HC Deb 21 April 2004 vol 420 cc100-24WH

2 pm

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab)

This debate has an intriguing title, and a few people have asked me what it is about. I hope that as my remarks progress people will understand what my concerns are and the implications not only for correspondence with local authorities but more generally.

My original worries arose from the fact that all my correspondence with Barnet council officers, no matter how senior or junior, is copied to council "cabinet members", as they call themselves, for the relevant department. When I started to investigate the issue, I found that that practice commenced soon after the Conservatives gained control of Barnet at the local elections two years ago, but that it now happens more systematically, with every letter copied. The introduction of those arrangements coincided—perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps not—with the Conservative Barnet council establishing its new "cabinet office".

Barnet council's cabinet office was established last year and has two "non-political" members of staff—a full-time cabinet adviser and a part-time cabinet secretary. The part-time cabinet secretary is truly non-political, but the cabinet adviser is Dr. David O'Brien, former Conservative political assistant at Surrey, Swindon and Carlisle, whose doctoral thesis was entitled, "Interpreting New Labour". There is little chance of finding out exactly what they do, but they admit to being responsible for keeping cabinet members' diaries, responding to correspondence, dealing with casework, writing to all petition signatories, speech writing, and providing overall guidance to the cabinet on policy and direction. The borough treasurer gives the cost of the cabinet office service as £50,000, and I question whether that is a good use of money given the significant cuts that Barnet has introduced.

I have no objections in principle to the unit or to it carrying out the activities that I have described—as long as that is all that it does—except for the fact that Dr. O'Brien's post should not be classed as non-political. What concerns me is the extent of the unit's role in monitoring correspondence between the council and Members of Parliament and between councillors, especially opposition councilors, and officers, on behalf of cabinet members.

You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why we should worry. Like most active hon. Members, I am regularly out and about meeting constituents who raise complaints and problems with me and I receive vast amounts of correspondence. An increasing number of the issues raised, especially since Barnet went Conservative, concern problems with local authority services. Constituents expect me to raise those issues fearlessly with the local authority. Of course, if the subject were highly political, such as the high level of council tax under Barnet Conservatives or the appalling cuts in support for the elderly or the disabled, I would naturally write either directly to the cabinet member councillor concerned, the director of service, or the chief executive. In that event, I would expect the letter to be seen by the relevant politicians.

We are on opposite sides of a political world, and on a political issue I would expect a political reply approved or written by the relevant council cabinet member. However, I fail to understand why cabinet members need to see every letter that I send, for example complaining of a broken pavement or a pothole, requesting traffic calming for a residential street, raising a housing repair, or the need for somebody to move house, or the poor standard of street cleaning, or asking for information about or objecting to a minor planning application. More important, why do they need to see every reply that a council officer, no matter how junior, sends to me? There are no obvious policy implications in the correspondence. Council policy is well set out on those issues. They are straightforward operational questions that do not require any political input.

Before I came to this House, I was leader of the Labour group on Westminster city council. I was a member of that council for most of the reign of terror of the gerrymandering Dame Shirley Porter. Even in those days, our correspondence as opposition councillors was not monitored to this degree.

My experience of those difficult years as the leader of an opposition group leads me to be extremely suspicious of what is going on in Barnet council. I believe that it is developing Dame Shirley Porter-style control-freakery at its worst. It is adopting her methods. They were designed to keep officers in line and under control, and to influence the way in which they approached correspondence—and perhaps to look at it a little less sympathetically if it came from opposition people. They were also designed to ensure that officers gave a political line on issues that were not really Political with a big P. Usually, they would attempt to find a way of blaming others for the council's failings—or was the motivation to enable cabinet members to piggy-back on work done by Labour MPs and councillors by responding to residents direct or taking over the casework?

I know of a couple of examples of that happening. Councillor Brian Coleman is the cabinet member with responsibility for the environment, the deputy leader, a Greater London authority member, and the spokesman for the Tory party on fire service issues. He holds about half a dozen other jobs. He is up for re-election in June, and he will probably be defeated. I am concerned that he is using correspondence from the opposition. I do not believe that he is doing so because he is a nosey-parker or a gossip, although I think that he is those things. I think that he knows what he is doing—he is using that correspondence for political ends. He is the Tory group's ideologue and he is trying to achieve political advantage unfairly from casework raised by Members of Parliament. I believe that he is behind attempts to create a Dame Shirley Porter-style regime, which was branded at the time by the district auditor in Westminster as creating a climate of fear.

I do not say that idly. Councillor Coleman has form with regard to riding roughshod over correct democratic procedures. He has a reputation for failing to consult and to listen to people. One of his early acts was to reopen a road in my constituency—Partingdale lane. He did so against the wishes of local residents. He was criticised by a judge for not consulting properly, and the review against the council succeeded.

The leader of the council has had to disown Councillor Coleman on a number of occasions as a semi-detached member of the Conservative group, most recently over his attack on Middlesex university, which he branded as a four-letter word beginning with C. I cannot repeat it because it is an unparliamentary word. His comment was immediately disowned by the leader of the council, who pointed out that the council sent staff to Middlesex university for training. Apparently, Councillor Coleman's main criticism of Middlesex university was that it takes too many foreign students.

I raised my concerns over the treatment of my correspondence with Barnet council's chief executive. A few weeks later, I received a reply from Mr. Geoff Lustig, the borough's solicitor. He stated: The copyright in a letter (and by corollary an e-mail) belongs to the sender not to the receiver. Whilst the receiver of the letter/ e-mail may not copy it without the consent of the sender, he may communicate the information obtained from reading it, unless the letter/e-mail is of a private and confidential character. Therefore, you are acting within your general legal rights to ask that your e-mails are not copied. However, you cannot prevent the information gleaned from those communications from being passed on, unless private and confidential. The next point to consider is whether we, as Council employees, can agree generally not to pass on to the elected Members of the Council information gleaned from or copies of letters/e-mails received from a third party. The answer to that question has, I believe, to be "no". We are employed by the Council and the sovereign decision making body of the Council is the assembly of 63 elected councillors (Cabinet for executive matters). The political reality is that the sovereign decision-making body is the executive cabinet. Those councillors, additionally, have the right both legally and constitutionally to require disclosure of information which is relevant to their role as councillors. Neither members of the public nor Members of Parliament write to a council employee in his/her individual capacity, but rather write to him/her as a servant of the council. Exceptionally, particular correspondence will be of a nature that makes it inappropriate for the recipient Officer to share other than to a select few specified individuals e.g. whistleblowing allegations. However, in the main, where correspondence is sent to an individual Officer, acting in the course of his duties, in my opinion, it is sent to the Council corporately. Therefore, there is neither breach of copyright nor of confidentiality if the letter is passed on within the Council. He goes on to the final bullet point: There does, of course, have to be some judgement on the part of Officers concerning what needs to be shared and what doesn't. It is not the Officers role to let Cabinet Members know what their political opponents are raising queries about, unless it can reasonably be said to fall within a policy area for which the Cabinet Member is responsible and he/she can reasonably be said to have a need to be consulted or informed of a proposed response. If that is what is happening—if discretion is being exercised, and some thought is being given to what needs to be copied and what does not—I will not make such a fuss, but, unfortunately, that is not happening. Every single item is routinely copied. Cabinet members know what we political opponents are asking about. There is no consideration of whether correspondence should be copied.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he uses the wording recommended by the House authorities in respect of data protection on all his correspondence?

Mr. Dismore

The hon. Lady raises the question of data protection. which I am coming to now.

The problem to which I referred raises issues of confidentiality, not only in general, but in the context of the Data Protection Act 1998. I am grateful to the Library for its brief on the issue, which refers to the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. That change in the law came about due to the concerns of hon. Members that their casework correspondence was not exempt from the strict requirements of the 1998 Act except when they had the explicit authority of the constituent. It was recognised that it was often difficult to get that explicit consent.

The order makes use of the power under schedule 3 of the 1998 Act enabling the Lord Chancellor to add to the list of circumstances in which the processing of sensitive personal information is allowed. The order applies to Members of Parliament and various other elected representatives, including elected members of local authorities.

Two main functions of the order apply. The first gives the relevant person, or someone acting with their authority, the authorisation necessary under the 1998 Act to process sensitive personal information without having to establish the explicit consent normally required by the Act. Secondly, the order gives others—for example, agencies or organisations that are contacted by the elected representative, such as local authorities—the authority to disclose sensitive personal information, without having to obtain the explicit consent of the individual concerned, to the Member or councillor where that is necessary to help them with its functions.

I am worried that what is happening with my correspondence is a routine breach of confidentiality. It is not geared towards helping with either my functions or those of the local authority, and is therefore probably a breach of the requirements of the order. That raises the question of why the council is copying on the correspondence. I simply do not believe that it is to help with their functions.

The Library brief says that the exemptions for elected members to enable the processing of data do not give Members of Parliament carte blanche to process constituents' personal details in a way that impinges on their rights and freedoms. Elected representatives still have to abide by the eight data protection principles in section 1 of the 1998 Act, including the duty to process data fairly and lawfully. By extension, of course, the same rules apply to the council.

I believe that the council is interfering with the rights and freedoms of my constituents, including their right to confidentiality. It cannot be said that what the council is doing is fair or lawful under the overriding eight data protection principles. In other words, I do not believe that the council is exempt under the exemption provisions.

I raised the issue with the House authorities and I am particularly grateful to Mr. William Proctor, the Clerk of the Journals, for his help and advice. Mr. Proctor also informed me that, in recent months, a significant number of hon. Members have raised with him similar, varying concerns about aspects of constituency correspondence. Although I refer to Barnet council, the debate has a much wider application—it goes beyond local authorities into aspects of Government, too. The issue stretches beyond the political concerns that I have outlined and has serious legal implications for the privilege of correspondence, to which I will refer shortly, contempt of the House and freedom of information rules.

Many of the problems that I have described have been exacerbated by the progressive shift from the traditional, committee-based structure of local government towards a cabinet system. Although I am not opposed to that, it has complicated the relations between Members of this place and local officials and back-bench councillors. The problem highlights a further serious obstacle to our freedom as Members of the national legislature to do our job properly in serving our neighbourhoods. We need to be able to correspond with the council officers at the sharp end of delivering council services if we are to be able to assist our constituents in getting at the truth and finding solutions to their own, often personal and intimate problems. We must be able to correspond with them and our constituents with complete frankness and openness, without any fear that the local political executive will be checking not only what our correspondents and officers say, but what we say. We must be able to carry out what is now a vital function of the local Member of Parliament—probably the most important from our constituents' point of view—and be confident that we will not find ourselves hauled before the courts for merely doing our jobs.

If there is a constant danger that our correspondence may be revealed or transmitted to the local council cabinet, there is a much greater risk of its contents being more widely disclosed, possibly for partisan reasons. It is in the nature of many of our communications with constituents that they make allegations against individuals and we are bound to retell those allegations in correspondence if we are to obtain a proper explanation.

Some allegations that are made by constituents may be true and may easily be substantiated but often a constituent may have misunderstood the circumstances, attributed improper motives where there were none, or occasionally merely vented their anger in forceful and inappropriate terms. I am sure that all of us have had rude letters of that sort from time to time. If there is a danger that any of that may be revealed to the outside world—and what Barnet council is doing means that there is—our ability to deal completely openly with councils to ascertain the truth of a case is already compromised. It is a question not just of the gossipy councillor but of whether, if the correspondence is spread more widely, it will become public information.

What happens in sensitive cases—there are many of them, as all hon. Members are all too well aware—if our correspondence on behalf of our constituents is revealed in the local media? Can we claim that correspondence is part and parcel of our job as Members of the sovereign legislature and therefore protected from action for libel or defamation by the privilege that is properly claimed by this place? In short, we cannot. We cannot rely at all on the protection of parliamentary privilege from defamation in an important and often sensitive area of our work—we can do so only if correspondence on constituency cases is specifically conducted in preparation for a formal proceeding of the House or a Committee of the House.

As some colleagues will be aware—although I suspect not many will—the much prized freedom of speech accorded under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 extends only and exclusively to the proceedings of the House and its formally constituted Committees. We have the protection of privilege against defamation neither in our correspondence with constituents, nor in correspondence with our local authorities and agencies, or Ministers of the Crown. Of course, there is a way around that. We could, when writing to these people, say, "We are asking for this information preparatory to tabling a parliamentary question or early-day motion". in which case it would fall within the privilege afforded by the Bill of Rights. However, that defeats the object, because by putting it in those terms, we may, if it comes to tabling a parliamentary question or early-day motion, be breaching the confidentiality that we are trying to protect.

Similarly, there is no absolute protection for those who write to us. I do not believe that it would be proper. desirable or sensible to allow individuals to use the cloak of parliamentary privilege to defame or to libel their fellows with impunity. Hon. Members should be aware that those who provide us with information are not protected from intimidation, molestation or punishment as a result of anything that they may tell us. If they gave formal evidence to a Committee of the House, they would enjoy such privileges.

