---

English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for enabling me to have a brief shot at this debate. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights was not a matter of light spluttering on our constitution. It followed on a century when the authority of the Executive—power controlling the courts—could stop or threaten people who spoke freely. It is followed by the Americans in the articles attached to the constitution, in their Bill of Rights, almost to the letter. It is fundamental to freedom of expression and the constitutional development of our own country. Anyone who believes in freedom must know that the concept of prior restraint is a very sensitive and difficult area, but the principle that underlies it is "publish and be damned". In our moderate world we normally look carefully into such things, but I have also had a conversation with a former Lord Chief Justice—about anonymity of witnesses. That was developed in the courts, where now an application can be made for witnesses to be held to be anonymous, so that defendants are not necessarily aware of who is accusing them. I said, "Why that was not picked up? We have been told that there are 300 cases outstanding now in which as a routine matter there is an application for anonymity of witnesses." He said, "Well, I didn't know about it. There is no way of tracking it." That was a question on which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) made a very good point. We now have the east European-sounding Ministry of Justice, but does it monitor what happens in the courts, if the judges are not in a position to monitor it? Developments are going on that strike profoundly at our sense—certainly my sense—of liberty. How many prior restraint orders in non-national security cases are being granted? That should be recorded and the intent and purpose behind it should be examined. I should declare an interest. I am a parliamentary co-chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. One of the major issues in our country was to find out who was polluting rivers and causing noxious wastes. That was shrouded by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. No officer who knew about a pollution could necessarily put it in the public domain. This is about the public domain. Mature democracy must know what is happening in its courts so that it can make judgments. How can we reason but from what we know? Thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who also sits on the Joint Committee for Human Rights, we have had the opportunity to express some of our concerns adequately—respected Members of the House present here have done so moderately, much more moderately than I ever conceive of—and to strike out and stand up for principles fundamental to the workings of a free society. I expect the Ministry of Justice to monitor the case closely. The principle is enunciated that, certainly on the Floor of the House of Commons, there should be no question of restraint. I remember when Lord Rooker—then Jeff Rooker, Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Perry Barr—raised a subject that caused great concern to a number of Members in the House. He got it wrong, unfortunately for the individual to whom he referred. He made the most gracious apology for his mistake, but without the ability to raise such issues, as this one was raised the other day on the Floor of the House of Commons by way of a question, we are lost. We need to know in order to be able to regulate and have an opinion on the development of our society and laws.