| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allason: Hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Garnier: Following his success in the law courts on a number of occasions, although not last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay can probably be dubbed "my learned Friend". He certainly claims to be.
I think that it would be unwise to bolt on to a defamation Bill a clause that will fundamentally adjust the relationship of hon. Members with their constituents. After all, we are the guardians of the privileges of Parliament and we should be careful before putting them into the hands of an individual hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not quite right when he said that unless the clause is part of the Bill no Member of Parliament will be able to bring a libel action. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights comes into play only in cases that will require a court to impeach or question the proceedings, speeches or debates of the House or another place. All I ask is that my hon. Friends bear it in mind that this issue is bigger than their personal problems.
I do not say that to belittle their appreciation of their own problems, but the constitutional issues are bigger and should be thought about more carefully before we include clause 14 in the Bill. I suggest that a more sensible means of dealing with it should be found.
Statutory privilege is dealt with in clause 15. It is a welcome updating of the list of proceedings that can be safely reported by non-malicious newspapers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire does not believe that there is such a creature as a non-malicious newspaper, but I can assure him that there is, even if we do not meet it very often.
I have a problem. Paragraph 12 in part II of the schedule to the Defamation Act 1952 states:
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
While my hon. and learned Friend is dealing with qualified privilege, does he think that it would be appropriate, between now and the Committee stage, to look at the judgment referred to this morning in The Daily Telegraph where a press conference was held by a judge not to be a public meeting and a newspaper lost an action on those grounds? Should not that be clarified at the same time?
Mr. Garnier:
I am sure that if my hon. Friend is lucky enough to be chosen to be a member of the Committee, he will be able to draw that to hon. Members' attention.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
Although I am a practising member of the Bar, I would not claim the expertise of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in defamation law. I recall once drafting a statement of claim against the Liverpool Daily Post, and there ceases my contribution to the annals of defamation law. Sometimes in later life we gain the opportunity to dip our finger into that lucrative field which the hon. and learned Member has enjoyed for many years, although no doubt less so now because of his responsibilities in the House.
Clause 14 has become known as the Hoffmann amendment. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) took good and ample advantage during his speech of his parliamentary
privilege--well, not of his parliamentary privilege, but his right to use the privilege of the House. The confusion in the way in which I just expressed that depicts the misunderstanding of the dilemma facing many hon. Members.
The privilege is not the privilege of an individual hon. Member, but of the House. Indeed, in the Privy Council case of Prebble, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, on behalf of the Judicial Committee, said:
What troubles me greatly is that we do not have the tradition in either this House or the other place of granting hon. Members immunities from suit. The Hoffmann amendment smacks of the continental tradition of giving members of legislatures immunities from suit or at least the right to pick and choose their way among the privileges available to such a member.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that far more hon. Members have enjoyed the protection of privilege than have suffered from its limiting effects. Probably every day in the House hon. Members take advantage of parliamentary privilege for the benefit of their constituents, whereas, once in a lifetime a case such as that affecting the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) comes before the courts showing itself to be an anomaly.
I am sure that all hon. Members have a degree of sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton, who wishes to bring his action. I would not seek to obstruct his ability to do so, but it seems that the Hoffmann amendment is not the way to do it. Indeed, it is not clear that Lord Hoffmann thought that it was the way to do it. In the other place he said that it would be wrong not to test the opinion of the House and a Division then took place. One cannot escape noticing that, having commended the amendment to the other place, although Lord Hoffmann did not vote against it, he did not vote for it. That creates a puzzle. It seems to indicate that he may have had some misgivings about whether it was appropriate, although he did not express himself in terms of neutrality when moving the amendment.
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
For the sake of clarification,I should make it clear that in his speech Lord Hoffmann gave the other place an indication of his intention not to vote on the issue. He indicated, in general terms, that he did not consider himself to be an advocate, but felt that in the circumstances it was necessary that the issue should be debated. It would be wrong to invest some sort of mystery into his actions.
Mr. Carlile:
I read the debate and saw that he said something along those lines. However, it is right to reflect on the fact that it is not unusual for Law Lords to speak in debates or for them to vote. It is not all that unusual for Law Lords to move amendments where they feel that it is appropriate to do so, and it is normal for them to support those amendments. What happened in this case was highly unusual and we have not heard Lord
On this important issue, it does not present much of a challenge to produce an amendment to article 9 of the Bill of Rights that would meet the requirements of the hon. Member for Tatton and the requirement of retaining the privilege as the privilege of the House.
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of The Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Robert Hicks (South-East Cornwall):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's provisions are modest. The Bill is essentially about land management and conservation. Its principal proposal is to establish a Bodmin moor commoners council on a statutory basis. All other objectives in the Bill relate to the functions, work and operations of the council.
The Bill does not seek to deal with the wider question of access. I must emphasise, however, that nothing in the Bill alters the availability of public access to the commons. Public access was discussed extensively when the Bill was considered in the other place, but at that stage the clause relating to wider public access was withdrawn.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
Why is there not, under the Bill, a right of access to Bodmin moor for horse riders? May I remind my hon. Friend that a similar lack of provision under the Dartmoor Commons Bill in 1985 led to its defeat neck and crop?
Mr. Hicks:
In view of my hon. Friend's experiences with the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I am pleased and relieved to tell him that the two petitions that were lodged against the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill have been withdrawn because the promoters have been successful in reaching an accommodation with the petitioners in respect of horse riding.
Although this Bill's objectives are limited, they are of real significance to the people who live and work on the moor. Local Bodmin moor communities are looking to the House today to give its support to what they seek and have asked their elected representatives to deliver.
The origins of the legislation go back to January 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At that time, he was considering extending the number of environmentally sensitive areas and many of us were anxious that Bodmin moor should be included in that list.
My right hon. Friend kindly agreed to receive a delegation from Cornwall, which I arranged and led. Those attending included the then hon. Member for North Cornwall, and I am pleased to see his successor here today in support of the Bill because--as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know with your west country links--since the redistribution of constituencies in 1983 the majority of Bodmin moor is now located in the North Cornwall constituency rather than in mine.
Members of that delegation included representatives from Cornwall county council, the two district councils that cover Bodmin moor--North Cornwall andCaradon--the Bodmin Moor Commoners Association, representatives from both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association and the co-ordinator of the Minions Heritage Trust project.
Irrespective of the merits of the case for Bodmin moor to be designated an environmentally sensitive area, which we presented on that occasion, my right hon. Friend was
unable to agree to our request. His reason was succinct and understandable. I recall vividly his saying to me on that occasion, "Bob--much as I would like to designate Bodmin moor an ESA, I am afraid that I cannot do this because there is no organisation or body in place with which I can treat"-- a lovely old-fashioned word that is appropriate for my right hon. Friend to use. That was the sole reason for the rejection--that no statutory authority could guarantee to deliver the obligations that ESA status demands. I mention that small, but significant piece of political history because it explains concisely why the House is considering this Bill.
It may help if I say a brief word about the geography of Bodmin moor and about the nature and extent of present-day economic activities. From that, I hope that the House will recognise how important it is that the Bill should obtain its Second Reading today--so that in time, I hope, Bodmin moor can be designated an environmentally sensitive area.
"A copy or fair and accurate report or summary of any notice or other matter issued for the information of the public by or on behalf of any government department, officer of state, local authority or chief officer of police."
That was included in the category of statement that was privileged subject to explanation or contradiction. It seems to be missing from the schedule to this Bill. I wonder whether that is a mistake.
"The privilege protected by Article 9 is the privilege of parliament itself. The actions of any individual Member of Parliament, even if he has an individual privilege of his own, cannot determine whether or not the privilege of Parliament is to apply".
Those words seem to define clearly the dilemma that we face: are we to hand to individual hon. Members an immunity--a privilege--of the entire House, which has been such since article 9 was enacted?
7 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |