§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently you ruled on the House's 204 rule about sub judice and not discussing particular cases which are before the courts. Will you confirm that the House's rule on sub judice does not affect its right to legislate at any time and that if simultaneously there is an attempt in the Queen's Speech to legislate on an issue and an attempt by a Government Department—the Home Office—to achieve legislation through common law in another way, that conflict between the Home Office's attempt, on the one hand, and the Queen's Speech announcement, on the other, is a proper matter for discussion in the House of Commons?
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It was because of that that I allowed the questions to continue. What we have never done—and I am sure what the House would never wish to do—is to raise a case that is actually before the courts. We do not seek to influence the judgment of the courts.
§ Mr. EnglishFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful to you and I am sure that the whole House and all the people of Canada will be grateful to you for your ruling. I am sure that you will agree that anything being discussed by Canadian courts should not be brought before us whilst it is being so discussed.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman's opening remarks made me pleased that I had called him. However, my doubts increased as he continued.