§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether, arising out of Question 6 to the Prime Minister, you would reflect on the following issue over the weekend, because these matters are complex. I refer to the question of the sub judice rule.
I draw your attention to column 755 in the Official Report of 10 November 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like your advice on how the House is left following today's statement. Is it the case that no further questions can be put or answered on the many issues that have come up in the questioning, on the grounds that it is sub judice? I hope that you will not answer today, because it is an important question.If a Minister can set up a judicial inquiry and no questions can be put on the matter for the next 18 months, on the grounds of the sub judice rule, parliamentary accountability will disappear overnight.My right hon. Friend then asked you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on the matter. At column 756, I said:Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Madam Speaker. This morning the Table Office accepted two identical questions from me—one for the Prime Minister and one for the Secretary of State for Defence—asking on what date they were first alerted to the Matrix Churchill situation. In the light of the answer to my right hon. Friend, are we saying that there is no need for Ministers to answer such questions, even if they remain on the Order Paper, on the grounds that the matter is sub judice"?You, Madam Speaker, replied:Order. It is quite the opposite. As I have already said, the inquiry is not sub judice."—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 755–56.]The argument is that the Ordtech trial, which is a very grey area, is parallel to the Matrix Churchill trial. However, after various inquiries, I do not know whether this is covered by Lord Justice Scott although I am told that 'At is. In those circumstances, may I ask you to reflect on those complex issues over the weekend and perhaps make a judgment on Tuesday?
§ Madam SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman would read his Question 6 to the Prime Minister today, he will see that it deals not with an inquiry, but with legal proceedings. In fact, his question today did not breach the sub judice rule. The hon. Gentleman did, I have to say, stray in his supplementary a little far into matters of that nature, and 1166 the Prime Minister was quite correct in declining to comment further. The hon. Gentleman's question was not related to an inquiry; it related to legal proceedings.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister's answer did relate to the inquiry as I understood it. Would you reflect when you see the full report?
§ Madam SpeakerI think that I have gone far enough on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read his question and will look at my answer. The question is concerned with legal proceedings; it is not concerned with inquiries.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you do something to protect the business of the House? We had questions today to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware that we made much progress through to Question 18 because, of the first six Labour Members with questions on the Order Paper, only one turned up for Question Time. Of the first six, only one turned up, although the seventh was present.
Can you advise the House whether you were paid the courtesy of being informed that notice of those absences had been given? Is there some way in which hon. Members can raise important subjects such as the Agricultural Wages Board, the Potato Marketing Board and the distribution of surplus food to poorer people when hon. Members do not turn up for their questions?
§ Madam SpeakerAs the House is aware, I am quite anxious to get speedily through the Order Paper, but not as a result of absenteeism. Of course there are occasions when I am given notice of absence from the Chamber and that was the case today in relation to one question where notice was given well in advance, and in relation to a couple of others when it was given rather late in the day. It is a discourtesy to the House for hon. Members to table questions and then not to be present without giving notice to the Chair and to the Minister who is to answer them.