§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright.The matter is specific because the book is already on its way to American bookstalls and, indeed, because of the time factor, may already be there. It is only hours before it is here.The matter is important because the Government have spent a great deal of taxpayers' money—if I may coin a phrase—in the courts of Australia, the Republic of Ireland and those within this jurisdiction, although, curiously, not in the courts of America. The capacity of the Government and their legal advisers to suffer judicial black eyes seems virtually inexhaustible.
The matter is urgent because the present Lord Chancellor, before his translation, like a bishop, to higher things, said that he was eagerly looking forward to explaining the Government's policy once the fetter of the sub judice rule was removed. The book, which has been the subject of so much litigation—I have nothing against work creation, even for lawyers, either by the Manpower Services Commission or by any other body—will be on our shores in a matter of hours. Whether or not the Government are right in the latest twist of litigation, the time has surely come to justify the value, or acknowledge the futility, of it all.
The House, traditionally, since at least the time of King Charles, has been the holder of the nation's purse strings. It is sufficiently important that the time has come when we should have the opportunity of saying, "Enough is enough" and when the world of "Alice in Wonderland", where the whole world, except a Briton who does not leave these shores or buy a copy from a traveller from America, can read the book in question is clarified. The time has come to justify this futile, farcical performance.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright.I have listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order that relates to the sub judice rule as it affects our proceedings. You will know that yesterday, following the decision of The Sunday Times to print extracts of the Peter Wright memoirs, the Attorney-General announced that he intended to bring an action against The Sunday Times for criminal contempt.
706 The House will recognise that the Government's handling of the affair has allowed moneybags Mr. Murdoch to move in with a big wallet to turn an issue of principle, an issue of official secrecy and open government, into a Fleet street scoop——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the point of order? If the hon. Gentleman is successful and in order, he may be able to raise this subject on the summer Adjournment motion.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThis morning I tabled four questions, three of which related to discussions and communications between The Sunday Times and the Government last week. I did that in the knowledge that Mr. David O'Callaghan of Turner Kenneth Brown, Solicitors for The Observer, telephoned Mr. David Hogg, the Deputy Treasury Solicitor, on Friday and told him that The Sunday Times had purchased the serialisation rights——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not, under the guise of a point of order, make a contribution which may well be in order at a later stage, but not now. I can deal with the sub judice rule if the hon. Gentleman will give me that opportunity.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMr. Speaker, I——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make a speech which he could make later.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI have also tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for answer this Wednesday. I have asked whether the Government intend to issue an amendment to the general import licence, so as to render——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not raise matters of that kind. If he is concerned about questions that have not been accepted by the Table Office, he can ask for them to be referred to me.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am dealing with one thing at a time. The hon. Gentleman can ask the Table Office to bring his questions to my attention. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter on the Floor of the House in this way. Does he want to know about the sub judice rule?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMr. Speaker, I tabled questions before the application was made to the courts. I put it to you that my questions are critical, because they deal with public concerns and anxieties. Is your ruling, or any ruling that you may make, likely to affect my right as a Member of the House to table questions to which the public want to know the answers?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can deal with that. As the House knows, have consistently ruled that there can be no question of proceedings in the Australian courts being treated as falling within the ambit of the sub judice rule of this House. The same would apply to any proceedings in the United States courts, although I have no knowledge of any such proceedings.
With regard to the publication of Mr. Wright's book in this country, I have to rule that that subject cannot be raised in the House at this juncture. There are four relevant groups of cases pending in the United Kingdom courts, 707 and all are inter-related. In particular, the appeal of the Attorney-General against the High Court judgment in the case of the Attorney-General v. The Independent, the London Evening Standard and the London Daily News is now being heard in the Court of Appeal. That case raises exactly the same issues as will apply in The Sunday Times case. In those circumstances, the House will not expect me to exercise my discretion by allowing reference to be made to any of those specific cases in the House, or in questions or motions.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it might be in order to raise certain matters arising from the submission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for an emergency debate on the summer Adjournment motion, which is the next topic for business. That is, in a sense, an Adjournment debate. As you cited the cases about the sub judice rule, may I remind you of the plea that you made in another place when you were re-elected, when you said that you had made claim
by humble petition to Her Majesty, to all ancient and undoubted rights and privileges,their relating to the House of Commons.I have consulted "Erskine May", which states:
any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may he treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, very gravely, that from what has come out, whether we read it in an American bookshop, The Sunday Times or The Independent, we now know that senior officials of MI5, in association with Jim Angleton of the CIA, tried to destroy an elected Prime Minister of this country during the 1970s. We also know that when such a charge is made in the United States, Congress brings it out into the open, whereas a British Government use legal devices to suppress the prosecution of a criminal offence brought to public attention by a public servant.With great respect, Mr. Speaker, no one wants to discuss the vendetta between the Government and the author of this book, but I submit that if you were to rule that in the debate on the Adjournment we could not discuss what has now come into the public domain, the House would be subordinate to what the Attorney- General wishes to do in his legal capacity. I seriously ask you to allow the House to discuss a matter which not only prima facie led to the obstruction of a previous Government, of which I was a member, but which, if it is not discussed now, would make a mockery of us compared with the American Congress, which is bringing covert action of this kind into the public domain because it is manifestly in the public interest.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has informed us that the further appeal in Australia is to be heard on 27 July. As you know, that is after we begin the summer recess. That means that the case will continue in Australia and be concluded, yet the House of Commons will be unable to comment in any way whatever.
