HC Deb 22 July 1969 vol 787 cc1519-22

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject. I am conscious of the fact that I am continuing a debate which is exciting more and more interest among thinking members of our society. There is a deep-seated feeling, which I think is entirely justified by the facts, that individual liberty is gradually being eroded, and that there is an increasing invasion of privacy, aided by technological development, for which our law, as at present defined, does not appear to provide adequate remedies.

We are rightly proud of our heritage of liberty. It is probably true that no citizens enjoy greater freedom than British citizens, and that our real freedom is very much greater than that of people in many other countries who appear, on paper, to have greater freedom. We pride ourselves on our unwritten constitution, and on the fact that the common law has been the bulwark of our liberty for centuries. Why, therefore, do I seek to bring in a Bill of Rights? Is it necessary?

It is necessary, Mr. Speaker. We have reached the stage of development where the courts and the people need a guiding legislative code of individual rights to help them. It would help the judges in defining the law more clearly and in delimiting those areas where individual rights should be sacrosanct. It would help liberalise public opinion. Indeed, the greatest threat to our liberty today perhaps arises from the fact that we do take such pride in our unwritten constitution, and from our blind faith that there is a remedy for every wrong. It is under this complacent assumption that all is well that liberty is being eroded.

I do not seek to make a Second Reading speech, or to go over points that have been covered before on this matter, but it seems to me that certain developments make a Bill of Rights, or something like it, essential today.

First, there is the growth of administrative power or bureaucracy. How often have we read the phrase in our official correspondence, "The Department cannot intervene"? It has become almost a musical hall joke. How many of us realise that 10,000 officers of local and national government have a legal right to enter private homes? Should they always be allowed to do so if they have just followed the letter of the law, when common justice would suggest that they have overstepped their powers? Was it right that the house of Lady Diana Duff Cooper should have been searched because an anonymous telephone caller alleged to the police that they would find drugs there? Should she not have a remedy?

Secondly, there is the necessity to assert the right of individuals to privacy. The refinements of surveillance technology, as it is now called, with its huge paraphernalia of listening and recording devices, necessitate this. What are the rights of the individual with regard to the Press? Were all the interviews, carried out under the glare of the cameras, following the tragedy of Aberfan, really justified? Had the individuals concerned no right to their private grief? It is an important matter for this House to consider.

Third, there is the crucial rôle of the Crown in our daily affairs. The Government act through the Crown. Is it right that, in 1969, the courts are still unable to grant injunctions against the Crown, whereas they can grant injunctions against individuals or corporations? Does this not give our civil servants a protection which is unjustified in modern conditions?

Fourthly, there is the increasing vulnerability of the individual arising from the development of the computer, and its potential for misuse. To what degree is an individual entitled to protection from wrongful disclosure by a body or bodies to whom he has disclosed confidential information for a particular purpose? The "Computer threat to Freedom", as it has been called, is a very real thing indeed, and this House should examine it in detail.

These are just some of the problems arising in modern society upon which I have become convinced that the present means of protection are insufficient. Parliament is over-worked and the older process of the common law whereby our rights are declared as a result of actions taken to remedy specific wrongs are inadequate in the modern world. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said that the difficulty he always finds about a Bill of Rights is either that it contains something which is already law, or is in such general terms that it is impossible to say what effect it would have. With the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor, I think this difficulty is more apparent than real.

I think that some of the Lord Chancellor's objections to the draft Bill prepared by Mr. John Macdonald and a team of Liberal lawyers, in many respects lacked conviction. It was found, after very careful consideration, that it was better to couch the Bill in general terms, thin in more detailed and specific terms and thereby to allow the judges to have plenty of scope in interpretation. We have come to the conclusion that what is needed are guide-lines and a statement of principles. In pursuance of his criticism, the Lord Chancellor referred to the Clause in the draft Bill on the right to leisure, which says: No person shall be required as a condition of employment or continued employment or otherwise, to work excessive hours or to do without reasonable rest and leisure time. The Lord Chancellor had great fun. He went on to say: Think of the judge's difficulty in saying what 'excessive hours' are for every individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th June 1969; Vol. 302, c. 1047.] Yet our judges are every day interpreting what is excessive speed. Our appeal judges are every day considering whether damages awarded are excessively high. Have they actually had difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in those circumstances? Would they have any greater difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in the Bill? I think not.

We have reached a stage in the development of our sophisticated society where it is necessary for the citizen to know clearly what his rights are, even if it is necessary to state those rights in general terms. It does not mean that they are unenforceable. The Bill of Rights which is embodied in the constitution of the United States, and its subsequent amendments, have been a veritable anchor of freedom in that country. We have had a different constitutional development, but I am convinced that a Bill to safeguard individual liberty, to declare what an individual's rights are, is now essential. Indeed, I subscribe to the view that we are gradually moving, and that we should move, towards a written constitution. This may come under some of our constitutional changes,

In the meantime, I am sure that the debate on the pros and cons of a Bill of Rights should continue. It is not enough that a debate should take place in the abstract. If one is to have a purposeful discussion, one must have specific proposals to consider. Therefore, if given leave, I intend to introduce a Bill along the lines of that drafted by Mr. John Macdonald and the panel of Liberal lawyers who assisted him.

Even those who are not convinced that a Bill of Rights is the right way forward, feel I am sure that we need an extensive debate on the matter in the House in the near future. If my Bill is given its First Reading, and is printed, it will be available for any hon. Member to introduce next Session and it may be hoped that there will be much more extensive debates on the principles involved, and matters of the greatest concern to individuals in this country whatever political creed they follow and to whatever political party they subscribe.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hooson, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Grimond, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Peter Bessell and Mr. Wallace Lawler.