| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I support the motions. First, however, let me make a general point. We are here, rightly, to protect the interests of Members of Parliament, but I hope--I am looking at the Government Front Bench as I say this--that it will not be too long before we address the problem of protecting our staff in our constituency offices. That problem is urgent. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern since my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was the victim of a tragic attack, and his colleague and friend was killed. There is a recognition that the security of staff in constituency offices is as important as the issue that we are debating now. As we are all receiving advice from the police about the measures that should be taken--and they are costly measures--I hope that the Government recognise that advice from them is required as well.
I am pleased that the motions have been kept relatively simple, because we are in danger of developing a whole new bureaucracy. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the provision would be as simple as possible, and that the criteria would be as straightforward as possible. The last thing we want is for lawyers to do well out of this; rather, we want to protect the rightful interests of Members of Parliament and their constituents.
Along with Members of the other place, I sat for some 18 months on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I learnt a huge amount about the privileges of Parliament. The first and most obvious point is that we are talking about the privilege not of a Member of Parliament, but of the institution of Parliament, enabling us to serve our constituents better. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, our job in this place is not to protect our personal interests, but to ensure that, in representing our constituents' interests, we are free, fearless and able to represent those interests properly. We must ensure that, as parliamentarians, we are free from the external pressures that have already been described, so that we can do a proper job--as we would say in Cornwall--for our constituents, and for the wider public.
I noted from my experience in Committee that there are differing degrees of privilege. There is absolute privilege, and there is qualified privilege. If this evening we make suggestions about the merits and motives of an outside body or individual, we will be covered by absolute privilege in this place, as we are in Committee. If in a letter to a Minister we make an allegation that is in theory actionable, there is a question mark over that. If the correspondence between us, as Members of Parliament, and Ministers is published to a third party, it is not covered in the same way. We must therefore be very careful.
If we walk out of the Chamber and appear with Jeremy Paxman, making exactly the same point about an external person that is actionable outside this place, we will not be covered by privilege. What is recorded in this place, however--on paper, on tape or in a sound broadcast--is privileged: it is covered by the absolute privilege of Parliament.
I am sure all Members would agree that the last thing we want to do, by means of the limited cover that we are introducing, is to encourage Members to be irresponsible. That is not the purpose of the exercise; the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we are able fully to undertake our responsibilities without fear or favour. It is also true--I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was right about this--that one of our jobs here is occasionally to blow the whistle. I have done it myself in the past, and have suffered the slings and arrows from the organisations that I have questioned.
I do not think that we want to encourage Members themselves to be more litigious; that, too, is a trap that we must avoid. I was recently subject to what was, compared with the cases mentioned this evening, a relatively minor incident. In a column in Punch, I was said to have "cashed in" on outside interests, and to be "on the payroll" of an outside company. That is because I was a shareholder in a steam railway company--well, I was; I no longer am. Anyone who has ever had an interest in a steam railway will know that one can never make any money out of it. One puts in £50 to give a bit of encouragement. If every shareholder in any company was said to be "on the
payroll", for goodness sake, it would change their status completely and dramatically--let alone the question of "cashing in".In this case, I have consulted my legal friends, even distinguished members of my parliamentary party. I think that the charge could be much greater than anything I could get out of them. But, as Punch is owned by a certain gentleman who is famous for his brown envelopes, I am still waiting to see whether a brown envelope will arrive to pay me off for the way in which my reputation has been damaged by this slur. However, I do not think anyone reads Punch nowadays, so perhaps it is not so serious.
The issue tonight is important, because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities to our constituents and the nation. We must be protected to do our job properly. I am delighted to support the motion, but, as I said at the outset, I hope that before too long the Minister will come back and give advice also on the important issue of protecting our staff.
