|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 125-iv House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
SUB JUDICE RULE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday 9 March 2005 MS SALLY KEEBLE, MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 152 - 193
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Procedure Committee on Wednesday 9 March 2005 Members present Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair Mr Eric Illsley Huw Irranca-Davies Mr Tony McWalter Sir Robert Smith Mr Desmond Swayne David Wright ________________ Witness: Ms Sally Keeble, a Member of the House, examined. Q152 Chairman: Can I welcome Sally Keeble, Member of Parliament for Northampton North, who has a considerable interest in our inquiry into the sub judice rule. She has submitted evidence to us and we are very interested in the evidence that she has submitted. Between us, we felt that it would be very useful for her to come and give oral evidence to us. Sally, can I welcome you to the Procedure Committee as part of this important inquiry into the sub judice rule? In your latest note to the Committee you said, "The overwhelming argument for a sub judice rule is the right of our constituents to a fair trial, and for this it is worth Parliament fettering its right to the freedom of speech. However, this fettering of the freedom of speech should not go further than is required to ensure that a trial is fair." We are all aware that you have a legal position and a legal qualification. Where do you think the line should be drawn between what you have highlighted - that is, free speech - and a fair trial? Ms Keeble: I do not have a legal qualification. Q153 Chairman: I was under the impression that you appeared to know rather more about this than the average Member of Parliament. Ms Keeble: I have done some studying of it while I have been an MP in the evenings but being an MP does not make it possible to complete a study and get a legal qualification. The balance has to be struck in terms of the scope of the sub judice rule, both in terms of the courts, tribunals or hearings to which it applies and also the timing of it. If the rule as it applies in journalism applies in particular where there are jury trials, it being assumed that the general public who do not have legal training are going to be more influenced by general arguments than a judge or magistrate is, it is right that particular attention should be taken over jury trials. Where somebody is not on trial, it seems to me inappropriate to have a sub judice rule. Also, perhaps when somebody has not been charged or when there is not a hearing in prospect, it would seem to be inappropriate to have a sub judice rule. That would mean employment tribunals would not have a sub judice rule. There are rules in terms of journalists and reporting such hearings. Where you can have years between a sudden death and an inquest even being completed and nobody is on trial, it would be quite wrong there to have a sub judice rule apply. If I could give an example which is perhaps at the extreme end, the inquest in this country into the death of the late Princess Diana took a very long time to open. Is one seriously saying that in all that time there should be a sub judice rule? Q154 Chairman: You will, I am sure, have read some of the evidence that has been given by learned and distinguished judges, the Clerk of the House and others to us. This House must not be seen to be in conflict in any way with the courts of this country and the judicial system of this country. Do you think there should be that proper separation and therefore Members of Parliament should be responsible for what they say in this House, where there is of course freedom of speech and privilege, so that in no way do utterances in this House affect a court case that is being held? Ms Keeble: I have read all the evidence carefully. Obviously, there are competing pressures here. The evidence that was given was given by people perhaps whose emphasis was very much on the protection of the position of the courts. I am concerned, as all MPs must be, about the position of our constituents and their rights and privileges, the burden of responsibility that is placed on us as MPs to represent them in taking decisions about legislation before the House, in holding the executive to account for its performance and in standing up for their interests. We have, with due respect, I would argue, more claims on our attention and I think it is absolutely vital that we should take those important responsibilities very carefully on board. At the same time, obviously we have to think about the position of the courts. It is important that our constituents should have a right to a fair trial. Our respect for the courts and the integrity of their proceedings is based on our respect for our constituents' right to a fair trial, rather than being purely out of institutional courtesy as such. Perhaps that is one of the missing links in some of the evidence that was given. Q155 Chairman: We have the huge advantage as Members of Parliament in speaking within Parliament covered entirely by the privilege that we have. We can say anything and we cannot be challenged, having said it within Parliament. Do you think it is important that Parliament should not be seen as an alternative to the courts and do you not feel that it is important that Parliament does not seek to establish a point of view through what is said here which might prejudice what occurs in a court? Ms Keeble: Absolutely, but part of the argument as it applies to journalism - that is my background - is that it is thought that judges at least are somewhat immune from influence by wider debate. Therefore, whilst of course we have to have respect for trials and for legal proceedings, I would venture that