§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the behaviour of the Attorney-General in making statements about a matter before the courts.I refer to the complaint made public on Friday by the lawyers of an accused person. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his courtesy in being present today, as I am to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris).The statement by the Attorney-General was made on BBC Radio 4 in a programme entitled "The Law in Action", but not in the House.
That brings me to my first complaint. If any hon. Member speaking in the House starts to comment on a case which is before the courts, you, Mr. Speaker, rightly come down on him with a ton of sub judice bricks. That is understood by us all. My first question is whether the same does not apply to actions outside the House, especially when they are the actions of a Minister of the Crown commenting on a case in which inevitably he will be involved.
The matter is definite in that the Attorney-General described a man facing trial as actually having committed an offence. There is no other construction that can be put on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. Whatever the context, such a description does not show proper regard for the rights of accused persons. That is the definite aspect of the matter.
The urgent aspect is that the Attorney-General, the Minister charged by the House with the duty of restraining contempt of court, has himself committed such a contempt. If a newspaper prints a contempt of court, who other than the Attorney-General is to step in? Who takes proceedings against the Attorney-General when he commits a contempt is a matter of urgency. I am advised that the only parliamentary question that I could ask on this subject would be—I do not know whether it is in order —to ask the Attorney-General whether he would take proceedings against himself. I am not being funny about it; that is the delicate situation that we are in.
I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is important. As the Government's conduct in the Ponting 1010 case is clearly an issue, the Attorney-General's unrepentant attitude can only cause further concern about his handling of the prosecution. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that the House, albeit in a short debate, should have an opportunity to discuss before Wednesday.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the behaviour of the Attorney-General in making statements about a matter before the courts.I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would care to give guidance to the House on this aspect of the sub judice rule. It is not a hypothetical matter. It may arise when the Attorney-General next answers questions in the House. I am the last to wish to transgress the sub judice rule, but if I were to opine and to ask him a question at Question Time to the effect that a current case was a case of someone disclosing what he had no right to disclose, or that the basis of the prosecution was that and a breach of trust would it be in order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I can rule only on sub judice matters that occur inside the Chamber. It is not for me to rule on matters that occur outside the Chamber.
§ Mr. MorrisFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you cannot rule, and I am not asking you to rule, on any matter that has or may have occurred outside the Chamber. In a matter of weeks there will be questions to the Attorney-General. I would not wish to fall foul of the sub judice rule by putting precisely this question and asking the Attorney-General to confirm what I understand he has already said. To avoid that, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you cannot rule now, to reflect overnight and give guidance to the House so that we may avoid the situation that may arise within the House and not outside.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have got the point. I shall certainly look into the matter.