§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me your guidance. It has come to my notice that a written answer has been published by the Attorney-General announcing the decision that there are to be no prosecutions over the project Zircon affair.
You will recall that at the time there was an enormous amount of interest in the House and that some lively exchanges took place across the Dispatch Box. Is there any way, with your assistance, in which the Attorney-General might be required to come here to make a proper announcement from the Dispatch Box and then answer the questions that will undoubtedly be asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House? This seems to be an extremely sneaky and disreputable way of publishing information of this kind, especially as it has been done on a Friday afternoon when many hon. Members are either in their constituencies or are well on the way to them.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the Zircon affair is a matter of intense public interest, since it touches on freedom of information and on the fact that there was a parliamentary by-pass operation over a considerable period. Therefore, it is not good enough for the Attorney-General to seek to suggest, by means of a planted question from one of his trusted Back-Bench colleagues, that he will not institute proceedings in respect of Mr. Duncan Campbell and the alleged moles in that case. In the light of recent trials involving state secrets, such as "Spycatcher", one understands why the Attorney-General is tempted to run a mile when he sees the word "security", but surely it is not good enough to try to sneak through, on a Friday afternoon, a matter of such considerable public interest as this.
Mr. Speaker was personally and directly involved in the issue, in the sense that he stopped Members of Parliament from seeing the Zircon film, although it was readily available to those hon. Members who wished to see it. Given the involvement of Mr. Speaker in this issue, the sensitivity of the matter and security in general, surely the House ought to have been treated with proper courtesy by means of a full statement to the House. Rather than having to face prosecution under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, some hon. Members think that Duncan Campbell and his friends have done an immense service to democracy and that they ought properly to be considered, not for prosecution, but for an award in the new year's honours.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. First let me deal with the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Both hon. Members know that this is not a matter for the Chair. Written answers are not within the jurisdiction of the Chair. Both hon. Members have put their points on the record. All that I can suggest to them is that they should use their ingenuity to raise this matter in the House on an appropriate occasion.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before I take further points of order, I must say to the House that we cannot debate the matter now.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred in my speech in today's debate to the way in which the offices of the New Statesman were searched and ransacked and to the fact that the doors of the BBC in Scotland were smashed down to seek evidence. On a matter of such importance, surely it is wrong to sneak information of that kind through by way of a written answer. Ministers are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Are they unable to say something about it and give guidance about it?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerAs I said, this is not a matter for the Chair and I hope tht hon. Members will not persist with this argument. We have the Adjournment debate still to come. I can only advise hon. Members to seek other opportunities to raise the matter when the House resumes next week.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand and accept that the contents of a written answer cannot be a point of order for you. However, the House is troubled by the Zircon affair and the Bristol case, to which I referred, because we were unable to comment in the House about either case as a result of the sub judice rule, which I accept. Now that the Government have dealt with the matter in a written answer, there is no way that the issue can be discussed by the House. We seek your protection of the right of the House to comment on an issue that everyone agrees is of major importance. That means somehow dealing with the sub judice rule now that the Government have decided not to proceed on the legal point.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Let me deal with this important point. If there is any change with regard to the sub judice rule as a result of the written answer given today, that is a matter for consideration and a matter on which the hon. Gentleman can properly seek advice from the Chair. Obviously I cannot give an off-the-cuff reaction, but it is a perfectly fair point which will certainly be considered.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the job of the Speaker and his Deputies to protect Parliament. Every day when visitors are taken round the Houses of Parliament they are shown the portrait of Speaker Lenthall. I hear all the guides, no doubt with the authority of Mr. Speaker, saying, "This bloke says to the monarch, 'I am not your man. I am the House of Commons's man'." At the time of the Zircon affair Mr. Speaker himself had to accept a manuscript amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to resolve the matter. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, acting for Parliament and not for the Executive, decided to accept the manuscript amendment so that we could get on with the debate in a proper and orderly fashion. We have had a debate on the freedom of the press; it has gone on since 9.30 am. One would have thought that had not the Government been trèating you, Sir, and the House of Commons with contempt, they would have sent one of their people here 577 to join in the debate and give us the information that they have sneaked through by means of a planted written question.
The truth is that so much power has gone to the Executive, the Government and the Prime Minister that they now treat not only Opposition Back Benchers but the whole House with contempt. It is high time that somebody in the Chair acted more like Speaker Lenthall instead of acting on behalf, it seems, of the Executive—a poodle. That is what it is coming to. It is high time that somebody showed some authority and stopped this business of allowing the Tory Government to trample over democracy.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder I am prepared to assume that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to criticise the Chair. I can only repeat to the House that we cannot debate the matter now. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, it is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members must find a suitable occasion on which to raise it at some other time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. It is very unfair to the rest of the business of the House for hon. Gentlemen to raise further points that are not points of order. I shall call hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them to ensure that they do not abuse the points of order procedure.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be brief and not forget what you have said. The rights of the House and of Back Benchers have been abused. You, of course, are the custodian of those rights. It is right for hon. Members to voice their concern over the sneaky way in which this statement about there being no prosecutions has been made. This is a major decision, so may I——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member has made his point. I cannot add to what I have already said. This is not a matter for the Chair, so the hon. Member must seek other ways of raising it. Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have dealt with the hon. Member's point. Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas.
§ Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)On a point of order on a further aspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, dealing with the involvement of Scottish Law 578 Officers. I speak on behalf of my colleagues in the Scottish group who would wish to make the strongest possible representations to the Chair, the usual channels and the Government, about the way in which this decision, affecting civil liberties and the freedom of the BBC in Scotland, has been conveyed to the House. The House has been intimately involved through the initial ban on showing the film to Members of Parliament. This civil liberties matter is of deep concern to all of us. There is concern also outside the House about the role of not only the law authorities in the Home Office and the Attorney-General's Department, but of the Scottish Law Officers. It is appropriate in matters concerning the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office that the Ministers responsible for those Departments should be present in the House to hear points and respond. The fact that the Scottish Law Officers are not present is not satisfactory.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure that what has been said has been heard by the Government Front Bench, but I must repeat that it is not a matter for the Chair.