perhaps judges are not quite the frail flowers that they have been presented as. They are pretty robust about what they think about us sometimes as well. I think it is really important that, whilst we respect the courts, we also respect the importance for our constituents of having us here and able to raise issues on their behalf. Q156 Sir Robert Smith: Are there not two issues here? You mentioned juries but in a case without a jury but with a judge there are witnesses. Is it not also important that those witnesses do not have their evidence prejudiced by what may be said in Parliament? Ms Keeble: I have made no suggestion whatsoever that we should in any way prejudice trials. I have dealt purely with coroners' courts. I do not think anyone would in any way suggest that you should do anything during the course of a trial that would taint the process. It is absolutely right that it is very easy for general media coverage to influence what happens in a trial. I think that is completely beyond the pale. Q157 Sir Robert Smith: Back on the grand principle where you were saying that judges are not frail flowers likely to be swayed by what we say or decide in Parliament, it is a bit of a cliché but it is not just about justice being done; it is about it being seen to be done. Obviously in any case there is more than one party. If Parliament has been seen to take issue or side during the process of a legal proceeding, is there not a danger that the party that is not happy with the result, whether we are confident that judges will not be influenced by what we do, it is about them being seen not to have been placed in a position of being influenced? Ms Keeble: People will always find someone to blame for a result that did not suit them. To a certain extent people saying it is all the fault of Parliament can be quite a vacuous thing for them to do. It is important that justice should be seen to be done and that Parliament should not be seen to be interfering in a trial or a legal process, but I think it is possible to achieve that without having what is basically a gagging of an MP trying to go about their job in a proper way. One of the other problems with this is that as the sub judice rule applies to newspapers, if a journalist breaks that, there is a legal process to deal with it. It can be tried, thought through and discussed but here we do not have that because we are immune from prosecution. If we have a voluntary restraint, there is a risk that it can be too tightly applied and I think it is if it is applied to Coroners' courts and in particular if it is applied to the general issue, because if there is one thing we are supposed to be doing here it is dealing with those broad policies issues. Q158 Huw Irranca-Davies: I am not from a legal background either so I find this quite intriguing. I note in one of the briefing notes we have a description of four basic functions that MPs fulfil in Parliament. One of them is advocacy for constituents. Would you agree that sometimes part of that advocacy is trying to influence public opinion on a particular issue and it may be to do with a case that is proceeding through a court or a coroner's court or possibly even a tribunal. By trying to influence public opinion where an injustice might be evident in the eyes of an MP, you may inevitably influence proceedings that are currently underway. Ms Keeble: I do not think the matter should be raised if proceedings are underway. That is perfectly fair, but proceedings do not last a particularly long time except for, for example, in the case of a coroner's court, if you take the time from the opening and adjourning of the case to the time of the inquest being heard, given that an inquest is not a trial. Where you cannot ask questions about violence towards children and young people for a whole year because an inquest has opened and adjourned, it seems to me to be a bit of a dereliction of duty when it comes to dealing with child care and child protection issues. There is a reverse side. The delay can cause more harm than the sub judice rule is intended to prevent. Q159 Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you feel that you can do that in the abstract, taking up an issue - if you like, a generic problem - with the way something is dealt with whilst at the same time proceedings are continuing? Ms Keeble: Yes. That has to be the case because there are heaps of court cases, tribunals and all sorts going on up and down the country pretty much every single day. They will cover a whole range of different issues. I have been quite clear that that normal parliamentary work, holding the executive to account, discussing general policy issues, has to continue, whilst also recognising that you do not in the process of that mention particular cases. There are also procedures in place so that if an MP is seen to be abusing their position the Speaker should be able to deal with it. People would not have any problems in criticising an MP - I am sure the media might even help - who abused their position and sought improperly to influence court proceedings. Q160 Mr Illsley: Throughout the submission you have made and the case that you referred to, the Princess Diana case, is it a question of delay which is the whole problem here in achieving an inquest? Are we not in danger of disguising the problem being that of delay by looking at the sub judice rule? In other words, if a case in your constituency, for example, occurred in April 2004, if an inquest had been held and decided upon by May of that year and a decision had been taken as to whether any criminal proceedings would follow on from that, the problem would not have arisen, would it? You would perhaps have been happy to have allowed that coroner's inquest to proceed and then a decision to be taken. Most of the problems that