HC Deb 25 April 1978 vol 948 cc1192-5
Mr. Christopher Price

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I should like to raise relates to part of your statement on privilege on Friday. I gave you notice of it yesterday and you asked me to postpone it until today.

My first point concerns the right of the House to make points of order on statements by Mr. Speaker. In February 1978, the House passed new rules about privilege, one of which made it clear that there could be no points of order on your rulings. However, there are occasions when you make a statement which contains both a ruling and other matters on which points of order might be appropriate. I would hope that on those occasions when you make, as it were, a "hybrid" statement—our traditional right under Standing Orders to make points of order should not be eroded by the rule of 6th February. I should like your ruling on that.

Second, I am concerned solely with the fifth paragraph of that ruling, in which you mentioned an order prohibiting the use of the colonel's name and reinterpreted the ruling from the exact words in which it was made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).

I should like to raise three points. First, what is the basis of the words: In view of the order of the court prohiting the disclosure of the colonel's name"? That was not the form of words used by the DPP, and great concern has been expressed about it.

Secondly, I hope that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that your form of words in the statement— to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the courts and then claim that the courts have no further power".—[Official Report, 21st April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 866.]— does not correspond to any stated or unstated objective either by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who moved the motion, or by me and my hon. Friends. As I understand it, the privileges of the courts are wholly for them, just as ours are wholly for us.

Thirdly, would you accept that sometimes situations of such national importance can arise that Parliament must have its say, irrespective of the position of the courts in the matter?

I would not wish you to rule immediately on this matter, Sir, but I would ask you to take these points into consideration in any further statements that you may make or in any contacts that you may have with the two Front Benches, since they expressed a desire yesterday that this matter should be fully thrashed out on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

Further—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) gave me notice of a point of order. I do not know whether he gave notice as well to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I want to deal with the point of order which has been raised. If the hon. Member has also had notice, that is another matter.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

On the same point, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) did not ask you, to rule on the sentence you used in your statement on Friday? It is a part of the defence case that there was no court order prohibiting the disclosure—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is beginning to refer to the criminal court case which I said we are not going to discuss.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not taking points of order any further on this: the hon. Gentleman must understand. I am saying to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that of course I shall bear in mind the matters that he has raised.

Later—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to enlarge on any statement I have made in connection with the earlier case. If the hon. Gentleman has another point of order, I am prepared to listen.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

May I make a submission on the third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman obviously feels that his hon. Friend has not made himself clear and perhaps wants to help him out. I have undertaken to consider what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration another element? You will recall that in the debate of the report of the Committee of Privileges on 6th February this year the Lord President made a statement on privilege when he said, There are two sides to the privilege coin. On one side it is essential, for the authority and rights of this House, and essential if the hon. Members are to perform their functions adequately, that there should be an absolute right for hon. Members to be able to speak freely in this House without any intervention from monarchs, newspaper proprietors or whoever it may be. People in this House must be allowed.…."—[Official Report, 6th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1194–5.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Without the slightest disrespect to the Lord President, I am not responsible for his speeches and I make no claim to be responsible for them. I am concerned with the interpretation of the rules of the House.