Questions to Ministers (Hansard, 22 January 1985)

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Unless the points of order rise directly out of Question Time I shall take them later.

§ Mr. Dalyell
During a supplementary question by the leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the use of the sub judice rule in relation to the Ponting trial at the Old Bailey. That has been interpreted with some considerable elasticity. Are questions to the Attorney-General on the criteria for vetting the jury out of order? Is it out of order to ask questions about the role of the Secretary of State for Defence in the trial? Are we to believe that all that is now sub judice and cannot be mentioned in the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Speaker
Allow me to clear up this important matter. The case itself is within the sub judice rule. It is a matter awaiting adjudication in a court exercising a criminal jurisdiction. The issue of the vetting of the jury for the trial is sub judice because the security aspects of the case are all-important. For the House to discuss any facet of them could be held to be prejudicial to the conduct of the trial.

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reprehensible and an abuse of the rules of the House for the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) to complain publicly on the BBC this morning that you had not allowed him to put a private notice question on that matter which, in any event, is sub judice?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has apologised to me for that matter.

§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I in any way transgressed the rules of the House, obviously I would be the first, as you know, to express my regret to you and to the House. But as I told you, I was unaware that one was not able to refer to the fact that a private notice question had been disallowed. It is the first time that I have heard that rule.
Having said that, there are matters of importance that do not touch the sub judice rule—matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), such as the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence and the assurances given by the Attorney-General to the House that he would have jury vetting only upon the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the meantime, we read reports that the Director has not made such a recommendation and in those circumstances there would appear to be a breach of the assurance given by the Attorney-General. If I am wrong, should not the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General be given the opportunity to state their position?

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House should know the real facts. The Director of Public Prosecutions 862 asked me for permission to vet the jury at the end of last week, and I consented to that request. The defence solicitor has applied for a copy of a document prepared by Mr. Ponting, which sets out the events leading up to the sinking of the Belgrano. He recognised that certain parts of the document might involve intelligence information and was prepared to accept a bowdlerised version. Such a version would be extremely misleading. I sought permission from Ministers concerned with the national security in the document for permission to use the whole document, but in camera.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As is my normal practice, I shall take points of order at the end of the statements, unless they arise directly from Question Time.

§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Prime Minister should have given me that answer when I asked my question. It is quite wrong— [Interruption ] I asked a straight question after you rightly warned me about the danger of breaking the sub judice rule. My question was in order and the Prime Minister refused to answer it. It is quite wrong to have to continue this matter with points of order at the end of Question Time.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take points of order on other matters later.

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are already seeing that the procedures of the House are flexible. We have heard the Prime Minister in answers to questions from the Leader of the Opposition about the miners' dispute give a clear indication of the Government's role in and views about the dispute. Have you received any request either from the Secretary of State for Energy or the Secretary of State for Employment to come and show clearly to the House their role in the dispute in giving advice or support to the National Coal Board? If you have not, would you consider what powers you have or what role you can play to ensure that the issue is properly ventilated in the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is making points of order very flexible by seeking to prolong Question Time with such a question. We had this at some length last week. I am not responsible for statements from the Government Front Bench, but for ensuring that Back Bench Members have an opportunity to put their questions, and I discharge that duty. Mr. Skinner.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I called Mr. Skinner, and he has as much right as the hon. Member to speak.

§ Mr. Skinner
Stranger things will happen before we are done. Mr. Speaker, you will have heard during the exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that the question of the talks about the coal strike was so important that the Tory Government felt it necessary to call upon Tory knights to defend the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the short debate began, would you look favourably on the idea of extending that 863 debate when Standing Order No. 10 applications are made later, so that those who were interested in the opening rounds can continue the debate about the miners later?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is an extremely hypothetical question.

§ Mr. Atkinson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was by no means claiming precedence over my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I wish to raise a question arising from the statement that you made to the House, in which you said that you were satisfied that the security matters involved in the Ponting case were extremely sensitive. Have you examined all those papers to ensure that you are satisfied, or are you taking instructions from the Attorney-General, who suggested—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a wholly unworthy comment from an hon. Member with the experience of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).

§ Mr. Atkinson
It is by no means an unworthy comment from myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will certainly not withdraw anything, following the yapping of Conservative Members. All of us here have an equal responsibility to ensure that the rights of Back Bench Members and of the House are protected, but Mr. Speaker has ruled that we must be prevented from discussing those important matters. Some of us believe that he has accepted, on the surface and without examination, the fact that sensitive matters are involved that may not be discussed by the House. I am asking the simple and genuine question: are you satisfied, Mr. Speaker, from your examination, that these matters are, as the Attorney-General claims, too sensitive for the House to discuss?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. First of all, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I take instructions from absolutely nobody. Secondly, I must tell him that my responsibility in such matters is to ensure that the sub judice rule is not breached, in order that those who are in the courts will not have their trials prejudiced. That is a responsibility that every hon. Member should discharge equally.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that questions to the Attorney-General about the criteria for vetting are out of order? Further, it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that on 9 October at Bow Street magistrates' court, Mr. Roy Amlot, on behalf of the prosecution, said that no security issues were involved. Can Parliament be told what has happened between 9 October and late January to make the position different?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have looked carefully into the application of the sub judice rule to this case, and I am satisfied that my ruling is correct. I cannot go beyond that.

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House listened with great care to the answer that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the crucial question of the operation of the sub judice rule in this case. Did your answer rule out the decision to hold the trial in secret? You covered the case and the vetting of the jury, but is the House debarred from discussing and voting on the decision to hold the trial in secret?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is clearly not a matter for me.

§ Mr. John Ryman (Blyth Valley)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this matter, but surely it is only for the trial judge to decide, upon the application of the Crown, whether the trial should be held in secret. Will not the trial judge make that ruling after hearing submissions from the Crown and the defence?

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be the factual case. As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), it is not for me to decide whether the case should be heard in secret.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We must be clear about what the Attorney-General is saying. Did he rise on a point of order, or is what he said open to questions? We were told about only one aspect of the dialogue with Mr. Ponting's solicitors. After the bowdlerised version was requested and that request turned down by the Attorney-General, were Mr. Ponting's solicitors consulted before the decision was taken to reveal the full document and to hear the entire case in camera? Those are detailed questions. What surprised many people was that the Attorney-General went as far as he did on a point of order, and now seems to have closed down further questions on what he said.

§ Mr. Speaker
The House will have heard the Attorney-General say, "Further to that point of order." That phrase is not a statement and, although the matter could, on a subsequent occasion, be subject to questioning, it is not this afternoon.

§ Mr. Strang
Further to the point of order I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker—and I am grateful for your indulgence—may I ask whether the House is to be allowed to express a view on the decision to hold the trial in secret?

§ Mr. Speaker
Not on this matter at this moment. There are other methods of drawing attention to the issue; I notice that there is an early-day motion on the Order Paper today dealing with the general issue. I have this afternoon simply given a factual ruling on the specific matter in the courts.

§ Mr. John Morris
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
After hearing the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the Shadow Attorney-General, we shall have to move on.

§ Mr. Morris
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be grateful, despite my failure to obtain permission to table a private notice question, that the Attorney-General has at last risen to his feet to clarify some of the issues. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I sought to table a question and to obtain guidance from you many weeks ago regarding the sub judice rule on another matter and you ruled that I could not raise those matters. Subsequently, in the course of an exchange in the House, the Attorney-General spelt out in detail precisely the matters that I was not able, on your ruling, to raise with him. In view of that, is it not high time that the sub judice rule was examined to ensure that it applies equally to all hon. Members of the House?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not propose to take any further points of order on this matter. To answer the right 865 hon. and learned Member for Aberavon—I am surprised that he does not know this with regard to private notice questions and I will reaffirm the position for the benefit of the House—it is not part of our conventions that the refusal of, or even application for, a private notice question is mentioned in the Chamber. And if it is not mentioned in the Chamber, it is certainly not mentioned on the radio. I hope, therefore, that what occurred will not happen again.
Regarding the sub judice rule, I take careful advice on what matters are sub judice, and the position is absolutely clear. The rule is designed to ensure that those who may be before the courts have their rights protected. It would be wrong—I am sure that the whole House accepts that it would be wrong—if anything said here prejudiced a trial. The House would not want that and we should not allow it.