7.19 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I declare an interest as a barrister who specialises in defamation law. I have an interest in the motions that we are considering that is perhaps greater than any other hon. Member's. First, I may benefit if I am sued for defamation as a Member of Parliament. Secondly, I may benefit as one of the few barristers in England and Wales whose practice specialises in defamation law. I also advised in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on the instructions of his solicitors, before it was taken up by the national newspaper to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. As one would expect, I was paid promptly by my hon. Friend. Despite the successful outcome for him, he has not been reimbursed by the unsuccessful claimant for my modest fees or for those of his solicitor.
When the Defamation Act 1996 was progressing through the House, I was invited, in the cosy way of Government Whips, not to contribute to debates on the Floor of the House. I was also kept off the Standing Committee because it was said that I knew too much about the subject. People who knew anything about a specialised area of public policy were apparently not required to assist in the formation of law.
I disagreed with some of the provisions of the 1996 Act and refused to support the amendment to the Bill of Rights to please Mr. Neil Hamilton. He wholly misunderstood the nature of the relationship between a Member of Parliament and the Bill of Rights. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the Bill of Rights was passed to protect not individual Members of Parliament but our constituents, who rely on us to speak fearlessly for them in the House.
Mr. Hamilton would have done better to leave the law of defamation well alone. As a general rule, that is advice that most people--Members of Parliament or otherwise--should consider carefully, whether they are potential claimants or defendants. Perhaps it is surprising to many hon. Members that the aggrieved party will often accept a proper apology and, if appropriate, a public apology instead of demanding damages and an injunction. However, some cases are not capable of settlement. When Members of Parliament are not claimants, but defendants,
and thus involuntary parties to a defamation action that cannot be settled, they should have some financial protection.The Minister said that such protection would be minimal. However, minimal protection is no protection. When the scheme's details are worked out, I hope that something more than minimal protection will be provided. Although we do not want to tie the Minister down to details this evening, we should be grateful if he could present some general figures.
As Members of Parliament, we should not be too proud to admit that we are wrong about something, whether in correspondence with a Minister, a local government official, or a chief constable, or in our speeches, press releases or letters to the national and local press. We are rightly protected by absolute privilege when we speak in the Chamber and elsewhere in the proceedings of the House. On other occasions, we may be protected by qualified privilege: if we are actuated by malice, we lose the protection. However, if we say something that we later discover to be untrue, we should not resort to that insurance fund too willingly, but reach a sensible solution outside litigation and without the assistance of lawyers and the public's money.
In the short time available to me since the motions were tabled by the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I have not been able to research the position in other countries in detail. Doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be desperately sad about that. However, I can briefly describe the position in Canada and France.
Members of the Canadian House of Commons are entitled to participate in various insurance plans, which include the public service management insurance plan, health care plans, a dental care plan, group special risk insurance and flight insurance. In some cases, coverage is automatic; in others, it is optional. Extended coverage is available on application. The coverage of insurance plans in Canada is not as wide as the motions that we are considering.
If a Member of the Canadian House of Commons incurs liability or legal costs in relation to the matters that we are considering, he or she may apply to the Board of Internal Economy--a wonderful name--for reimbursement. Applications are decided on a case-by-case basis. Some types of liability, such as a constituent injuring himself or herself--that may have some resonance for the hon. Member for North Cornwall--would probably be covered by the Canadian House of Commons if it occurred within the parliamentary precincts. If the injury occurs in a constituency office outside Ottawa, the Member would apply for reimbursement if he or she had not purchased insurance.
In France, the National Assembly is covered by an insurance scheme for civil liability. It covers only the activities of the institution, not those of its members. The Assembly has signed a convention with a well-known insurance company to cover accidents that may occur to Deputies during an official trip. French Deputies are also covered by legislation on work accidents. By and large,
there is a far wider definition of parliamentary privilege in other countries, and the activities of a Member of Parliament are more widely covered.There was speculation that the Scottish parliamentary corporate body had agreed to pay some or all the legal costs of Lord Watson of Invergowrie to defend himself against a challenge in the Court of Session about his conduct on his proposed anti-hunting Bill. However, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish parliamentary corporate body has made no official statement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |