---

English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings)

As has already been said, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I have the privilege of chairing, has been conducting a lengthy inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel, and we hope to publish our conclusions shortly. During the course of that inquiry, we received evidence about the chilling effect on journalism of the use of conditional fee agreements and about the tension between articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights and how that has led to the growth of a body of privacy law in this country without Parliament ever having properly legislated in that area. We have also received evidence on libel tourism, which has been referred to—indeed, we met Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. We have looked at whether corporations should be able to sue for libel and whether the offence of criminal libel should remain on the statute book, and we have also looked at the use of super-injunctions. Those are all wider questions than this debate, but I hope that the report, when we publish it, will provide an opportunity for a much wider debate in the House on the need for reform of our libel laws. During the course of the inquiry, we took evidence from the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, editors of newspapers and a very large number of media lawyers, acting both for plaintiffs and for defendants. As well as the formal submissions that we received from media lawyers, we have also been in receipt of several letters from solicitors' practices that relate to our own proceedings, and which touch on parliamentary privilege. I shall refer to two such letters. The first was from a solicitor's practice questioning whether it was appropriate for two members of our Committee to participate in a particular session that involved taking evidence from a newspaper, and referring to the code of conduct for Members of Parliament. When we took advice on the matter, we were advised by Speaker's Counsel that the letter in itself verged upon improperly interfering in the proceedings of the Committee's work. The second letter challenged the Committee's right to accept from a witness written evidence that included repetition of allegations that had been subject to libel proceedings. On the advice of Speaker's Counsel, I responded to that practice, quoting article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I must say that I then received a response from that solicitor's practice, which said:""You refer to Article IX of the Bill of Rights, but I assume - please forgive me if I am mistaken - you have the Human Rights Act 1998 in mind."" I did not reply. Speaker's Counsel replied and he made it clear that the reference was to article IX of the Bill of Rights, which he quoted:""the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament"." He went on to quote the judgment in Prebble v. Television New Zealand, in which""the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council noted that the law had long been settled that the interest in ensuring that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors with access to all relevant information was an interest which must prevail."" I will not quote the whole of that judgment, but it absolutely confirms the absolute privilege of Members of Parliament, and indeed of those giving evidence to Select Committees. The importance of Select Committees is that privilege does not just cover their members but also people giving either written or oral evidence to them. That seemed to be the end of the matter, although I am still slightly concerned at another letter that I received from the Clerk of the Journals, who said:""A key aspect of privilege protecting freedom of speech in Parliament is that the freedom is exercised responsibly. If it is not, there is a risk of damage to the reputation of the House and of undermining that freedom itself. There is always a danger that an individual, criticised under the protection of privilege, will go to court complaining that they have no right of reply. This is not a theoretical point - it has happened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A v UK...Although the judgment supported freedom of speech in Parliament it did raise issues about the protection of the rights of individuals."" There is still a question about this area and perhaps it is something that the Minister would like to address. However, this particular debate relates to the reporting of proceedings in Parliament. It had seemed to me, until the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), that the law was pretty clear. A question has arisen as to whether proceedings in Parliament put a matter in the public domain. We have seen the advent of televising, and most of our sessions have been televised and streamed on the web. Indeed, during the recess, the BBC devoted an entire day to the proceedings of my Committee's inquiry—the broadcast lasted for about eight hours, which probably tested the patience of even the keenest observer. There is, therefore, no question but that what is said in a Select Committee is now in the public domain. Despite that, the hon. Gentleman's experience has flagged up the question of whether an injunction should apply to proceedings in Parliament unless it is specifically varied to allow parliamentary proceedings to be reported. What has concerned me, particularly in the two meetings organised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), is not just that it was the view of Carter-Ruck that a variance would be required for The Guardian not to be in contempt if it published information about the existence of the parliamentary question, but that that also appeared to be the view of The Guardian. We now have a copy of the letter sent by The Guardian to Carter-Ruck, which mentioned the fact that the question had been reported by The Spectator, on Guido Fawkes's website and, indeed, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on his website. The letter says:""In light of these developments please can you confirm by 12pm today to a variation of the order that will allow our client to publish information about this parliamentary question."" Until now, my understanding has been that that did not require a variation of the order and that the publication of proceedings in Parliament—whether a question on the Order Paper or evidence given to my Committee—would be covered by privilege, and that any injunction or attempt to enforce one would be thrown out on that basis. It is therefore extremely worrying that not only the solicitors for the plaintiffs, but The Guardian's in-house lawyer appear to think otherwise. That is a matter of deep concern to Members of the House, and I hope that the Minister will address it.