you would want to refer to flowing from that incident might have been addressed. Is it a question that we could be confusing the real villain of the piece here? Ms Keeble: I have thought about that point because it was raised during the process. I am not convinced about that. One thing that is clear is that there has never been any rationale for extending the sub judice rule to the coroner's court. If you look at the joint committee's report, it is slipped in, in 1(d), that a coroner's court counts as a court of law and it is slipped in in Stephen Twigg's speech as well. There has never been any justification or explanation for it. It is right that the mischief would not be so bad if there was not sometimes such a delay about coroners' courts, but there is still a principle issue there about why and whether it is right that a coroner's court should be included as a court in terms of the rule. It is made much worse by the delay but quite often you do see coroners' courts opening and adjourning and they remain adjourned for a long time; or you get a sudden death and some years later you get the inquest. Life has gone on in the meantime and it does not influence the inquest. Is it really right that theoretically during that time presumably you should not have discussed the case? If you really look at it, it is probably not appropriate to have a sub judice rule apply to coroner's court. Q161 Sir Robert Smith: One issue that was put to us as to why you would want to include coroners' courts was that their decisions can have an impact on people in terms of the decisions they make and the outcome of the decisions of the court can impact on people's lives. Therefore, it is a decision that still should not be prejudiced. Ms Keeble: Everything can have an impact on people. Anything that is said in Parliament can have an impact on people for a whole variety of reasons. When you are talking about the sub judice rule, you are not just talking about the courts; you are talking about the right of the individual to have a fair trial and to be properly represented by their Member of Parliament and therefore the right of free speech and how you balance those two rights. If there is not a right to a fair trial because it is a coroner's court, it would seem to me that the sub judice rule is inappropriate because it prevents an MP doing about their job in other ways. Q162 Chairman: Do you not take the view that Parliament is the high court of Parliament and, because it is the high court of Parliament and an exceptional place and people often take what is said here as gospel, do you think therefore that Members of Parliament need to be particularly and exceptionally careful about what they say relating to a matter that is either before a judicial court or even a coroner's court or, for that matter, even an employment or other tribunal, where people cannot necessarily be found guilty? What is said in Parliament might well have an influence on the ultimate decision of a coroner's court or a tribunal. Ms Keeble: Being careful about something is different from not being able to talk about it at all. The sub judice rule means you cannot raise it. Because we have the privilege here of freedom of speech, it is right that we have to take that seriously about a whole range of different things. That includes sometimes libelling or slandering people and the kind of remarks that we make on that level. It seems to me quite wrong that the sub judice rule which is intended to protect a person's right to a fair trial should then be extended not just to cover something which is not a trial but also even a tangential reference to the underlying issue. Q163 Huw Irranca-Davies: Specifically on coroners' courts which you make a particular case for, you do put a powerful case forward that they should be in some ways an exception. You have probably seen Lord Goldsmith's evidence where he says that there is an impact of discussion in the public domain. It may determine, he says, an insurance policy pay out, subsequent criminal proceedings or whether civil proceedings take place. They can, in his words, be significant and prejudiced. Also, the Coroners' Society goes on to talk about the impact that it could have on a jury within a coroner's court. How would you respond to those concerns? Ms Keeble: Take a concrete example which is the Northamptonshire one. Opened on 28 April last year after a boy died, adjourned since then and when it is heard, because it was a death in custody, it will be heard by a jury. There is not even a date for it resuming. There will be a general election before then so if I am not around afterwards who knows? The whole affair of the violence towards children in these centres might simply disappear off the agenda completely, which I think would be outrageous. There might well be a case for saying once you have a data for the hearing, where it is an inquest that is going to be heard by a jury, it should not be raised in Parliament while the court is sitting, but for the whole year that it is adjourned, to say that you cannot ask about violence towards children in residential institutions in Northamptonshire I think is an outrage. Let us put it the other way. Yes, I would feel dreadful if something I said interfered with an inquest, even if nobody was being tried. People are more likely to be influenced by the soaps than by me. If in the meantime there is another death in one of these places how do you think I will feel then? I am very clear about which I would feel worse about. As it happens, there has been another child apparently who has had some difficulties in one of these places. Q164 Huw Irranca-Davies: You raise a very interesting and fine distinction there, between raising an issue which is not necessarily specific to an individual constituent but it could be an issue that could affect many other people. For example, issues around corporate manslaughter, Crown immunity from prosecution. I have had cases on my patch where I have raised the issues that have come out of individual cases whilst proceedings were underway but not with reference, because of the worries of sub judice, to the individual constituent per se. Would you think that is the fine distinction that we need to focus on? Ms Keeble: I have been stopped from asking any questions about the issue. It is not just about the individual case which is not a constituent in any event. You have to be absolutely clear if you are going to limit freedom of speech and more importantly the right of MPs to hold the executive to account there has to be a very good reason for it. My constituents' right to a fair trial is a good reason. I am not convinced about the other reasons. The importance of not influencing a jury that is making a decision is obviously an important issue but I would argue that that is limited to the duration of the hearing and it does not extend even weeks in advance of that. I think it is quite wrong to say, just because there might be some theoretical influencing of the people who are looking at the facts of this particular case, that questions around the issue should not be asked at all. Q165 Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you think it is appropriate within a coroner's court case whilst proceedings are underway to raise specific, individual instances of a case as opposed to your very valid point which is possibly protecting lives that may arise out of similar instances unless they are tackled? Do you think it is fair to raise individual circumstances? Ms Keeble: You would have to define "while the hearings are underway" because if a court is adjourned it would seem to me to apply a gag for the whole duration while the coroner's court is adjourned is quite wrong. To stop an MP standing up and making some statement on a hearing which is taking place seems to be quite fair but to apply that for the duration of an adjournment would seem to me to be completely disproportionate. Q166 Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you think there is some case to be made for perhaps at the Speaker's discretion to say that, if a coroner's court is sitting for an unduly long period or has not even convened for a year or two years, that is a case where an MP should be able to go to the Speaker and say, "I am now frustrated on behalf of my constituent. I want at your discretion to be able to raise the individual case, to push it forward both as a general issue and the specifics because it is not being addressed within the coroner's court"? Ms Keeble: The rule should be clearer in the first place. I think it should not apply to a coroner's court unless it is before a jury and then only when the inquest is being heard, which is normally only a matter of a couple of days anyway. Q167 Chairman: Is it your view that coroners' courts adjourn a matter for far too long and that that adjournment in its length is unjustified? Ms Keeble: I do not know. It is dependent on the investigations. The other problem with coroners' courts is that sometimes they are only convened or reconvened quite long after the event. I am thinking of the Marchioness one here. It was adjourned for a long time because the police investigations were very complicated. I know in the case of the Northamptonshire one that there is some concern about the length of the adjournment and the length of time it is taking to complete the investigations and to get a decision out of the Crown Prosecution Service. If you take the Princess Diana one, that came a very long time after the event. I would not say whether that is right or wrong. It highlights the unfairness or injustice that can be caused by having a sub judice rule applying during adjournments. Chairman: Can I give you an assurance that the Procedure Committee hopes to produce its report before the next general election - i.e., before the dissolution of this current Parliament - and whatever the election result in Northampton North the evidence given by Sally Keeble will be there for posterity and your evidence will be fully and properly taken into account by this Committee in drawing up its report. I hope that gives you some reassurance. David Wright: It is nice to know that we have a year in which to consider this before the date of the general election. Chairman: I did not say that. Q168 David Wright: I wanted to focus on a point that you made in your evidence about a question that Rudi Vis was able to put down in relation to this situation, about the death of this boy in a residential institution. I know we cannot into the details of the case but could you talk to us about the difference that you see in the way that Rudi Vis was able to structure his question and why you feel that is not effective enough or does not go far enough or does not allow us to delve deeply enough into the issues? Ms Keeble: I am perfectly confident about the results in Northampton North. Rudi's question - and I had very similar questions to him - was put down as a general question about youth training centres. I said, "Listen, I have a problem" so I alerted them to what was going on before I put the question down. If I had not been so honest, perhaps it might not have been picked up. The second thing relates also to the time because I was putting my question down very soon after it happened, whereas his were later. It is interesting that the question was raised on 29 November and 9 February of this year so with the passage of time presumably memories or awareness of the officers of the House have lapsed slightly, understandably so. One of the issues I was particularly concerned about was staffing. That is problematic. That is partly why some of my questions would run into more difficulties. If you are looking at some of the general policy areas around the death, it is an issue you would want to look at. It is not about the culpability of anybody; it is about the training systems in place, the staffing and vetting procedures. I did indeed put down some questions about the vetting procedures. Q169 David Wright: Were those answered? Ms Keeble: Yes. Q170 David Wright: Would that not suggest that the current parameters of the rule do allow us to operate? Ms Keeble: No, I do not think they do because the amount of information that I need is much more detailed. I confess I partly did it out of pure mischief to see if I could do it. MPs should be able to say, "This is what is going on in the constituency. This is what is going on in the area. This is what these questions relate to" and put in questions quite openly and honestly that are around a particular issue and that do not get ruled out of order. I find it personally quite offensive that the Home Office can put out a press statement on something, the press can ask questions about it and get information and I as an MP with a really serious concern about the child care services in Northamptonshire cannot get information and ask questions. I think that is outrageous because it means that the press can get information about what is happening on my patch which I cannot get. Q171 Mr Illsley: In your evidence you suggest and you have just said that the media are able to comment more freely on court cases than Parliament. Therefore, our right to free speech, much less our ability to hold the executive to account, is very much less than that of the media. If there was ever a reason to do away with the sub judice rule, as I see it, that would be it. I do not understand why the media should get more access to information than should a Member of Parliament. Has any explanation ever been given to you as to why that is the case? Unless one recognises that the media are bound by what they can print and we have freedom of speech and they do not, that assumes they have not abided by that. Ms Keeble: Our sub judice rule is more stringent than theirs. Theirs is tried after the event; ours is a voluntary gag before the event. That makes a difference. Also, the rule extends to any discussion here. It is not just that you cannot put your questions down and you cannot raise them on the floor. You do not even seem to be able to get replies in writing from the Home Office because it says it is sub judice. If it had been a different type of death and there had been a statement in the House, there might have been a statement about an investigation being set up but in this case it was not dealt with that way so there was no statement in the House and there was not the opportunity to question. The whole thing instantly became sub judice because it was a death in custody, the inquest was opened and adjourned. That is it. Mr Illsley: Would there be a case for saying to government or the powers that be that if the media can gain factual information in relation to an issue which to us is sub judice, there is a case that we should be allowed the same information? Then it is up to each individual Member of Parliament, as it would be with the members of the press, as to what they do with that information and how they use it. It is up to each individual MP as to how he looks upon the sub judice rule, whether he stands by it and abides by it or whether he or she breaches it and stands the consequences of that. Q172 Chairman: I think what Mr Illsley is asking is does the press have an advantage over Members of Parliament. Ms Keeble: Yes, they do. People can say to us, "If you want information go and look on the Home Office website and look at the press release." Of course we can do that but our function as MPs is to hold the executive to account on the floor of the House and through questions. That is supposed to be where we do our questioning and our holding to account, not by looking at press releases on the Home Office website. Q173 Sir Robert Smith: Are we meant to reserve questions for finding out information we cannot obtain from other sources? Is the theoretical guidance to Members that we should check in the library and use other sources? This is not how most Members practise it but the idea is the questions are there to get that information which is not available through any other process. Ms Keeble: Yes, but when we ask questions because we have the information, we are simply directed back to the press release which the journalists are able to ask questions about but which we cannot. They can ask questions and print articles based on the press release but we, having seen the press release, cannot table questions. Q174 Mr Illsley: To me, this is perhaps one of the most important parts of this evidence. We are disadvantaged vis-à-vis the media in terms of a case before a coroner's court. In your last bit of evidence, you made reference to Rudi Vis asking a wider question but then you make the point that Lord Elton specifically named a case, Lord Listowel named the individual involved, Baroness Vivienne Stern named the individual involved and a couple of weeks ago Paul Goggins, the Prisons Minister, specifically named the individual during a debate in Westminster Hall. Do you look upon that as a breach of the sub judice rule in all those instances or is this simply another extension of what you were saying, in that the media perhaps have more advantages and these namings have followed on from that; or were these people simply in breach of the rule? Ms Keeble: Perhaps the Committee is in a better position to decide on breaches of the rule. There has been a certain amount of discussion taking place outside the House about this death and what is going to come out of the investigation that the Home Office has, which I have not been able to get that much information about. There is some scepticism about how much will come out. It is obviously something which in certain circles is being talked about. I suspect that these people putting things down is because it has slipped through the net. Q175 Mr Illsley: It is still a breach. Ms Keeble: The Home Office Minister was talking about youth training centres generally and made these comments as part of a much wider debate. Probably, it was not picked up at the time and it is probably a cock up rather than a conspiracy. Also if, like me, you make a point about being concerned about this case and are told you cannot put questions down, you are honour bound gagged until you are ungagged, whereas other people who have not flagged up their concerns in the same way are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. I am very aware that I cannot ask questions about this and I am not supposed to talk about it and raise it. Q176 Chairman: You are raising this matter before a Committee of this House which is being broadcast. I think we were absolutely right to give you the opportunity, because of your commitment, knowledge and involvement in the particular case, to come before us to give evidence. Do you not think that that is a real opportunity? Ms Keeble: I certainly appreciate that and I appreciate the fact that it has been possible to look into it. What I very much want is the opportunity to ask questions about the substantive issue which is a whole array of factors around this particular case. Depending on what comes out of that, I will perhaps ask the Home Office to go further on it or ask Northamptonshire County Council to go further on it. I have some information on it through discussing things with colleagues in Northamptonshire but there are some missing links here. Q177 Sir Robert Smith: Given that the Minister has gone so far as to raise it on the floor of the House, have you tried again through correspondence, as there is no vetting on letters you send, to pin them down again and say, "In the light of the fact that you have taken this case forward ..."? Ms Keeble: That is a fair point. I will try to do that. Having watched quite carefully what was said and asked about this case, it was only in preparation for this that I went back and looked through the search engine. This one on 9 February came up, which I was quite surprised to see. Q178 Mr Illsley: It is either a breach of the sub judice rule by the four individuals and the Minister or it suggests that the sub judice rule is not working because it is too difficult to police it. The very issue you are talking about, delay between an incident and an inquest, means that perhaps the table office police forget the name of the individual or whatever and it slips into a question. Ms Keeble: There seem to be slight differences between what happens in the Lords and what happens in the Commons. The length of time it can take to get an inquest heard is an absolutely major issue. It demonstrates why a sub judice rule applied to coroners' courts does not make sense in its present form because you have to keep people quiet about things for a very long time and it is difficult to do. Q179 Chairman: You are giving an answer to the question I put earlier: do you think that in coroners' courts, in adjourning a case, the length of time they can adjourn for is abnormal and unfair to those involved. You have now indicated that it is. Ms Keeble: If an inquest does not have a jury, it comes under a different category completely. Q180 Chairman: Lord Nicholls who gave evidence to us stated quite to the contrary, if my memory serves me correctly, when I said should what is happening in a coroner's court be treated differently from a normal court of justice in this country. He said it was basically the same. Ms Keeble: The presentation of the rule in the Commons and in the joint committee's report never gave any justification for the coroner's court. The Speaker's ruling in 1992 just said that the Speaker had taken advice and this was the decision. There was never any rationale given. I can understand the point about juries but if you start saying that any hearing before anybody - of course anyone can be influenced by anything - but a coroner can be influenced by what is said in the House, a judge can, magistrates can, anyone can. Then you get into very sweeping restrictions on the right to free speech. Q181 Chairman: I think I have been a little unfair because the question to Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead was by my colleague Huw Irranca-Davies, who asked, "My question to you really is should there be a difference in the application of the sub judice rule between other courts and something like a coroner's court?" Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead replied, "I do not think in principle that there should be. I sympathise with the example you have given but the basic purpose underlying the sub judice rule in the two Houses, as I understand it, is to assist in the demarcation of the boundary and practice between the legislature on the one hand and the judiciary on the other in discharge of their own functions." How would you respond to that? Ms Keeble: With some frustration because, on the one hand, that does not give any extensive justification at all. It does not distinguish between different types of coroners' courts or deal with the point about the difference between juries, judges etc. Also, with all due respect, it does not deal with the obligations that we have in terms of our constituents. The point of us fettering our right to free speech is not just to be nice to the courts; it is to protect our constituents' right to a fair trial. That is the grounding of it. It is not just a matter of inter-institutional courtesies which is the impression I got out of quite a lot of the evidence. There is a whole basic difference between myself and Lord Nicholls over the origins of the sub judice rule and for me it is because of a respect for my constituents and their right to a free trial. Q182 Sir Robert Smith: The Attorney General did think aloud to us that maybe we should be looking at a different trigger point as to when it might apply to a coroner's court so that you did not have such a long period of no comment, but he did not come up with a new trigger point. Are you suggesting that once it starts meeting would be a time to hang on? Ms Keeble: I would have thought the hearing and where it is a jury. If you say that the coroner can be influenced, you are open to saying that a judge can be influenced and an array of people who currently cannot be influenced can be influenced. That would make the imposition of a rule very sweeping and would not recognise the realities of court life. Q183 Chairman: In your evidence, page two, you argue, "There is no testing after the event as to whether the sub judice rule has been broken" and I presume you imply in the House of Commons. Ms Keeble: That is right. Q184 Chairman: Should there be and how would this work? Ms Keeble: I wondered about that. I was greatly influenced by the previous histories of some of the MPs in Northampton who have run foul of various things, including refusing to take the oath and such like. Ours is a voluntary gag. We cannot be arrested for contempt. We cannot be tried as journalists can be taken to court. The only thing that would happen if we raised it improperly would be exclusion from the House but we cannot raise it because we are ruled out of order. That is the problem and that is why the rule has to be very carefully drawn. We can ask the Speaker for his discretion but the people advising him are the same people who apply the rule in the first place. There is no completely independent court of appeal. You could say the Procedure Committee could be but that would seem to undermine the Speaker. Therefore, it seems to me much more important to get a properly workable and fair rule in the first place and not have one which unnecessarily gags MPs. Q185 Mr Swayne: Did you refer this case to the Speaker? Ms Keeble: I did consider it but, no, I did not. Q186 Mr Swayne: Why did you decide not to? Ms Keeble: The main influence was the fact that it seemed a pretty circular argument, because the people advising him would be the same people who had told me very firmly that I could not ask questions. I thought I would be just going round the houses. I had not really thought that the adjournment of the inquest was going to take quite as long as it has. The closer it got to the election, the more I thought this was a nonsense. It also seemed clear that there was a problem about the rule being applied to the coroner's court and therefore that was partly why I raised it with the Leader of the House, to see if it was possible to get the rule revisited. Q187 Mr Swayne: If you had felt that the Speaker was not going to be advised by the very people who had made the decision, if there was some other avenue for the Speaker reviewing a matter like that, would you have had more confidence to do that and, secondly, have you any suggestion as to who might properly advise the Speaker in these matters? Ms Keeble: The answer to the first one is probably yes. It still would not have stopped me raising it with the Leader of the House because it seemed to me there was a basic problem about the sub judice rule and I do believe that very strongly. Who else could advise him? My tendency is to say not a lawyer because, whilst there are some legal issues at stake, there are some basic issues about how we function as MPs. I have not seen that reflected in the evidence presented to the Committee thus far. I am sure there are lots of other Members who have views on this. Q188 Chairman: We are concerned to learn from somebody like yourself whether there are any circumstances in which the Speaker, using his discretion, might relax the rule which is, to an extent, very much what Desmond Swayne has said. Can you go any further? Ms Keeble: If you are not in a position to be able to recast the rule or suggest recommendations, it might be helpful to give some guidance to the Speaker about when the rule should not apply, perhaps in cases where an inquest has been opened and adjourned and therefore there is not a hearing anywhere on the horizon; and/or where there is not a jury involved. Q189 Chairman: You have been very persuasive to us in giving the evidence which you have. Do you now regret in any way that you did not approach the Speaker to ask him perhaps to assist you and to use his discretion, because you indicated in answer to Desmond Swayne that you had not done. Do you now regret that you did not? Might you not have prevailed upon him to use an element of his discretion in this matter? Ms Keeble: I am torn on that because, on the one hand, I do not like think to think that an avenue I could have gone down to unpick some of the problems was not explored. To that extent, yes, I do regret it. Given that the rule as it was applied to this was very clear and I was told very clearly no, it applies to coroners' courts and it is not on, it would have been very difficult for the Speaker in all honesty to have relaxed the rule to the extent I needed to be able to ask questions about some of the background. Q190 Huw Irranca-Davies: On the very point that the Speaker, by his very nature, will err on the side of caution when approached on an issue such as this, should we be looking not at a guide for the Speaker - although that might be one way of proceeding - but a guide to MPs? I am just being provocative here. From my own experience, the