HL Deb 16 May 1950 vol 167 cc299-304

3.8 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any Committee of Parliament which will hear persons wronged by an inaccurate privileged statement, and if necessary arrange for correction. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the first Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name, I should like to make it clear that I do not expect any definite answer from His Majesty's Government this afternoon. In this matter of privilege both Houses of Parliament stand, and ought to stand, on exactly the same footing. All I ask is that His Majesty's Government will take note of what I have to say and consider it. In the second place, I should like to say that I have a deep-rooted conviction that the utmost freedom of speech is necessary for the proper carrying out of the Parliamentary system. I do not in the least want to limit that. I want to say, further, that even should it happen that any of your Lordships was betrayed into inaccurancy, I think that could do very little harm, since it would be only a personal expression of opinion. In any case, I am perfectly satisfied that your Lordships as a rule exercise such great care that we can confidently say of ourselves that it does not happen. For that reason, I should be sorry if anyone made my Question an opportunity for flogging, a dead horse, or raising matters which have already been disposed of in your Lordships' House.

At the same time, while that is true, the case is a little different if inaccurate statements are made by noble Lords speaking for the Government, because any statement then made issues with the whole weight and credibility of the Government behind it and the privilege, although nominally the privilege of the House, in fact becomes the privilege of the Department. Many of your Lordships on the Government Benches have complained to me of the short period that elapses between the time when you receive your brief and the time when you have to speak to it in this House. I know that often it is not possible to examine briefs in detail in the time at your disposal. If I may make a personal remark—perhaps it will carry no weight—I may tell you that a friend of mine informs me that a very distinguished civil servant, who has since retired, told him quite frankly that he could not be made responsible for a statement made in Parliament upon his authority by his chief. Of course, what he said was true. As a matter of fact, I could give your Lordships instances, which have occurred in my own time in Parliament, of inaccurate statements being made by representatives of His Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House. One instance which I particularly remember, although it was a long time ago, occurred in a report made to Parliament by a Department. Six months later, after the passage of the Bill on which it was founded, I received a letter from the Department stating a set of conditions which were entirely contrary to the report made to your Lordships' House. So I am in a position to say definitely that the report was inaccurate. I am sure that my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair will also remember that case.

My point is more vital than that, however. The report which I have mentioned did no damage to any person; it was merely a question of fact which affected the Bill. The point I am making is that anybody affected by such a statement not only has no redress but cannot find anywhere to present his case. What I had in mind, very tentatively I admit, was that if there were a Committee which had your Lordships' confidence—let it be a Committee of the whole House if you like—and to whom such a person could appeal, he would be able to get a hearing. In times of great excitement a man may not have access to a Minister, or not until it is too late. I hope that in any reply I receive I shall not be told that he can have access to the Minister, because there are cases when he cannot. If such a Committee were convinced of his good faith, they could advise him or tell him that there was nothing he could do; they might even approach a Minister and pave the way for him.

Even though these cases are extremely rare, as I believe, I cannot think that if they do occur anybody should suffer wrong without any remedy. I think that is too Russian. It may be better that this should be so than that we should provide a remedy. It is the fact in science and in history, and I think it is a general proposition which can hardly be controverted, that a statement which is exempt from challenge cannot be founded on. If cases should occur, we should find that the general public would begin to take the line that what is said in Parliament bears no weight unless it is also said outside Parliament. That would be a remedy which would bring Parliament into more contempt than.the suggestion I venture to make in my Question.

3.14 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is: To ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any Committee of Parliament which will hear persons wronged by an inaccurate privileged statement, and if necessary arrange for correction. In answer to that Question, there is none; and there never has been such a Committee. And I must say that I should be entirely opposed to the setting up of any such Committee. I would add these reflections. In the first place, I am satisfied that complete and absolute freedom of expression is essential to the working of this and any other legislative body. Secondly, the risk of injury to any individual is reduced to a minimum by the sense of responsibility which every member must have in exercising his Parliamentary Privilege. For the rest, may I add that the advantage of possessing a free Press, as we do in this country, is that any person feeling himself aggrieved may avail himself of their columns, and such a person has on occasions invited the repetition of statements complained of so that they might be challenged in the courts?

3.16 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, may I be allowed to add another reflection to those which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just presented, with which I respectfully agree? I think there are a good many of us who recognise with sympathy the motives which have led my noble friend Lord Saltoun to raise this matter. He will allow me to say that I think he has raised it with great discretion and moderation. The sort of case he has in mind does not happen, often, but it might happen, and generally speaking, he is right when he says that if there is a possible injury we should like to consider whether there might be a possible remedy. But if my noble friend cares to look into the constitutional and historical aspect of this matter, I think it will become clear that the sort of proposal he makes would not do.

The matter stands, does it not? in this way. Each House of Parliament can adjudicate upon the conduct of any of its members in a Parliamentary capacity. Indeed, the matter has gone so far before now in the history of this House that there has been a case in which a noble Lord, by order of the House, was committed to the Tower of London because of the language which he had used in your Lordships' Chamber. Originally the absolute privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament was a privilege which was insisted upon and established against the Crown. That is the historical origin. To mention a famous case, Charles I procured the conviction of the notable champion of liberty, Sir John Eliot, because of what he had said in the House of Commons. It was not until the Restoration that, by a process which was known in law as a "Writ of Error," it was decided by the highest court of the land that the conviction could not stand, because neither the Crown nor anybody else had the right to complain of what any member said in the course of proceedings inside Parliament.

The matter goes further. If my noble friend is interested in the history of this, he will find that the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights runs: That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. That is not to say that a member cannot be called to account in his own House for words spoken in the House. That is done by the House itself. I do not think there is any other possible way of handling the matter. In his persuasive speech my noble friend spoke of a man who felt aggrieved appealing to a committee and presenting his case. But when one reflects on it, one cannot help seeing that the instances in which there is an obvious and admitted mis-statement are not so common as the cases in which the statement made may be justified and yet may be disputed by the person who is criticised. It would be intolerable for a committee, even a Committee of Parliament, to have to adjudge whether such a statement was or was not justified or, to follow the language of my noble friend's Question, "to arrange for its necessary correction."

The real restraint here rests, I believe, on the responsibility which all of us ought to feel if we make statements which are calculated to injure somebody else. That is essentially a matter for the internal procedure of the House as a whole. On the other hand, do not let it be forgotten that there have been cases in history in which a single Member of Parliament has said something which was unpopular about some person in high position or of great reputation; he has said it against all the world, and has been justified in calling attention to what had not hitherto been recognised to be a grave error. I believe that that is really where the freedom of Parliamentary speech comes in. Whilst I sorrowfully admit that a case might conceivably arise in which somebody outside might feel injured, we have to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the situation. My noble friend has put the point perfectly fairly and sympathetically but, like the Lord Chancellor, I am convinced, from such study of our Constitution as I have been able to make, that it is essential to maintain quite unimpaired and unchallenged the absolute right of every individual member of Parliament to say in the Chamber what he thinks it is his duty to say, subject always to the power which the House itself has to express its view upon what has been said.