§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I gave notice to your office shortly after 10 o'clock this morning. I hope that you will rule on it, possibly tomorrow, when you have had time to reflect on the matter. It is the delicate and difficult matter of the sub judice rule.
In answer to a question, the Secretary of State for Defence said that a report in The Times was without truth. I am not concerned with the report, but simply with a quotation from a Member of Parliament, for such is Admiral Hill-Norton. In the paper of record he is reported as saying:
One cannot help feeling that, like the Clive Ponting case, they are doing it to suppress something which may be damaging to the reputation of Government Ministers and officials. The whole thing stinks.The House will realise that I could not personally take exception to that comment. Therefore, I feel easier about raising the matter as a general issue of principle. Someone somewhere will have to sort out what is sub judice and what is not. The rules are extremely elastic.Last week, many points were raised with you. I spent the morning at the Old Bailey and can only report that hardened court reporters had never before seen anything quite like that comment from a Member of Parliament. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect on the issues raised, and possibly rule tomorrow?
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall certainly do that.