§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order with reference to the question that I asked at Northern Ireland questions. I shall not strain your patience by reminding the House of precisely what I said, but the question was directed to Government policy—whether immunity from prosecution should be given. It had absolutely nothing to do with the role of the paratroopers, with the evidence to be called, or with the question to be determined by those presiding over the inquiry. My understanding, culled from page 383 of the latest edition of "Erskine May", was that the 1972 resolution of the House permitted Members to raise questions relating to the conduct of Ministers, even if there was a tangential reference to some judicial inquiry in progress.
You may not wish to give a ruling today, Madam Speaker, but perhaps at some stage you will be in a position to give a little more guidance so that, I, at least, do not inadvertently transgress and try your patience.
§ Madam SpeakerI shall respond immediately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and remind him, as I am sure he is aware, that the purpose of the sub judice rule is to avoid any element of interference by the House in the work of the courts and the rights of those who are answering charges made against them.
Reference in debate to the status of witnesses appearing before an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 may, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, have implications for the conduct of that inquiry and its outcome. I am sure that he will agree that that would be wrong.
I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in, and has read, a debate in another place, but let me tell him, and the rest of the House, that the sub 378 judice rule in the other place is not, I understand, exactly the same as that which governs proceedings in this House. In any case, I believe that their lordships were at that time considering legislation, when in both Houses the sub judice rule does not apply.
§ Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of my intention, but the matter arose during Question Time, and it became impossible for me to give you notice. You know, as I do, what a minefield the sub judice rule is in the House, and its implications for the way in which the occupant of the Chair has to rule. I understand that only too well.
However, what I was trying to do, which was ruled out of order because of the sub judice rule, was to ask the Minister a question about his actions in defending those who might be called to give evidence. I was not attempting to interfere with the court or the judge; I was attempting to assist the court to ensure that there was a greater chance that evidence could be given freely by those called to give it, in that their anonymity would be protected.
I was emphasising the judgment that a Minister could make before the actual operation of the court and the sub judice rule. I would have hoped that that would have met the application of the rules in "Erskine May".
§ Madam SpeakerI quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument; I was very concerned while he was putting his question. May I repeat that even if the right hon. Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, as he genuinely tried to explain to the House that they were, what he wanted to say could still have had implications for that inquiry and its outcome, and that would be wrong. I have gone carefully into the sub judice rule, and I seek to protect the House, as I also seek to protect witnesses and courts elsewhere.