Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
400-419)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q400 Ann Coffey: Why was that privileged?
It is a matter of public record.
Ms Sharpe: The Member giving the
speech or asking the question has the protection of privilege.
So the fact that the question was answered, there would be no
objection from the House to actually saying it had happened and
the date but anyone seeking to question or use the material against
a person would be a matter under Article 9.
Q401 Ann Coffey: May I just get this
right. We are protected by privilege in the House.
Ms Sharpe: Yes.
Q402 Ann Coffey: So I can basically
say what I like and nobody can sue me and that is privilege as
a Member. You would regard Hansard, which writes that up, as privileged
information deriving from my status as an individual MP.
Ms Sharpe: Depending on the use
that was made of it. The fact that you had made a speech
Q403 Ann Coffey: And it was public.
Ms Sharpe: would be accepted,
but if someone was then trying to look behind it to claim, for
example, that you had malice in your speech, then that would be
privileged.
Q404 Chairman: Or to infer from the
contents of the speech that you had been engaged in a criminal
offence.
Ms Sharpe: Yes, that is right.
Q405 Chairman: For example, accepting
material from a civil servant who should not give it to you.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Ms Sharpe: Yes; absolutely. We
also then thought about any material which might be preparatory
to a speech. In fact we were aware of only one item which we thought
might have attracted privilege in that sense and, coming back
from the sift, I then checked to see whether there had been a
question or a debate on that subject around the time and there
had been nothing, so I assumed it was just background briefing
not associated with parliamentary proceedings, which is why we
did not take that up.
Q406 Chairman: How many documents
did you decide fell under the general heading of privilege?
Ms Sharpe: In the paper sift it
was 20.
Q407 Chairman: And in the electronic
sift?
Ms Sharpe: In the electronic sift
there were only two documents. One had four copies of something
and one was another document.
Q408 Ann Coffey: Can I be absolutely
clear about what you mean by privileged? What you are talking
about is information which is held in a preparatory form, possibly
to give a speech or ask a question, in which informing that draft
may have been the result of information that had been given to
the Member from outside.
Ms Sharpe: Most of the documents
we looked at had actually been used in the Chamber and therefore
it was pretty certain that on precedent that would be regarded
as something which was privileged. Of course ours was advice and
not a definitive decision. For anything else, then it was whether
it was so closely related to the proceedings that it could be
regarded as privilege if, for example, you had a draft of a speech
and the date when the Member was going to make it and it was obvious
that the speech had subsequently been made in the Chamber, then
that would probably have come into that criterion. We had virtually
none of those; it was mostly personal correspondence, telephone
bills or, for the blackberries, communications from the whips.
Q409 Ann Coffey: So that is not privileged
information.
Ms Sharpe: No, not initially.
Obviously if a Member felt they needed to argue that it was, then
it would be for them to pursue that.
Q410 Chairman: Putting it colloquially,
privileged information is the information that a Member of Parliament
may have which is related to his or her participation in the proceedings
of the House.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Ms Sharpe: Absolutely.
Q411 Chairman: That involves a speech
which is made in the House, but it can, if the association is
close enough, involve the preparation of a draft from which the
speech is ultimately made.
Dr Jack: Yes.
Ms Sharpe: Yes, that was much
more clearly put.
Q412 Chairman: The purpose is to
provide immunity from either criminal or civil proceedings against
anything you say in the House or that might be used to prepare
what you say in the House. Proceedings now involve questions,
the proceedings of this Committee and what is said in the Chamber.
Ms Sharpe: Yes.
Q413 Ann Coffey: So you were not
interested in the correspondence that the Member may have had
with his informant per se, you were only interested in
what went in to his preparatory speech and notes that might be
the basis of a speech in the House. If there had been an email
exchange between Damian Green and the person who worked in the
Private Office or any Private Office, that would not be considered
privileged information.
Ms Sharpe: Yes, that would certainly
be the initial view.
Q414 Chairman: When you were conducting
all three of these sifts, did you have any regard to constituents'
correspondence?
Ms Sharpe: There was some constituents'
correspondence. We certainly would have been aware if there had
been any possibility of that being mentioned in an adjournment
debate, if there was some connection, for example it said "I
intend to raise this on the adjournment" or something like
that. We would have considered whether that was something which
was privileged but there was nothing that we were aware of that
came into that category and normal constituency correspondence
is not covered by parliamentary privilege.
Q415 Ann Coffey: If I had two constituents'
letters and in reply to those constituents' letters in one of
them I simply give a straight reply and in the other one I say
"I am about to raise this in the Chamber for you", the
latter becomes privileged information and the former not.
Ms Sharpe: It would certainly
be considered as to whether that was so close that it would. It
is very much an individual decision.
Q416 Ann Coffey: It is in relationship
to what you do with the constituent's correspondence or likely
to do in the Chamber that is the criterion that is applied.
Ms Sharpe: Yes.
Q417 Chairman: Or "I will ask
a question of the minister" which is a more frequent response
to a constituent.
Ms Sharpe: Yes.
Dr Jack: Right.
Q418 Mr Henderson: Or someone says
in a letter "Will you vote for X?" and I say "No,
I will not" or "Yes, I will". Is that covered?
Dr Jack: Yes.
Q419 Chairman: Early day motions?
Dr Jack: Yes; certainly. That
could relate directly to proceedings.
|