§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order, of which I gave you notice this morning, concerns the removal from the Order Paper of Question 10, which I tabled and which was already printed in the Order Book, to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for answer on Tuesday 27 February 2001. You will be familiar with the letter written to me on 7 February from the Deputy Principal Clerk at the Table Office. I make it clear that in no way do I criticise the Clerks, who are doing their job, and in normal circumstances, there would be no whisper of an objection from me for ruling out a question that involved sub judice matters.
The letter from the Deputy Principal Clerk reads:
You have an oral Question in the Order Book for answer on Tuesday 27 February asking the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 January, on Lockerbie, if he will take steps to establish the existence of criminal evidence relating to persons other than Mr. Al-Megrahi.You may already know that Mr. Al-Megrahi has lodged a Notice of Appeal and that accordingly the sub judice rule applies once more to the matters in the case. The Speaker has therefore directed that your oral question be removed from the Order Book.The rule also, of course, applies to your Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 13 February on relations between the UK and Libya. References in debate to the matters awaiting adjudication in the case would be sub judice. Although the bare facts that the trial court at Zeist has reached a conclusion and that an appeal has been lodged may be acknowledged, any further comment about the trial or appeal or matters likely to be raised in the appeal would be out of order.The problem is that there is nothing ordinary about the Lockerbie case. In particular, the Foreign Secretary, the American Secretary of State and a host of others have made statements calling for Libya to face up to its alleged responsibilities without waiting for the appeal procedure and, indeed in some cases, after the appeal has been lodged. Acres of newspaper comment appeared, both before and after the decision to appeal was announced. Is not what is sauce for the Foreign's Secretary's goose sauce for a Back Bencher's gander? More pertinently, should the House of Commons—and the House of Commons alone—be restrained from asking questions in good time?The issue is not simply one of the rights of an individual defendant but whether, on the back of a trial verdict that is vehemently disputed by many of those who 36 know most about the detail, this country should join in what could all too easily become military action in north Africa. The idea that the House of Commons should be prevented by rules—which are perfectly sensible in the overwhelming number of court cases in our domestic courts—from discussing grave international matters, where events could all too easily take over before the appeal procedure can be completed, is a matter, I submit, for your reflection, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
As notice of appeal has been lodged by Mr. Al-Megrahi, the case is now sub judice. Under our rules the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers has properly been removed the Order Paper. However, he also has an Adjournment debate tomorrow in Westminster Hall. In that debate, Members will be able to discuss the wider issues of the United Kingdom's and the United States' relations with Libya arising from the Lockerbie case to which the hon. Gentleman has also referred.
§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my supplementary question in Defence questions, it became clear that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence did not understand the difference between a landing ship logistic and a roll-on/roll-off ferry. I attempted to correct him from a sedentary position, but you, Mr. Speaker, quite properly rebuked me. If the Minister's answer has misdirected himself and the House, is there anything else besides the Order Paper that I can use to get him back to the House to correct the record?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is one thing for sure: the hon. Gentleman cannot rerun Question Time.
§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from reports at the weekend that Sir Richard Branson's People's Lottery is seeking compensation of £8 million from the National Lottery Commission. Any compensation would come from the funds that are much needed by organisations throughout the country, and many people have expressed their alarm at that. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any communication from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about a statement on this issue?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have received no such communication.