QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING) (Hansard, 14 February 1977)

§ Mr. Sedgemore

I wish to raise a matter of privilege relating to criminal proceedings, an hon. Member of the House and his constituents.

Recently during the course of my parliamentary duties I received certain documents which I had, and indeed have, reason to believe came from constituents of mine and I passed them on to the relevant Government Department. That Department discussed the contents of these documents with the police. I subsequently gave permission for the documents to be examined by experts, and the outcome is that criminal proceedings may be taken against constituents of mine and I may be required to be a witness for the prosecution in those proceedings. Indeed on Friday I was asked to make a witness statement by the police in Luton in respect of criminal proceedings against two of my constituents. Should I make this statement I would be required to produce in court the documents to which I have already referred.

I told the police officers that before making any statement I would seek to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, first, the question of any privilege which might arise in relation to the documents; second, any question of confidentiality which might arise out of the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents; and, third, the propriety or otherwise of a Member of Parliament giving or refusing to give evidence against his constituents over criminal charges which have arisen in part in relation to his parliamentary duties.

On the first point, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance on whether any 39 privilege attaches to communications between a Member of Parliament and his constituent and, if so, does the privilege exist to protect the constituent, the Member of Parliament or Members of Parliament generally? You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of solicitors and their clients, privilege does exist to protect the client and that this can, as this House has seen recently, have unfortunate consequences. Is a Member of Parliament in the same relationship to a constituent as a solicitor is to his client? Are the documents concerned privileged? Would they remain privileged if, as in this case, there was a suggestion of false pretences and an attempt to deceive the Member concerned? Would it be in order for the police to ask for a witness summons with a notice to produce documents and would it be in order for a criminal court to issue such a summons?

If, of course, this kind of privilege does exist, that is an end of the matter. But let us suppose that you, Mr. Speaker, rule that it does not. Then what advice would you give on the second point about the issue of confidentiality? Should a Member of Parliament, for example, see himself as a doctor unwilling to discuss his patient's affairs or as a Catholic priest seeking to protect the secrets of the confessional?

On the third point, about the propriety of a Member giving or refusing to give evidence against a constituent over criminal charges which have arisen in part in relation to his parliamentary duties, wherein lies the balance between justice, law and order and the obvious lack of enthusiasm on the part of most Members to give evidence against their constituents? Is it simply a question of a Member using his own judgment and discretion?

In raising these issues, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that I am in no way criticising the Government Department concerned or the police. Relations between them and myself have been entirely friendly. Nor, if the crime that is alleged has been committed by constituents of mine, would I in any way wish to be seen as condoning it either directly or by inference—the more so in this case because it may be that certain 40 people tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to deceive me in their illegal enterprise.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not spelling out the factual background in more detail, but I am sure that the reason for that will be obvious. I seek your guidance.