§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to the exact parameters of your ruling, given at column 208 of the Official Report on 25 November, on matters relating to debate on the arrest of General Pinochet? For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of Hansard and I shall read it to you.
§ Madam SpeakerI should like a copy of the Hansard, too.
§ Madam SpeakerOn a detailed point of order such as this, it would have been nice to have had a little notice, so that I might give a correct reply.
§ Mr. LeighI apologise, Madam Speaker. At column 208, you said:
The courts may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. The matter of the charges against him therefore remains sub judice."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 208.]That followed a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who quoted Lord Nicholls's judgment, that:The sole question before your Lordships is whether, by reason of his status as a former head of state, Senator Pinochet is immune".My reason for quoting that exchange is that I attended the debate on Friday 27 November—again, I have to quote Hansard—where Mr. Deputy Speaker made a further ruling on your ruling, saying:No one has so far infringed the sub judice rules, but we are getting close. My clear ruling is that we may talk about relations between this country and Chile, as has been done, and we may talk about the possible effect on those relations of the decision whether Pinochet should be extradited. However, we cannot talk about any criminal charges".—[Official Report, 27 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 454.]We had quite a wide-ranging debate that morning, in which Pinochet figured several times. Indeed, during that debate I was allowed, at column 496—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is now becoming rather tedious. Will he come to his point of order?
§ Mr. LeighMy point of order is that, on Friday, we debated what General Pinochet had or had not done in Chile and what he was alleged to have done, but there remains some confusion as to exactly when we became out of order. There have been thousands of column inches in the press expressing views on the issue. Page 384 of "Erskine May"—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his point of order.
§ Mr. LeighPage 384 of "Erskine May" states:
Successive Speakers have exercised their discretion to allow matters to be discussed, on which (although they fall within the strict terms of the sub judice rule) they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise.556 My point of order is this: because there have been thousands of column inches of debate in the national press, it seems rather restrictive that Members of Parliament, apparently alone in the nation, are not allowed to discuss the issue. As we move into an era where, under the Human Rights Act 1998, judges—especially the Law Lords—will be required to make more judgments on intensely political issues, will you consider using your discretion as Speaker to widen the sub judice rule so that we can have a proper debate in the House?
§ Madam SpeakerI appreciate—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I think that I can answer the point of order. I do not want to have to go through any more tedious columns.
I have considered the matter carefully, and not only when I made my first statement. I am as concerned as any other Member of Parliament about the House's ability to debate the matter. I watch proceedings daily, I seek advice and listen to it, and I make my own decisions on the sub judice rule in accordance with what is in "Erskine May" and the practices of the House. I am convinced that the right time to lift the sub judice rule will not be until all legal proceedings are finished and the Home Secretary has been able to come to a conclusion on the matter. When that has happened, I am certain that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Law Officers, will come to the House and report properly; the House can debate the matter at that time.
I think that proceedings on Friday went according to plan. Had they not done so, whichever of the Deputy Speakers was in the Chair would have brought the House's attention to the infringement of the sub judice rule.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your further guidance?
§ Madam SpeakerI have no further guidance to offer.
§ Mr. WilkinsonMy point of order is this: Her Majesty's Ministers—for example, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have vouchsafed various comments about Senator Pinochet. That, I presume, is perfectly all right, and Members of this House can broadcast and write articles on the subject, although we cannot debate it. Is that the position?
§ Madam SpeakerThat is the position. In this House, we do not have the luxury that the press and media have to debate and discuss this matter as we wish. We have rules, Standing Orders and procedures, which we follow. I, as Speaker of this House, must uphold those Standing Orders and those procedures, and I shall continue to do so.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice about the fact that Sir Gordon Downey is retiring today. My point of order in no way impinges on the way in which he has carried out his duties—it raises another point. His successor, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin, is not to be appointed 557 until 2 February next year—a full three months away. You have kindly referred me to House of Commons Commission report No. 1143, which clearly sets out the duties of the commissioner and deals with the appointment of his successor, but does not say what is to happen in the interim.
I should be grateful if either you, Madam Speaker, or the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee could give the House an assurance that serious matters that may be referred to the commissioner in the interim—I am writing to him today on one such matter—will be seriously investigated, and that someone on the office staff will be available, and accountable to the Committee, in the interim.
§ Madam SpeakerI can assure the hon. Gentleman that a very senior staff member is responsible for those issues in the interim. The House of Commons Commission considered this matter most thoroughly when an appointment was made. As well as referring the hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons Commission report, perhaps I might refer him to the debate in this House on that precise issue that took place about two weeks ago. I do not have my diary with me, but the debate could not have been more than two weeks ago. I assure him, and every hon. Member here, that this issue will be taken care of in the interim.