§ Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance, in relation to the point of order that I tried to raise earlier? When you rose to your feet, I sat down. Thereafter, I was precluded from making my point of order. As Northern Ireland is governed and legislated for through Orders in Council, I am unable, as an hon. Member representing Northern Ireland, to change any legislation that the Government may bring forward. In the past eight months I have been called only once during Prime Minister's Question Time. What is my role in the House in terms of representing my constituents? Do I have a role?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that he is one of a number of Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. During Prime Minister's Question Time I always attempt to call an hon. Member from one of the minority parties, but it would be impossible to call all of them. The hon. Gentleman is one hon. Member among 650. I must deal with all hon. Members fairly.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOf course I shall take the point of order, but it will affect the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who wish to take part in the steel debate. I hope that I shall not receive any complaints at the end of the debate.
§ Mr. DalyellMy point of order arises from what happened yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and others asked questions of you, Mr. Speaker, about the Master of the Rolls. You said that you would reflect on the matter, and I was wondering whether you would be making a statement to the House. The statement has been made much more urgent by what happened in the Scottish courts today regarding the Anthony Cavendish affair and Lord Coulsfield's judgment. The relationship between Parliament and the courts is assuming an extra urgency.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall reply. I have considered the matter, as I undertook to do yesterday. The rule—which is set cut in "Erskine May" on pages 430 and 431—is that,
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon...certain persons, including peers and judges. That is not to say that hon. Members may not express disagreement with the decisions of judges in cases that are not sub judice, so long as they express their disagreement in proper terms. Nor does it mean — this is the point that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) raised with me yesterday — that where a person who is covered by the rule undertakes activities in another capacity he may not be criticised in that capacity. For instance, criticism has been permitted of the activities of a member of another place in his role as a newspaper proprietor.What our rules do not permit, unless it is on a substantive motion, is criticism of the private conduct of a judge of the kind that reflects on his capacity to hold that office.
§ Mr. DalyellObviously this is an important statement on which the House would wish to reflect. Is, as we interpret it, the House of Commons taking a stand against the behaviour of the Master of the Rolls, not as a judge but more in his role as a politician?
§ Mr. SpeakerI ask the hon. Gentleman to study carefully what I have said in this considered statement.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that it is right and proper for hon. Members to criticise, among other people, judges such as the Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, when they are acting in a capacity that is not in line with their job as a judge. What we argued yesterday, which you have taken on board, is that he had entered the political arena. As opposed to carrying out judgments, he was saying that it was quite all right for somebody to break the law. We challenged that in terms of a motion and he entered the fray and started making comments publicly. He then entered into correspondence with his friend the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I understand it, this is part of the judgment, not acting in a different capacity at all.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe point that I am trying to make is that he erred along the narrow line that he should tread as a judge in interpreting the law as passed by Parliament. We are arguing that, now that he has trampled on to a different course, it is right and proper for us — in accordance with your statement, Mr. Speaker — to challenge him because he has voluntarily decided to move out of that narrow, restricted legal arena into the political arena. If he does that, it is right that we should be able to criticise. I think that your statement, Mr. Speaker, vindicates what we have been saying. We will carry on.
§ Mr. SpeakerMy statement was intended to refer to another case that was mentioned yesterday concerning a former judge who appeared on television and made some statements. That is acting in a different capacity.