that Questions might be put down on a matter relating to civil liberties concerning a case that was, at that time, before the courts. I was very grateful for that ruling because I hold the view that the supremacy of Parliament is far more important that the authority of the courts, but I should like your ruling now whether the ruling you gave at that time, which I fully accepted and greatly welcomed, does not constitute a precedent which overrides the 1963 convention you have just quoted.

Mr. Speaker

I think not. I advise the hon. Member to study the words that I have used. Like him, I want to uphold parliamentary freedom of speech and also the rule of law.

Mr. Madden

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. In calling for such a debate, which would help to clarify several matters that are now most uncertain, I ought to declare my interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. In my view, a debate would offer the Attorney-General an opportunity to explain the reasons why he instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to advise the media that it was not accepted that, despite the naming of the colonel on the Floor of the House, the publication of his name would not be a contempt of court.

The assurances given later by the Attorney-General that he was not contemplating any action against the newspapers or the broadcasting authorities have done little to remove the concern or anxiety of the media about the extent of their protection in reporting the proceedings of Parliament. For many years, it has been accepted generally that hon. Members enjoy absolute privilege and that those who report our proceedings enjoy qualified privilege in so far as those reports are full, fair and without malice.

Sir Barnett Cocks, a former Clerk of the House and editor of "Erskine May", told The Guardian on Friday that proceedings of Parliament were protected. He said: If you report without prejudice a fair and factual account of what was said in the House of Commons, who is the DPP to tell you that it is wrong? You are reporting the High Court of Parliament. Our understanding of qualified privilege flows from the case of Wason v. Walter in 1868, to which you referred in your statement on Friday, Mr. Speaker. That case concerned defamation and not contempt, but many would agree with the view expressed in The Times on Saturday that there seems to be no reason to deny the protection of privilege to reports that might be contemptuous when such protection is given to those that are libellous. However, the action of the DPP last Thursday, acting on the instruction of the Attorney-General, seemed to contradict that view.

Without early clarification whether the qualified privilege enjoyed by the media embraces all matters or not, which only the House can assert, the DPP could be instructed at some future date to lean on the media again—and next time all newspapers and broadcasters might be persuaded to submit or face legal proceedings initiated by the Attorney-General.

The broadcasting of Parliament has added a new dimension to the reporting of our proceedings. Up to last Thursday, most people thought it inconceivable that the broadcast proceedings could have anything less than complete qualified privilege, but the broadcasters, along with the newspaper editors, were warned by the DPP.

If the freedom to report our proceedings fully, fairly and without malice is threatened or even held in serious question, the absolute privilege that hon. Members have to raise matters on behalf of our constituents without fear of legal action will, in turn, be rendered a serious blow. The protection that we enjoy here to raise matters, sometimes of extreme controversy and public importance and sometimes matters that could be, or have been, before the courts will be diminished if those who report us continue to be uncertain and anxious about the protection they enjoy.

These are important matters which must be debated and cannot be neglected, for the sake of parliamentary democracy and the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Speaker

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member, who gave me notice on Friday last that he intended to make this application. I am also grateful for the way in which he has advanced his argument.

As the House knows, it is my responsibility to decide not whether there is to be a debate—I accept at once that this is a very important matter—but whether there is to be a three-hour emergency debate today or tomorrow. That is all I have to decide.

I would tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in the Second Report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting in 1977 the BBC indicated to the Services Committee of the House that it was content to rely on the qualified privilege enjoyed by newspapers. The Joint Committee recommended that this was a matter which could be left to be considered in the light of any general revision of the law of defamation.

I should add that the earlier Joint Committee on the publication of proceedings in Parliament, which reported in 1970, concluded that the existing qualified privilege enjoyed by the Press and broadcasting authorities should not be made absolute.

These are not issues that I have to decide upon today. I have to decide only whether there is to be an emergency debate. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the action and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the reporting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.

I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Pym

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely important issues that were raised by certain questions on Thursday and subsequent events and your ruling on Friday, Mr. Speaker, and the important issues that you have raised in a statement this afternoon about the sub judice rule—I am sure that the whole House will be strongly in support of you—do you not think that the House must have a means of bringing the matter to a conclusion in the near future, or at any rate debating and thrashing out the issue?

Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, the ruling that you have just given to the application made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), may I, through you, ask the Leader of the House what arrangements he intends to make for the handling of this matter? I am certain that all hon. Members, or a great many of them, will wish to express views. I am sure that the House will wish to come to certain views about what has happened.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Government I should like to study the statement that you have made today. I do not mean only the statement that you made in response to the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), but your earlier statement. We should like to study that statement to ascertain what in our view is the best way in which to proceed before making a recommendation to the House. I think that we should have a little time to do so. However, I fully agree with what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said about the great importance of the issues that are involved.

Mr. Heffer

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicate whether he will take into consideration the decision expressed in the Labour Party manifesto that calls for the revision of the Official Secrets Acts? When we debate the matter that decision should also be before the House.

Mr. Foot

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised a wider matter. I am sure that at some stage the House will want to discuss all the matters that have been raised. However, first, I should like to consider the statement that you made, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon to ascertain whether the suggestion contained within it—I think that it was a suggestion—is the right way for the House to proceed. That would not exclude any further debate on wider questions at a later stage.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, you can answer a question that has been puzzling me for some time. There are supposed to be no points of order arising from your decision on a Standing Order No. 9 application. There have been occasions when some hon. Members have attempted to raise points of order, and they have been stopped from making them. Yet on this occasion—this seems to have happened also on a few other occasions—the Front Benches have become involved in points of order after you have made your decision. These points of order seem to go unnoticed, or, if not unnoticed, they seem to get past. Apart from making a decision about Standing Order No. 9 applications, I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you use any sort of criterion in deciding who may raise points of order arising out of Standing Order No. 9 applications.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has addressed his question in his usual manner. Obviously the House was concerned about the issue and I exercised my discretion accordingly.