| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: The timing of the debate is certainly of interest, because it inevitably will run up against the7 o'clock deadline for private business. It can run on thereafter if the House wants it to do so, but the timing is singular and calls into question yet again--if I may say so--the Government's neutrality on the matter.
What will be the position under clause 13 when one hon. Member waives his privilege and another does not? What would be the position in the case of the hon. Member for Tatton? Part and parcel of The Guardian's defence to his action is the position of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). Suppose the hon. Member for Tatton were to waive his privilege but the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not waive his. The danger
would be that at least one of the parties to the litigation would still, in effect, be denied justice. The Guardian, as the defendant, would not be able to pray in aid such evidence as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield might be able to give on the matter, in so far as he has admitted that he was paid money by some outside interests for the purpose of asking a question in the House. That is a real problem and it has not been addressed by those who support clause 13.
Our view can be summarised as follows. Privilege belongs to the House, not to the individual Member. It is for the House to determine how that privilege may or may not be exercised. If privilege is to be waived, that is a matter not for the individual but for the House as a whole. Above all, our view is that when Members individually and freely arrive at their decision on this subject, they should bear in mind that any action by the House that enables the courts, not us, to determine the proceedings of the House--clause 13 may represent just such an action--and any action that puts an individual under pressure to waive privilege, is likely to undermine the privileges of the House. Those privileges were designed to enable us to uphold, maintain and develop a democratic purpose, not to enable us to uphold special rights and interests. We tamper with such a privilege at our peril.
For many Labour Members, clause 13 represents--in the haste and the manner in which it has been introduced--an unwarranted tampering that ultimately threatens the liberty of us all. As such, we shall resist it. All hon. Members, when they make up their minds to resist clause 13--if they do--should do so on the basis that it is an unwarranted interference. All hon. Members should bear in mind the circumstances in which the matter has been brought before the House. Hon. Members should regret the way in which it has been brought before the House and they should bear in mind also their responsibility to preserve and protect the privileges of the House, not in their interests but in the interests of the people whom they serve.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
New clause 9, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made clear--although his concluding remarks called into question what he said about neutrality--and the amendments grouped with it, have given the House what we see as a valuable opportunity to debate what is undoubtedly an important issue that has arisen about parliamentary privileges and the Bill of Rights. Apart from the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made and those that will no doubt be made by others during the debate, it is right also to acknowledge the help that has been given to the debates in this place by the earlier proceedings and exploration of the issues during the passage of the Bill in another place.
As the House is by now well aware, and as the hon. Member for Brent, South has explained, the matter that new clause 9 and clause 13 seek to deal with has arisen because the defamation case that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and Mr. Ian Greer brought against The Guardian in the High Court was stayed by the judge because he decided that the case could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about my hon. Friend's conduct and motives in tabling the parliamentary questions that were the subject of the newspaper's allegations and that that evidence could not
be heard because of the prohibition--by virtue of article IX of the Bill of Rights--on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. As the hon. Member for Brent, South has already said, that case followed the earlier case of Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd. before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in which, because of the provisions of article IX, the Committee found that the defendants could not use parliamentary materials to establish the truth of allegedly defamatory allegations made by them.
Two possible resolutions of the predicament in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton found himself--and which, let us be under no illusion, could face other hon. Members from any party in the future--are before the House this evening, and I will deal with each of them in turn. I make it clear--particularly in light of the hon. Gentleman's peroration which seemed at variance with his earlier stated position--that the Government have adopted the attitude of neutrality. We believe that it is a parliamentary matter and that each individual Member of Parliament should exercise his or her judgment. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Labour party's neutral position--although I think that some of his remarks were not completely consistent with that approach.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
I seek the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation on that point. Does that mean that a document that came before the Standards and Privileges Committee and that made allegations about a number of hon. Members could be used in evidence in a trial when an hon. Member seeks to waive protection? In other words, could the process of extracting information from the Committee prejudice the rights of other hon. Members or other persons who might be named in that document?
Mr. Newton:
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is by my side. He says that he thinks that that would not be the case as the document would not be in the possession of the individual hon. Member. I shall give further attention to that point during the debate.
Sir Terence Higgins:
Would not such a document be part of the proceedings of the House?
Mr. Newton:
I think that the appropriate course is for me to take further advice about the matter and seek to respond to the House and to my right hon. Friend at a later stage.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman--no one knows all the
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell):
I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman as best I can--I have considered the matter.
In my view, it would not be open to the other party to the action to call for such a document to be admitted. According to the hon. Gentleman's description, such a document would probably emanate from the Standards and Privileges Committee and it would be in the possession of the House. It would not be under the control of the hon. Member concerned and, as such, it would not be available to the other party upon discovery.
We are discussing whether the motives or the actions in Parliament of the hon. Member who has brought the action and who has--if the clause is attached to the Bill and becomes law--waived his privilege may be impeached or called into question. That cannot occur at present because of article IX of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the court has held in the Hamilton case that the matter must be stayed as the full issues cannot be tried. The court has not held that it must be stayed because every relevant document that is in Parliament's possession cannot be made available--that would be a much wider point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. The Leader of the House has the Floor.
Mr. Newton:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brent, South, who clearly wishes to intervene. However, first I must complete my point. My right hon. and learned Friend is present and I am sure that he will seek to assist the House at any appropriate stage in the debate if that should prove helpful.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |