Letter from Ms Sally Keeble MP (P 13)
I am writing again about the sub judice rule,
as I believe that your committee is to revisit the issue following
a recent meeting of the Liaison Committee.
Following my appearance at your Committee, I took
your advice to ask the Speaker to use his discretion in the matter.
I thought of applying for an adjournment debate, which would be
more useful than a question, so I put in a request and wrote to
the Speaker asking for a meeting so that I could explain the situation.
The title of the debate was Restraint in Secure Training Centres.
However, I got a letter back from the Speaker's Secretary
saying that the Speaker would not meet me because the selection
of adjournment debates was done on a random basis, and meeting
with me might be seen as influencing that. So my request went
into the ballot as normal and was not successful.
On the second occasion I put in my request for an
adjournment debate I got a phone call from the Table Office saying
that there was a problem with my request because the matter was
sub judice and I would need to speak to the Speaker! There
followed a discussion, and I then got a letter from the Speaker
saying that provided I didn't refer to the matter that was sub
judice, my request for an adjournment debate could go ahead.
This is not an "I told you so letter".
What it appears is that the area in which the Speaker can use
his discretion is so light that it does not provide a remedy when
there is a matter of real public concern that is caught by the
sub judice rule. In addition, there is an issue about the
impartiality of the advice provided to the Speaker, where it is
provided by the same people who have initially told the MP that
the matter in question is sub judice.
I can usefully have an adjournment debate on the
general matter of Restraint in Secure Training Centres, and there
is a huge scandal surrounding that. However, an even bigger scandal
is around the death of this poor boy, and the delay in a CPS decision
on prosecution. It really is important that the Home Office can
be called to account over issues such as this, and I do hope that
your committee will be able to find a way to improve the present
procedures.
October 2005
| 
