| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In making up their mind, did the Government consider the entire corpus of decision making, which goes back to the case of George Strauss v. the London Electricity Board in relation to what is and what is not a proceeding in Parliament? That case has served us quite well over the years.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman echoes one or two points that have been made by his hon. Friends. Again, it is a point of argument. It is one of the factors that the House needs to take into account in reaching a judgment at the end of the debate.
The case for the clause can be put simply. In essence, it would enable justice to be done in defamation cases such as that brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. As the House well knows, provided that my hon.
Friend--or anybody else in those circumstances--waived his protection, which the clause would allow him to do, the defendants in the case would be able to call evidence relating to the proceedings of the House to justify the allegations that they published, and the issue between them and the plaintiffs could be tried by the court. If the plaintiffs went on to win their case, they would be able to clear their names of the charges against them, a matter to which those affected would naturally attach great importance. Furthermore, they would be able to recover damages--which they could not do if they were able only to resort to the machinery that exists within Parliament for dealing with such cases by way of a complaint of privilege.
There is a substantial case to be made for the clause. On the other hand--this echoes a point that I have acknowledged on a number of occasions--it is, of course, also the case that any interference with the Bill of Rights, which has stood the House in good stead for more than three centuries, is a matter of great importance, which both Houses are rightly anxious to assess with the utmost care.
One line of criticism is that the clause gives unfair advantage to Members of Parliament. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brent, South made that point, but the argument is that a Member would be able to put his conduct in Parliament before the courts when it suited him if he thought that he had been defamed, but would continue to enjoy absolute protection from liability if he said something in the House about another person that would have been defamatory if he had said it outside the House.
The House will doubtless agree that it is essential to preserve--as the clause does--the core privilege of protection from liability in respect of proceedings in Parliament, without which the exercise of free speech in Parliament cannot be upheld. Lord Hoffmann commented on that in another place, arguing that, while there was an obvious public interest in freedom of speech in Parliament, there was no public interest in allowing anyone free licence to make defamatory statements about what hon. Members do in the course of their parliamentary duties. Personally, I agree with that.
Another concern that has been expressed--the hon. Member for Brent, South did touch on this--is that, once hon. Members were enabled to waive protection, they could be put under pressure to do so when they did not wish to. That problem does not arise in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, but it could conceivably arise in other cases, including the case on which the hon. Member for Brent, South speculated--a case in which the conduct of one hon. Member was inextricably linked with that of another. That is yet another factor that the House must take into account in making a decision.
Mr. Boateng:
But that is precisely the point that will arise in relation to the The Guardian case, in which the conduct of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has a direct bearing on that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) as far as the newspaper is concerned. That is the reality of the case that led to the tabling of the
Mr. Newton:
The question of any link would be a matter for the court. I certainly do not want to be drawn into discussing what is and what is not linked in respect of any particular case. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that that dilemma, or potential problem, would exist just as much--and, I believe, more in some respects--if new clause 9 were adopted. Presumably, the House would then be able to impose on one Member a waiver that was not sought by that Member, but was sought by another. I do not see how the arrangement would work in any other circumstances. Otherwise, no answer is presented to the problem; the problem would, or could, arise in any event, whether on the lines of new clause 9 or on those of clause 13.
I accept that that line of argument leads the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that he would prefer amendment No. 21 to new clause 9. That is what he implied towards the end of his speech. I am simply saying that I do not think that the solution that he seemed to prefer at the outset of the debate--new clause 9--is in fact a solution to the problem to which he just referred.
Mr. Boateng:
I made it clear at the outset that hon. Members should not have to face such a choice. We should be in a position to choose freely which of the three options to support: the status quo, the whole House determining whether privilege should be waived or clause 13. If, as Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the initiative in relation to the ordering of the House's business and given the House that free choice--as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) pointed out--we would not be in the invidious position of having to vote on new clause 9 first. We are having to do that precisely because the Government, in their neutrality, have abdicated their responsibility to the whole House.
Mr. Newton:
Obviously, I do not accept that at all. What we are seeking to do at this very moment is to provide the House with an opportunity to make choices of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described, and that opportunity arises because of what has been tabled.
Mr. Devlin:
Amendment (a) to new clause 9 was clearly drafted by The Guardian with the aim of preventing the current cases being brought against it. Will the Committee of Privileges be looking into the motives of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who tabled the amendment?
Mr. Newton:
I am not aware of any proposal for the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to look into that, but I am sure that, if an appropriate complaint were made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he would examine it in the proper way--as Madam Speaker has indicated on a number of occasions.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
Many of us who have been following the debate carefully would have expected the Leader of the House to slap down that last intervention, which constituted a vicious attack on my hon.
Mr. Newton:
I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that what I said about the proper course for referring complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was said in pretty much the same terms as those in which I have said it to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised possible complaints in the period since the new machinery was set up. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
rose--
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
rose--
Mr. Newton:
I will give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), but if I continue to give way no one else will have a chance to speak.
Mr. Bermingham:
Having sat here listening to the debate, and having watched it earlier on television, I am struck by the fact that the issue is complicated and confusing, and by the fact that the House has not been properly briefed. [Interruption.] We hear the twittering of ignorant birds again. As I was saying, the issue is complex, and most hon. Members have not been briefed in any great depth. It has slipped through from another place. If we are to change 300 years of history, perhaps we could do it with a little more decorum and be given a little more time. We need a much more wide-ranging discussion.
Mr. Newton:
Again, that is a point of argument. The hon. Gentleman is advancing reasons why he believes that it might be right to go down the path recommended by the hon. Member for Brent, South--or one of those paths. Let me reiterate my position. Clause 13 is in the Bill, and I am doing what I can to sketch some of the factors that the House ought to have in mind in reaching a conclusion, in relation to either new clause 9 or amendment No. 21.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |