§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister abused Question Time to make a statement on the extradition of Father Patrick Ryan. She said:
The failure to secure Ryan's arrest is a matter of very grave concern to the Government. It is no use Governments adopting great declarations and commitments about fighting terrorism if they then lack the resolve to put them into practice."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 574.]That is quite right. We wish that the Prime Minister would follow the example of her own words. The basis of the Prime Minister's claim is that the warrant was sent to Dublin, with additional documentation, on Friday night. We now know from the Crown Prosecution Service that that was not the case. The Prime Minister has misled the House.The Prime Minister also failed to mention the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with the Ryan case. Ryan was arrested on 30 June, but the Government failed to serve warrants until 5 September. On 25 November a decision was taken. [Interruption.] It is a point of order. The Government obviously do not like being taken to task when the Prime Minister misleads the House.
On 25 November the decision was taken that the Government would put forward demands to the Irish Government, and the Irish Government were expected to do in five minutes what the Belgian Government did not do in five months and for which the British Government were responsible because of the delay in issuing the warrants.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith great respect, I cannot answer questions of that kind.
§ Mr. McNamaraWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to a point of order. The matters that I am describing are the background to it. Has the Prime Minister asked you for an opportunity to come to the House to apologise for deliberately misleading it on the issue of the warrants and—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot allege that any hon. Member or right hon. Member has deliberately misled the House. He must withdraw that allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw the allegation, please—[interruption.] Order. We had this unhappy business yesterday. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation, please.
§ Mr. McNamaraWith the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by Conservative Members I was immediately going to withdraw that remark if you had said so, because I respect you and the Chair, which Conservative Members do not always seem to do.
I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when we could expect the Prime Minister to apologise to the House and what arrangements would be made—this is relevant to what happened yesterday—to have the situation recorded properly in the Official Report.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is news to me. I am sure that what he has said will be noted on the Government Front Bench, but it is not a matter of order for me.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)Following the precedent set in the case of Patrick McVee, when I gave the Attorney-General my support, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for leave to make a statement on the case of Patrick Ryan? Is not the Attorney-General's proper role to advise the Government and the House, rather than to brief the press through his minions? Would it not be more dignified for proper statements to be made to the House by responsible Ministers, rather than for the Prime Minister to abuse Question Time, so that we can have confirmation of what the Attorney-General said on 14 June—whether it still exists or not—namely, that there was a close and personal relationship between himself and his opposite number in the Republic?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot answer that. Again, it is a matter for the Attorney-General.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take all points of order, on this matter together, because we have a busy day. I call Mr. Benn.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wish to raise arises out of the exchange yesterday, but is totally different in character. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), whom I put on notice that I would raise this matter, said:
one of the most wanted terrorists has been let free".In his question in relation to that case he then said:
many…still believe that the Irish Republic is a safe haven for some terrorists".In response—I shall not quote it all—the Prime Minister said:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches".—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c.574–75.]That question and the assent given to it by the Prime Minister raise two points of order. First, legal proceedings have been taken by the Attorney-General in the case of Father Ryan. As he is abroad, the legal proceedings initiated here have been taken up in Belgium and the Republic. It has been a long practice of the House, which you have rigidly enforced in respect of "Spycatcher", where there was a case in Australia, and in the case of the miners' strike, where miners were coming before the courts, that it was not in order for Members of the House of Commons to confirm or to comment on cases that were sub judice, because the process of bringing the case before the court had begun . I hope—
§ Mr. SpeakerThis case is not yet sub judice.
§ Mr. BennWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to resolve today the case that I am putting to you, but legal proceedings have begun, and in this context they are legal proceedings with a view to bringing somebody before a court. If somebody was wanted by the police in this country and was named in the House as if he had already been convicted, I feel certain that you would interpret that as sub judice.
722 Secondly, it is clearly a misuse of privilege to use the protection of the House of Commons to make such an allegation. Father Ryan is wanted on a serious charge. It could hardly be more serious. It is in accordance with the practice of the British courts that anyone charged is presumed innocent until convicted. Therefore, when a senior Member of the House says, and it is confirmed by the Prime Minister, that that person is a terrorist, it is impossible from that moment on for that man to have a fair trial. The BBC broadcast those remarks and every newspaper has highlighted them.
The reason why I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker—I make no criticism of your conduct of business yesterday—is that the sub judice rule and the self-limitation on privilege are to prevent the House of Commons from becoming a lynch mob. In my submission, yesterday it became a lynch mob, headed by the Prime Minister, whose remarks are bound to prejudice any jury or judge if Father Ryan is brought to this country.
Finally, the reason why this is important is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said at Question Time, as a result of the Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham bombings, many people abroad—this was confirmed by what the Prime Minister said yesterday—do not believe that Irish prisoners get justice in British courts.
§ Mr. SpeakerI advise the right hon. Gentleman that this case is not yet sub judice and I advise the House that every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says. As I have said before, we have freedom of speech here, but it should be used with great caution. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about any man being innocent until proved guilty is absolutely correct.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that I should call the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates).
§ Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for the courtesy of telling me that he was going to raise this matter. I used the phrase yesterday solely in the context of my outrage at the fact that that person was not being brought here to face trial. It was not intended to be an intimation of guilt. Strictly, I should have said, "Ryan is the man the security forces most want in connection with serious terrorist offences." I am happy to make that plain.
§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that yesterday the Prime Minister abused the proceedings of the House in the most disgraceful way imaginable. Essentially, she made a statement during Question Time. I believe that her motive was to grab the headlines from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who slaughtered the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government's economic policy. In her abuse of our proceedings the Prime Minister raised the question of the extradition of Father Ryan in the most politically insensitive way imaginable, because that is a matter for the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister also prevented hon. Members from properly questioning the Government on the mess that they have got into on the question of warrants.
723 My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to inquire whether, if the Attorney-General asks to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening, you will look at that sympathetically.
§ Mr. SpeakerOf course I will.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As we have a heavy day ahead of us, I ask hon. Gentlemen whether these are points of order that I can deal with, because so far, apart from that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), they are not really points of order for which I have responsibility.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The various points of order have raised what seems to us a potential abuse of Question Time by the Prime Minister, who incorporated into an answer what was, in effect, a statement. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) launched an attack on two Governments—these are serious matters—and the Prime Minister replied in kind. There was no opportunity for Opposition Members to question her, as would be the case if a statement was made.
There is an alternative for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, because Standing Order No. 17 states:
No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except … questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.That Standing Order relates to private notice questions, but fits precisely the circumstances that you could use, Mr. Speaker, if, in your opinion, the Prime Minister or any other Minister abused his or her position. Ministers are in a powerful position, because the media report the comments of the Prime Minister carefully and closely. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister is determined to draw the spotlight away from the economic disaster of the Chancellor and on to something else, she can do that.As the Executive is accountable to the House, and you, as Mr. Speaker, are the Chairman of the House, it seems to me that by using that Standing Order you could state that because a matter is of an "urgent character" and relates
to matters of public importanceas was clearly the case on this occasion, you could take questions about it after 3.30 pm. Your willingness to be prepared to look at this would be a useful reminder to the Government not to abuse this place as they so badly and blatantly did yesterday.I realise that the Standing Order gives you that right, but, according to "Erskine May", precedents require you generally to receive an application for a private notice question before 12 o'clock. That is not part of our Standing Orders. It is simply a convention which, if you wished, you could change. I suggest that you reflect on my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and make a statement—as is customary for the Speaker—so that Mr. Speaker is given a little more elbow room and a little more ability to make a decision when, in his judgment, the Government are seriously abusing this place. We should all be opposed to that.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The trouble with open questions at Prime Minister's Question Time is that nobody in the House, 724 least of all the Speaker, knows the question that will be asked or the answer that will be given. I cannot divine that sort of thing. It is true that this matter was in the minds of many hon. Members yesterday. I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we can put into context today's protests by Opposition Members, can you confirm that if, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition had thought that this was an important subject and had stood up on Question No. 4, you would have called him?
§ Mr. SpeakerBy tradition, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up he is called.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Press Association tapes were quoting Government sources as admitting that the warrants issued in respect of Father Ryan were defective. It seems extraordinary that in Dublin the Attorney-General is giving advice very freely indeed. The Attorney-General seems to be briefing the British media very freely. The Prime Minister is criticising the Belgians and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it seems that the guilty party is the bungling British Attorney-General, who cannot at this late stage get these warrants right. It is extraordinary that he is not even in the Chamber to listen to these points of order.
Could you arrange for the Attorney-General to report and account to the House on why he has been unable to issue correct warrants in respect of Father Ryan? That clearly lies at the heart of this matter. It is the Attorney-General's responsibility to account for the office that he holds, and he also has a responsibility to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not had the advantage of seeing the tapes, but I pick up the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. If it is true—I do not know whether it is—that the press has been briefed, in my judgment the House should also be briefed.
§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)May I proffer a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which you may care to think about overnight on the matter of warrants and the sub judice rule? If the man has been accused and charged in this country, of course, the sub judice rule applies. A warrant is issued when a person is not within the jurisdiction of the court. If, after that, at any time he comes into the jurisdiction of the court he becomes the subject matter of the charge to which the warrant relates. Would it not be sensible, when you review these matters—I do not require an answer today, but perhaps a statement could be made [Interruption.] I apologise for the bad manners of Conservative Members. When you, Mr. Speaker, and those who advise you have had time to consider my suggestion, perhaps a statement could be made, or the rules slightly changed so that they cover either the moment when the man is charged or when a warrant is issued against him in this country.
§ Mr. SpeakerA change in the sub judice rule would be a matter for the House, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks through what he and other hon. Members have been saying, he may feel that the House would wish further to debate the whole matter. At the moment the matter is not sub judice.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is based on what you said a few moments ago. We appreciate your comment that if the press has been briefed the House should be briefed and, as you would expect, we go along with that. The Leader of the House is in the Chamber and the support that you will get from the Government will perhaps be demonstrated by the way in which they respond to the clear injunction from you that there should be a statement. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House if he will talk to his colleagues to ensure that we have a statement at 7 o'clock?
§ Mr. SpeakerLet us leave that matter, because I have a statement to make.