§ Mr. SpeakerI undertook yesterday to consider the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the Attorney-General's answer in last Tuesday's Hansard giving the results of an investigation into the allegations made by the hon. Member regarding the case of Tubero v. Toomey and others.
The hon. Member put to me three specific points. He asked first, whether it was not
a gross abuse of both Houses" — [Official Report, 5 November 1986; Vol. 103 c. 955.]for the Lord Chancellor to have set up an inquiry into the hon. Member's allegations and then, without any reference to the hon. Member, to have announced the result of the inquiry in an answer given by the Attorney-General to a written question. To that point, I can only reply that since the hon. Member, as he himself said, asked the Lord Chancellor to set up an inquiry, it is for the Lord Chancellor to decide what form the inquiry should take and how its result should be announced. The Attorney-General, of course, answers for the Lord Chancellor in this House. As far as reference to the hon. Member is concerned, while that is a matter of courtesy between hon. Members and not a rule of the House, I hope it will always be observed.In his second point, the hon. Member asked me whether it was proper to impugn the integrity of a Member by means of the question and answer procedure, instead of putting down a substantive motion for that purpose. In considering that point, I think it has to be borne in mind that last Tuesday's written answer summarised the results of an inquiry into the hon. Member's allegations. The answer consists largely of a rebuttal of those allegations. It also includes criticism of the hon. Member's conduct in presentation of his case. It is a long-established principle that criticism of a Member's conduct should be embodied in a substantive motion.
Finally, the hon. Member asks me to which Members of the judiciary the rule applies which requires reflection on conduct to be embodied in a substantive motion. The answer is set out in "Erskine May" at page 378, which specifies:
Judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a judge, such as a judge in a court of bankruptcy and a county court, or a recorder.I am satisfied that masters of the Supreme Court do not fall within this category.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers)I of course accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and apologise if, in my parliamentary answer, I went further than parliamentary convention allows. The substance of my answer was a complete rebuttal of the allegations, but I regret that the answer also reflected on the conduct of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in an unparliamentary way.