---

English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings)

Let me say at the outset that I yield to no one in my enthusiasm and support for parliamentary privilege. It is an absolutely vital tool, which enables all of us in the House to carry out our ancient constitutional duty of addressing the grievances of our constituents. It allows us freely to do that without being intimidated by powerful vested interests of whatever sort—perhaps the powerful interests these days are the press, who are in the van of the campaign to support parliamentary privilege. I make no comment on the report about Trafigura's activities, for I do not know about them. I came here simply because I read the Carter-Ruck letter on my way to the House yesterday, and it raises serious issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) is absolutely right to say that the Minton report clearly raises matters of huge concern to all of us as parliamentarians. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is struggling, with his Committee, to try to define how to frame a law of privacy in this country, is in my view up against the most enormous challenge. I wish him well in trying to find a way through. I want to raise one question: to what extent this House should be able to disrupt commercial arrangements that are the subject of resolution in the courts. It is no more, no less than that. When I read the letter of Carter-Ruck's yesterday it concerned me that, as I understand it, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—I am very happy for him to intervene if he wants to put me right—tabled a question that clearly had some bearing on the injunction, which I understand The Guardian consented to. It seems to me that we have to allow commercial parties—and in this case a newspaper is a commercial party—to resolve differences by reference to the court, if necessary: clearly, a last resort.