I wish to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), because 708 if MI5 officials were involved in destabilisation, in trying to destroy an elected Government and in smearing the Prime Minister of the day, such allegations should be debated by the House. These allegations may not be true and may simply be part of Mr. Wright's imagination, but if they are correct, it could well be that some of the officials in MI5 who took part in such subversive and criminal activities are still in MI5.
If Parliament is told that it cannot discuss the matter, we shall go into recess for three months and the case will he heard during that time. That means that while the country and the press will no doubt have an opportunity to discuss the matter, Parliament will be silent on the fundamental issue of parliamentary democracy. If we cannot even debate serious allegations from a former senior official of MI5 that the Government of the day were subject to destabilisation, that makes a mockery of our parliamentary democracy and our parliamentary system. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we can have a statement from the Attorney-General at the first opportunity, and certainly before the House goes into recess.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. Members now appreciate my request for a shorter recess. I fully understand the principle on which you say that if something is sub judice we should not discuss it, but surely the sub judice rule is designed to protect the rights of citizens who may appear in court and who would not want to have his or her case in any way jeopardised by talk inside the House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support that. However, the Government are now deliberately using the sub judice rule as a means of gagging the House to prevent its debating something of great importance. It becomes absolutely perverse when we know that this matter is being discussed in other countries and that the books will turn up on these shores. Therefore, there might now be a case for you to reconsider the sub judice ruling in respect of this case, because it seems to Opposition Members that the Government are manipulating the office of Speaker by getting you to defend a principle that allows them to gag the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Let me repeat the rule that matters are sub judice if they are awaiting trial, or under adjudication by any court exercising a criminal jurisdiction, and should not be referred to in any motion—including a motion for leave to bring in a Bill—in debate, or in questions to Ministers. I am bound by that resolution passed on 23 July 1963. If the House wants to change the resolutions, it is a matter for the House. I have already said that I am not prepared to exercise my discretion in this case.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The book which is now to be published in the United States and which, apparently is now being distributed, will arrive in this country shortly. I am concerned only with whether, in view of what you have said and ruled, the book will be made available in the Library and who has control over that.
The book will be available to most of us very soon. I accept that security and the national interest matter. As you will know, Mr. Speaker—because you will have read the report of the Select Committee on Privileges— 709 we gave some thought to what is the security of the state and to who makes the judgment, the Government or others, in approaching you on such matters as the Zircon film. I have studied carefully the statement by the Prime Minister on 6 May, which I have in front of me. The right hon. Lady accepted the information given to her that the allegations made by Mr. Wright were untrue. If we are discussing something that is untrue, how can it be against the national interest for people to read it? So that we can make our judgment, will the book be available in the Library, although we cannot discuss it here?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no idea. That will be a matter for the Librarian.
§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand your ruling, you are not prepared to accept the use of Standing Order No. 20 or any reference to the case in the debate on the Adjournment. However, would you be prepared to reconsider your decision on how the House might debate the issue if, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the book comes into the country tomorrow and is then widely available, but the Government refuse to ban it or to take action in the United States courts? In those circumstances, would you be prepared to examine the whole issue afresh, including what you have said about the sub judice rule affecting not only the particular case in which the Attorney-General is now involved, but the three other cases? That strikes many of us as going very wide of the issue.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) first.
§ Mr. BennFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you are in a difficulty over the sub judice rule. May I put it to you, however, that, according to a proper interpretation of that rule, it might be wrong for hon. Members to comment during the summer Adjournment debate on the conduct of the editor of The Sunday Times in publishing extracts from the book, but it could not be wrong for hon. Members to bring to the Chamber matters which are already in the public domain through The Sunday Times, and which we expect to appear in their full form?
I am only anxious, Mr. Speaker that we should not make a fool of Parliament by an interpretation of a rule 710 that would deny to us uniquely what everyone else in the world is freely discussing, when it affects one of our former Prime Ministers and present Members of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to narrow your interpretation and say that no one can refer to whether The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Guardian or the London Daily News is criminally culpable, but make it abundantly clear that we are allowed to speak about matters which touch upon Parliament, and which are now available to everyone—including your self, Sir—and rule accordingly?
§ Mr. FauldsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your pronouncement a few moments ago, I shall now proceed to the Library and ask for a copy of this book to be made available to me, on the presumption that neither the Prime Minister nor any of the Law Officers can forbid the Library to get hold of it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a hypothetical question, but may I say——
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhy not?
§ Mr. SpeakerBecause I am on my feet.
As the book is about to be published in America, I accept that this matter creates considerable difficulty for the House. I have already ruled that it is legitimate to raise anything that has come out in the Australian courts, but what should not be raised under our sub judice rules is the action that is pending before the British courts. I said at the beginning of my statement that anything that has come out in the Australian courts is fair game.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is before the courts in this country, but anything that has come out in the Australian courts is perfectly in order, and I do not think that the House needs to be too inhibited.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be called in the debate, I am not prepared to hear a speech from him now by way of points of order.