sub judice rule is there to be tested in some ways within the discretion of the individual MP as well and what I am suggesting is that sometimes, if MPs in their individual persuasion thought they could test it on an individual case and so on, that might be the way to go and wait to be hauled in to the Speaker, as compared with the other approach which is bound to be cautionary. That might have got your case onto the floor in a delicately phrased manner. You mentioned Rudi Vis earlier on. Ms Keeble: The problem with testing it is that you do not get past square one because you put something down and it is ruled out. You are not in a position to do that. You could piggy back on the back of another question. I did consider that but I thought it was probably a bit dishonest because it would place the Speaker in an impossible position. He would have to rule you out of order. You can do that if you want to but personally I think it is much better to go back to square one, change the rule and get something which does recognise the realities of the coroner's court and the problems around them; and also, an MP's right to represent their constituents and ask questions and hold the executive to account and to proceed from there. The other one is to go and ask the Speaker to use his discretion but in this instance, if you look at it in writing, the rule is very clear: anything before a coroner's court, once the court has opened, is sub judice, out of order and that is it. Q191 Huw Irranca-Davies: Are we becoming too focused here on the whole sub judice rule when there are a lot of other methods as well by which a Member of Parliament can push to obtain information which are not raising it within the House specifically? Ms Keeble: You cannot because when you write to the Home Office it comes back to you saying that it is sub judice. It is completely circular. That means the only way you can do it is informally. I have done that to an extent but by its very nature that informal, off the record information is not always very reliable. What is important in this instance is not just to get the information; it is then to get steps taken to make sure that if there are problems in the way young people are treated in these institutions action is put in hand to stop that. That needs to be done quickly because a kid that was 14 or 15 when this death happened will now probably have left the child care system completely. Q192 Mr Illsley: Do you not think that the authorities involved in a case might give more weight to a House of Commons opinion rather than the media? You said earlier that perhaps your constituents take more notice of the soaps than of anything you say. Do you not think that discussion here about a case might be more likely to influence opinions in an inquest instead of in the media? Ms Keeble: Only if it is reported. Otherwise, people do not see it. I am not sure how the coroner in Northamptonshire is going to know something is being raised here unless I write and tell her or it is reported in the local newspaper. One would hope also that the debate that would take place here about a subject would be more responsible than just a general debate through a local newspaper. That might be hopeful but that is what one would expect, bearing in mind that we have to take our responsibilities seriously. Chairman: Is there anything else that you would like to say to the Committee? We are very grateful to you for the frank way you have dealt with the wide range of questions that we have put to you. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us which you do not think has been covered by any questions that we have put? My colleague, Tony McWalter, has turned up late but he has turned up and we are grateful for that. I know he has had important engagements which have delayed his attendance. Tony, is there anything you would like to put to Sally Keeble? Mr McWalter: I would like to say on the record that I have been dealing with some people from Poland, not even constituents, but I would like to thank Sally for the contribution she has made. I would like to associate myself with her concerns. I hope this Committee will respond very positively to what she has said because it is a nonsense if, in the end, you cannot raise things in Parliament that you can raise in the press. That seems crazy. Q193 Chairman: Is there anything else you would like to say, Sally? Ms Keeble: I appreciate the amount of time you have let me have on this and I appreciate also the fact that you are looking into it. It is not a light issue. It is a very fundamental one. If you think about what would have happened with anyone else dying in custody, there would be an uproar. This is a young person with very few safeguards. He is not one of my constituents. The fact that happened in the custody of the state is outrageous. My feeling about not being able to have it raised properly in the Commons is not just a small matter for me. It is a very, very major issue that it has not been possible to get this done. One can completely respect that you do not want to prejudice anyone's right to a fair trial but there is a major issue here about what happened. Chairman: Can we thank you for your consistency and your persistency and perhaps indicate that there are Members of this House of all parties, not least in your own party the Father of the House, who have never missed an opportunity to raise an issue even if it is extremely unpopular and to stretch the tolerance of the Speaker in doing so, because that is what Parliament is about. I am grateful to you for your persistency and the fact that you feel so deeply on this subject and you have been prepared, unlike many, to offer yourself to come before the Procedure Committee to state your case. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much. |