| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): I am struck by the lack of enthusiasm for both clause 13 and new clause 9. The Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have largely succeeded in convincing me that we would do better to leave things as they are, particularly as we have not had the benefit of a study by a Joint Committee of both Houses and as clause 13 was introduced at a late stage in the other place and appears before us tonight for the first time.
It is obvious that the privileges of the House are enormously important to the House collectively as well as to Members of Parliament individually. The one strength of new clause 9 is precisely that it recognises that the waiving of privilege is the concern not only of an individual hon. Member but of the whole House. New clause 9 requires that, before initiating defamation proceedings, an hon. Member should petition the House or the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges for consent to waive the protection accorded to us all by article IX of the Bill of Rights.
I have more confidence than some hon. Members in the seriousness of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It can be relied on not to allow personal likes and dislikes to affect its judgment. Moreover, it will thoroughly consider all the possibilities before it consents to infringing the rights of other hon. Members or of the House.
For three centuries, Parliament and its Members have been protected by the famous words of the Bill of Rights that our proceedings
There is a case for allowing an hon. Member to waive his or her historic privilege in pursuit of defamation proceedings and, in making it, it is helpful to have the safeguard to which I have referred--that of obtaining the prior consent of the whole House. Hon. Members inevitably have in mind the case involving the hon.
Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He maintains that he was libelled by The Guardian, which alleged that he had received money from Mr. al-Fayed via Ian Greer Associates for tabling questions in the House. The hon. Gentleman and Ian Greer Associates--one of whose senior executives is a constituent of mine--immediately sued for libel, but the case could not proceed afterMr. Justice May ruled in the High Court that as the evidence directly involved proceedings in Parliament it was blocked by article IX of the Bill of Rights.
I am not entirely clear whether a parliamentary remedy remains available to the hon. Member for Tatton. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is considering a document that contains allegations against the hon. Gentleman and others, and I understand that the issue is likely to be reported to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Is it not possible for the hon. Member for Tatton to pursue his case before that Committee? I do not know the answer. Whatever it may be, privilege poses an additional problem to individuals whose names are associated with the alleged wrongdoing of an hon. Member. In this case, The Guardian alleged that payments were made through Ian Greer Associates. The company says that it has lost reputation and business as a consequence but has no remedy unless the Member of Parliament waives his privilege. That aspect should be considered when the House decides whether to support any of the amendments.
Mr. Allason:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore:
I am coming to the end of my remarks.
Although I support new clause 9--just--I am not persuaded that amendment No. 43 should be agreed as it directly excludes any case initiated before the Bill is enacted, which seems unfair to the plaintiffs.
Sir Terence Higgins:
I am struck by the fact that many aspects of the argument do not emerge at first sight. I am clear that the issue should be examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We have not previously considered a wide range of aspects. The House is rightly jealous of its privileges. The question is whether, by accepting clause 13 or new clause 9, we shall undermine our privileges. Over the centuries, the Bill of Rights has ensured that there is no conflict between the House and the courts, but we suddenly find that the courts are dealing with matters that affect us. That point was made by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in another place:
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich(Mrs. Dunwoody) said in an intervention a few moments ago, our procedure is not satisfactory. As I understand it--and as Madam Speaker has confirmed--initially we can vote on new clause 9. If it is carried, we shall go on to consider amendment No. 21, which effectively would create a hole into which new clause 9 would slot. If new clause 9 is defeated, we shall vote on amendment No. 21, which would delete clause 13. That creates a problem for hon. Members who feel that new clause 9 improves clause 13, but would prefer to knock out clause 13. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we do not have that choice, which raises a difficult question about which way to vote. I hope that many hon. Members who are not present in the Chamber are watching the debate on television as they will have to decide how to vote on new clause 9 and on amendment No. 21 should new clause 9 be defeated. It is a complicated and difficult matter.
I have already pointed out some of the potential dangers of accepting either new clause 9 or clause 13. However, I should mention one point that had not occurred to me previously, and it is a matter of grave concern to me as a member of the Liaison Select Committee. If the House were to give an hon. Member the right to petition the House to waive parliamentary privilege, to what extent would that allow the courts to question proceedings in the House under the Bill of Rights?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was not quite right about that. We have to consider what are proceedings in the House: that is an uncertain matter. It is not simply--as was suggested a moment or two ago--a question of evidence that hitherto had not been sidelined suddenly being revealed to public gaze when the Select Committee concerned thought that it should have been sidelined. Whether or not evidence is sidelined, if it proves to be relevant to a case in which the individual concerned has waived his privilege, the other side can ask to see privileged documents and can question them in court. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights has sought to prevent for hundreds of years, and for very good reason.
I am particularly concerned about evidence that has been give to Select Committees in confidence. We all know the difficulties involved in Select Committees taking evidence in confidence if the witness feels that it may be revealed subsequently. We have been over those arguments many times before.
Witnesses will be more hesitant about giving evidence in confidence if they believe that it will be challenged in court and that it will not be treated in confidence by the House, even though the Select Committee and the House had promised that it would be. That had not occurred to me until this afternoon, but it is another reason why the matter should be considered in greater depth and not decided on the basis of an amendment that was carried somewhat haphazardly in another place.
For the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave, new clause 9 appears to be some improvement on clause 13. It would restrict the waiving of parliamentary privilege to hon. Members, although whether that is fair on witnesses, who would not be able to waive parliamentary privilege, is another matter. Again, there are two arguments to be considered.
Mr. Newton:
I may not have made it sufficiently clear that I prefer clause 13 to new clause 9, partly for the reason that my right hon. Friend has given.
Sir Terence Higgins:
That is the essence of the dilemma. The question is whether to vote against new clause 9 although it may be an improvement on the status quo.
My right hon. Friend pointed out the other difference between clause 13 and new clause 9. Under clause 13, the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the individual hon. Member--I have already mentioned some of the potential hazards--but under new clause 9 an hon. Member has to petition the House, which may accept his petition. As my right hon. Friend said, that may involve party politics.
I find myself in the position of night watchman in a cricket match, as it is clear that the debate will continue later and we cannot make an immediate decision.
"ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament."
We all agree that that protection should not lightly be breached.
"In the most recent case that reviewed this matter . . . it was emphasised that it would be quite intolerable if there were two inquiries going ahead simultaneously or overlapping, one by the courts of law and one by the House of Parliament. The amendment"--
24 Jun 1996 : Column 74
now clause 13--
We cannot allow that, especially as the Bill did not contain such a clause when it was first introduced in the House of Lords. The clause was introduced in a strange way--in an amendment for which the proposer did not vote. Clearly, we have to consider the matter extremely carefully.
"would land us in a whole number of respects in precisely that situation."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 1996;Vol. 571, c. 31.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |