§ Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a point of order of which I have given you notice? As you know, we have asked the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on the position of General Pinochet. There are important questions to be asked, ranging from the handling of the case to the condition of General Pinochet himself.
The Home Secretary may feel himself inhibited in making such a statement by the proceedings currently taking place in the divisional court, which I understand will soon be completed. I think that it is important that the House should be able to hear a full statement on the case, given that it is being extensively reported in the media, not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. Could you confirm that, once the proceedings in the divisional court are concluded, there will be nothing to prevent the Home Secretary from coming to the House to make a statement?
§ Madam SpeakerThank you, Sir Norman. I know that Mrs. Clwyd has a similar point of order, which I shall take now.
§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Further to that point of order, although I know that we have had a few little differences in the past, I was very surprised last night to receive from the Table Office a letter informing me that my early-day motion—which was signed by 75 of my colleagues, and expressed the opinion that we were pleased at Senator Pinochet's detention in Britain—had been suspended from the Order Paper. I am a little confused because, during Foreign Office Question Time, we have had quite an open discussion of the matter.
Why is it possible to express an opinion on the matter, one way or the other, during Question Time, whereas it is not possible to express an opinion on the Order Paper? I know that many more of my colleagues wanted to sign that particular early-day motion. I should therefore be glad if you could throw some light on the matter.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to add to the observations expressed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), in as much as I tabled an amendment to her early-day motion, to express the view that the Senator should be allowed to return to Chile to recuperate, and perhaps to receive there the extradition request from the Spanish authorities. I too received notice from the Table Office that my amendment had to be withdrawn.
You will recall that I sought to raise private notice questions on Monday and Thursday of last week on the Senator Pinochet affair. When the divisional court proceedings are over, will it be possible for hon. Members 156 to table private notice questions on matters relating to the senator if there are important developments that require the House's urgent attention?
§ Madam SpeakerHow many more points of order before I can respond?
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It should not be thought that it is only Opposition Members who would like the opportunity, if the rules permitted it, to discuss the Pinochet affair. As you may or may not know, I have been keen for such a debate to be held on the Floor of the House. The reason that I want it debated at the earliest opportunity, although I recognise the limitations set by our rules, is that many of us want to explain that Pinochet is a murderer and should be—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am dealing with a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion, I have no time for that at this moment. This is a serious matter.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I think that I have the feeling of the House about this matter. I have been in the House for some 25 years; I am very sensitive to its needs, and I try to respond.
I know that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is concerned that he is inhibited from commenting in the House on matters that he has been widely asked to comment on outside. I know too that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is frustrated, as other hon. Members no doubt are, that her early-day motion and those of others, along with amendments to them, relating to Senator Pinochet have been withdrawn from the Order Paper because the matter is now sub judice. I fully understand Members' concerns, but I must have regard to the rules of the House. I do not make the rules of the House; I simply carry them out until they are changed.
Our sub judice resolutions, which can be found in the Standing Orders of the House, require that there should be no comment on matters awaiting jurisdiction in the courts. A hearing is currently being held relating to the legality of the senator's arrest and, in due course, a court may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. Hon. Members must therefore take care not to offend against the rule, which exists to avoid conflict between Parliament and the courts and to ensure that the judiciary and the courts remain, and are seen to be, free from political pressure.
I shall of course ensure that hon. Members are able to raise with Ministers in the House any matters relating to this issue as soon as it is in order to do so. I shall watch proceedings carefully and ensure that, when the 157 proceedings in relation to the arrest and the extradition request are completed, the early-day motions are restored to the Order Paper. I can say no more at this stage.
§ Mr. CorbynFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
§ Madam SpeakerNo. There are no further points of order on this. That is a very clear ruling. I shall take no further points of order on the matter.
§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were just told During Foreign Office questions by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the reaction of Chancellor Schroder to the Prime Minister's proposals on European defence, proposals that Philip Webster of The Times has heard but which the House has not. Have you had any notice of a statement by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office or, indeed, the Ministry of Defence on this matter?
§ Madam SpeakerNo, I have had no indication that any statement is going to be made by any Minister on that matter today.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOf course, if it is on a different matter.
§ Mr. HowarthMay I just ask you—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I have given a very clear ruling. I shall take no further points of order on this matter.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)On a fresh point of order, Madam Speaker. The weekend summit in Austria was described as informal, but it is nevertheless of considerable interest to the House. As it is a House of Commons matter, has there been any approach to you to suggest that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister on what took place? It has already been mentioned in a partisan manner by the shadow Foreign Secretary, who linked it with Chile. However, will the matter be separately debated by the House?
§ Madam SpeakerIt is not a matter for me whether time is available for such a statement. If the Prime Minister or any Minister wishes to make a statement, I shall ensure that he or she can do so. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have had requests from other hon. Members for such a statement, but none has been forthcoming.