§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a point of order about the Prime Minister's reply to my question. The Prime Minister stated that the contract between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal would come to an end on 31 March this year.
I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, have the discretion, in a matter of major public interest, to waive or moderate the sub judice rule. However, as I understood it, it was not on those grounds that you ruled that the Prime Minister was in order. I wonder whether you have had the chance to look more closely at this matter. I believe that papers were lodged with the Court of Session earlier this week. Can you advise the House on whether you can expand, amend or clarify the ruling?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have kept in close touch with these matters. I am informed that there has been no change since yesterday and that the matter is not yet fully before the court.
§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I raised this issue with you yesterday and my comments are reported in column 163 of the Official Report. You said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that you believed that the matter was not sub judice.
I believe that I gave you a copy of a press release from British Coal which states that legal action was taking place after papers were lodged with the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Monday. I am rather puzzled by your ruling that the matter was not sub judice when the Prime Minister spoke on this matter yesterday.
As I said in my point of order yesterday, a dangerous precedent has been established because the Prime Minister advanced a case from the Dispatch Box which the South of Scotland electricity board's lawyer will be making in the courts. It is very damaging for a counsel to be able to present in evidence to the court a statement made by the Prime Minister.
Of course, I took the issue further than that in my point of order. I suggested that, although you had been adopting the practice of not taking points of order until after questions, there was a classic example yesterday of a situation where the Prime Minister should not have been allowed to get away with it as the issue was already before the courts.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are giving this matter fair consideration according to the procedures and past practices. However, in the light of what I have submitted to you in writing, the Prime Minister was clearly in the wrong to quote the brief from the SSEB when we know that the papers were already lodged with the court. I ask you, Sir, to give the matter due consideration.
§ Mr. SpeakerOn the second part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, may I say that what he said yesterday and again today is not a matter of order, but concerns whether the Prime Minister gave the right answer. That cannot be a point of order; it is a matter of argument. I believe—I hope that the House will agree— 304 that it is not right that points of order should be used as a vehicle to carry on Question Time. I am, of course, giving careful consideration to the matter.
I can only rule that a matter is sub judice when a date has been set by a court. No date has yet been set and I am informed that the situation has not changed since yesterday.
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)Further to that important point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mine may be considered a niggling point and I accept that. When I sought to raise a point of order with you at 3.30 pm, you told me that you would take points of order after the private notice question. My point of order has now changed. The purpose of taking points of order after other matters has succeeded today because the Member to whom I wanted to refer in my point of order has left the Chamber. Because I respect and agree with the procedures of the House, I will not now raise that point of order. However, that makes it much more important that you now consider the time at which points of order are taken.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs the hon. Gentleman saying that the point of order that he was going to raise about a Minister's answer had anything to do with order?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt had not. The hon. Gentleman has said that his point of order concerned a Minister who has left the Chamber. Clearly, by definition, the hon. Gentleman was raising not a point of order, but a point of argument that he had with the Minister.
§ Mr. EwingFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a sense you are provoking me and I am surprised at you. To clear any doubts from your mind, may I say that I was not going to refer to a Minister or a ministerial answer, but wished to raise, as a matter for explanation, your selection of questioners. One hon. Member was called three times during Scottish Question Time, and I was about to inquire whether you kept calling him in the hope that eventually he would have something sensible to say.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a perfectly legitimate point of order and one which I would gladly have fielded.
§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I raised with you the refusal, last Thursday, of a Home Office Minister to answer questions from eight hon. Members on the ground that the matter was sub judice. Yesterday you were kind enough to make a ruling that, as far as the rules of the House were concerned, the matter is not sub judice. As we have the pleasure of the company of the Minister today, I wonder whether you would be kind enough to repeat that ruling, as I understand that his Department is still declining to answer questions on the sub judice ground. Perhaps you would make it clear to him, Mr. Speaker, that the sub judice rule is not something behind which Ministers who are unwilling to face questions from hon. Members, should shelter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sure that that point has been heard. I draw attention to my comments in yesterday's Hansard.