Mr. Peter Wright (Australian Court Action) (Hansard, 20 November 1986)

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a matter that is important, urgent and specific, namely, the need for the Government to withdraw from proceedings in the Australian courts against Peter Wright. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I raised this issue on 21 July and again on 25 July 1986, when I sought successfully to break the injunctions affecting The Guardian and The Observer. I ask today that the Government withdraw, and I set out my reasons.
The House needs to know why Messrs Blair, Symons, Simkins, Cairncross, Demowbray, King, Leigh, Harmer, Luke, Robertson, Foster, Burgess and his wife, Colonel William Skerden and Colonel Leo Long, Sir Ashton Roskill, Sir Robert Mackenzie, Sir Martin Furnival Jones, Lord Clanmorris, Lord Dacre, and Lord Victor Rothschild have not been dragged through the courts in an attempt to block publication of books for which they gave evidence as former security officers. If the answer is that the Government believe that the Wright position is different, because Wright was publishing a book himself, why did they not take action in the Irish courts against Brandon publishers for the book by Joan Miller, who was a special assistant to Maxwell Knight, former head of—

§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot take it now.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
There is a parallel: no action in the Irish courts, yet action in the Australian courts. The House needs to know why, prior to the Wright case being heard in the Australian courts, the Government refused to make a statement that they were intending to prosecute Mr. Arthur Martin, a former MI5 officer, and Mr. Rupert Allason, a Conservative parliamentary candidate and author of the book, "A Matter of Trust", when Mr. Martin passed to Mr. Allason classified information—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he might make if his application is granted. He must say why the matter is urgent, specific and important.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
That is precisely what I am doing. I have abbreviated my remarks to ensure that I am in order.
To be brief, perhaps I may draw attention to a letter from Mr. Pincher to Mr. Wright, which will undoubtedly influence your judgment, Mr. Speaker. It said: On New Year's day I was shooting with Havers, the Attorney … Havers told me that West met Martin six times, and on each occasion Martin told West secret information. In addition he showed him secret documents which should not have been in his possession. West then wrote his book and in it not only quoted Martin by name but quoted from the documents saying that they were secret! Havers then issued an injunction to have the offending parts removed, for had the book been published, the Government would have had no option but to prosecute both Martin and West … Havers told me"— that is Pincher— 706 that he is still considering whether to prosecute Martin but says he cannot do that without prosecuting West who has been adopted as a Tory candidate! Mrs. T. is furious with him."—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time and he must now bring his application to a close.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his three minutes. I am sorry.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I can conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by referring to other matters that are directly relevent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new rule, which is not so new because we have known about it for six months. The rule is that an application under Standing Order No. 20 must be limited to three minutes. The hon. Gentleman must now complete his application with his peroration.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that sedentary interjections and proper interventions of your own have prevented me from having a full three minutes. The House needs to know about conversations—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
—that a former head had—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. In fairness to everyone, three minutes must be the limit. The hon. Gentleman has had four minutes, which takes into account any interventions that I may have made.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
—that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the need for the British Government to withdraw from proceedings in the Wright case in the Australian courts". I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
rose—

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that any further points of order will not challenge what I have said.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you will make a ruling on the propriety of what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done. I have seen the documents and I have heard what he has said. He appears to be traducing the Attorney-General in a serious fashion by saying that he has abused the security services for party political reasons. That is an extraordinary allegation for an individual to make against a Member of this place, and I should like to know whether it is in order for my hon. Friend to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must take responsibility for his speech. I heard the very same comments made on the 1 o'clock news.

§ Mr. Faulds
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not questioning your putting down of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although it does appear unfortunate that he was not able to extend the evidence he wanted to achieve a Standing Order No. 20 debate. The point I want to make to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is advisable to have a three-minute limit on the Standing Order application when often there may be massive material to adduce for the reasons for a debate, which can only be shortened and the request made less effective if this introduction of the new three-minute limit is applied. Is it advisable in terms of the health of Parliament?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the hon. Gentleman should seek to become a member of the Procedure Committee, which made a report on this matter and others which was debated and passed by the House.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate fully your ruling, and would not challenge it. I accept entirely the attitude that you have taken. Given the severity of the allegations that we have heard, you will appreciate the difficulty in which the House finds itself. We have been told that the Attorney-General is aware of six occasions on which security information was passed by members of the security forces—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is not a matter for me in any way. I have no knowledge of these things. I heard about them on the news, and now I have heard about them in the House.

§ Mr. Winnick
rose—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) should be allowed to complete his point of order before other hon. Members intervene.

§ Mr. Williams
It must be a matter of great concern to the House when the Attorney-General, who is in charge of the administration of justice, and the Prime Minister, who is in charge of security, have both colluded, according to the letter, to avoid taking action to prosecute someone who has been party to a breach of state security. Because, for reasons which I well understand, you cannot allow us to have a debate on the matter at this stage, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, to arrange that on Monday we have a statement from the Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Michael Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the guidance of the House, could you tell us whether, given that you heard about this matter on the news at 1 o'clock, it is in order under the new rules for Standing Order No. 20 applications for such issues to be raised subsequent to something that was heard on the news?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is in order. The application was submitted before 12 o'clock.

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

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take first the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

§ Mr. Winnick
You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, although your ruling was challenged, that the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not sub judice. Allegations have been made concerning the Attorney-General, and I know that these are not matters for you. My point of order is this: would it not be right to come to the conclusion that, as this is not a matter that is sub judice, it would be in order for the Attorney-General to come to the House, if he wished to do so? The fact that the case is proceeding in Australia—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The only conclusion to which I need come is whether the matter is in order. I cannot speculate on other matters.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Is his point of order on a different matter?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
It cannot be a different matter, Mr. Speaker. I have raised an issue—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have ruled on the matter.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
No, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have ruled on the matter.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have seen repeated attempts over the recent past on the Floor of the House to bring about a debate in the Chamber on the matters that I have sought to raise in my application under Standing Order No. 20. I do not see why Parliament should be shackled—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
—because Ministers—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
—do not wish such a debate to take place.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is unlike the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
It is monstrous.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and knows full well the rules of the House. He has made his submission and I have ruled upon it, and that is the end of the matter.

§ Mr. Faulds
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a procedural point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it a helpful point of order?

§ Mr. Faulds
On a procedural point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be kind enough to advise hon. Members—we want to take the quickest action possible — how we can proceed to impeach the Attorney-General?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no idea.