§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns a written question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; I have given her notice of my intention to raise this matter. I asked her when she was first aware that Customs and Excise, for which she is responsible, had told her that it was launching an investigation into the affairs of Sandline and the alleged breach of the arms embargo to Sierra Leone. She recently answered the question by refusing to give the date, on the ground that an internal investigation is being conducted.
Page 302 of "Erskine May" explains that matters are sub judice only if they are before a court of law; matters that are the subject of administrative inquiry are specifically ruled out of being sub judice.
Relevant and allied to that is the fact that the Prime Minister has answered an identical question. He has given a date on which he was first made aware of the Customs and Excise inquiry into the allegations. The Prime Minister has answered the question, but a Treasury Minister refuses to do so on the spurious ground that the matter is the subject of an internal investigation. Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the Minister is in breach of the rules of the House by refusing to disclose the date of which she has knowledge, and that this is therefore a contempt of the House unless she supplies that information at an early date?
§ Madam SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The main business today is certainly not covered by the sub judice rule. Neither he nor the House would expect me to comment on the answers given by Ministers. Perhaps such questions could be put to members of the Government Front Bench in the course of the main business, but the most important thing is that today's debate is not covered by the sub judice rule.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a point 862 of ministerial accountability. There is a report in The Sun today—[Interruption.] It might not always be regarded as the most accurate record of our times, but it contains a report that suggests that a man who used to work for the Labour party—Mr. Derek Draper—was invited to and took part in a radio or television programme concerning a newspaper report, a programme in which no Minister was prepared to take part. From the studio, the man sought and obtained a briefing from the Prime Minister's policy unit. The policy unit is not the headquarters of the Labour party; it is funded from public funds. Is it right that such things should be allowed to proceed if a Minister refuses to take part?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order for me. I certainly have no intention of commenting on newspaper reports. I do not even comment on newspaper reports that relate to me.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend sought to establish that a Treasury Minister was withholding information, against the precedents established by "Erskine May", and that the Minister in question should provide that information in reply to a parliamentary question that has been tabled. Will you instruct her to do so?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman and I and many right hon. and hon. Members will remember that some years ago, during an inquiry into other matters, information was not given during Question Time. I have already made it quite clear that answers to questions are not a matter for me. We have a full debate in the House today, in which those matters can be raised. No doubt Government Front Benchers will do their best to answer the questions of Opposition Members. I repeat that the matter is certainly not sub judice.