The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which I am proud to be a member, has just had a painstaking and thorough examination of the pressure that was alleged to have been put on a single witness before a Select Committee. We were able to return a verdict of guilty of contempt on a number of people, including no less a personage than the Lord Chancellor—that was the Wilaminsky case. In that circumstance, the individual concerned was a member of a public body. All the members of that body were asked to resign. She believed that she was put under a detriment because she had given evidence to the Select Committee. In fact, there was no detriment, in that she would have been treated the same. However, the correspondence and behaviour of those involved gave the appearance of her being subjected to a detriment, which led to the findings of contempt.

If an individual, whether a constituent or anybody within the jurisdiction, communicates with their constituency Member or any individual Member, they are not protected by those rules. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", on page 129 puts it simply: protection is not afforded to informants, including constituents of Members of the House … who voluntarily and in their personal capacity provide information to Members, the question whether such information is subsequently used in proceedings in Parliament being immaterial. Of course, the same applies to any council officer, particularly, unfortunately, if the officer is looking over his shoulder all the time knowing that his correspondence is being monitored. I could obtain protection from a council for such a council officer by using the process of saying that I want the information for my work on a Select Committee, for a parliamentary question or for an early-day motion. If such a person were to provide the information in response to a request that was along those lines, I suspect that they would have the protection afforded by parliamentary privilege and that, if their correspondence were interfered with or if they felt that they were under some sort of pressure to respond in a particular way, Barnet Council and its officers and members, for example, could possibly be guilty of contempt of Parliament. I think that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if I have to preface every one of my letters to the council with the comment that I am asking for information for those purposes in connection with parliamentary proceedings. If I were to do that, it might stop the council from taking action.

I could easily envisage a situation where council officers were put in such a position, if I were seeking information from the council on that basis. Then if the officer feels under pressure to reply in a particular way, or that he has been subject to disadvantage after providing information to me, even if that were not the case and he were just to feel it to be so, the chief executive, the leader or cabinet members of the council could find themselves unwittingly in contempt of Parliament. I say "unwittingly" because that was the position in relation to the Lord Chancellor.

While I would like nothing better than to see Councillor Coleman hauled up on a privilege charge before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, so that I had to recuse myself from hearing the case, that is hardly a sensible way forward. Equally, the council officer transmitting the defamatory correspondence could be at risk of a personal libel action and they would not be protected by their role as a council officer.

Returning to the theme of defamation, Parliament must examine the extent of its privileges in the light of the modern reality of the work of a Member of this House. I acknowledge that on occasion the courts have regarded the informants of Members as enjoying qualified privilege of law. Normally, the courts would accept a similar defence in defamation proceedings against a Member. However, what does "qualified privilege" mean? Certainly it does not mean that we are protected from actions in the courts, but merely that, according to paragraph 110 of a report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999: a member has a good defence to defamation proceedings so long as he acted without malice, that is, without some dishonest or improper motive.

That is all well and good, but if a case arises, it still has to be defended. Even though I understand that the House now operates an insurance scheme to provide some limited defence costs, that does not remove the worry, irritation and threat to the reputation of the Member concerned. If any Member of the House were to talk to colleagues from almost any national Parliament in Europe about parliamentary privilege, most of them would be amazed at the lack of protection that is afforded to Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The general rule in other national Parliaments and in the European Parliament is that Members have absolute protection from civil suit and, in some cases, from criminal prosecution in relation to all their activities arising from their membership of that Parliament.

Of course, that could go too far, as occasional instances of parliamentarians or even members of Government hiding behind privilege from criminal law demonstrate only too well. However, we have gone too far in the other direction, or have not progressed, by failing to provide any statutory protection for ourselves or our informants in the area of work that takes up the bulk of the time of most MPs.

We do not run what amounts to a combined ombudsman scheme, citizens advice bureau and counselling service as private individuals. We do so only because we represent our local communities, and those communities expect us to do that work as an important part of the job that they send us to Westminster to do. It is not a peripheral part of our job; in any job description for an MP, it would be included as one of our core functions.

In the past, the question of protection for Members' correspondence has been considered on several occasions by privileges committees and inquiries. In 1967 and 1977, the Privileges Committee agreed that at least Members' correspondence with Ministers should be covered by absolute privilege. In 1970, the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament recommended a new statutory definition of proceedings, which would have specifically included correspondence between Members, and between Members and Ministers for the purpose of enabling any Member … to carry out his functions as such. Such a definition would not have covered the case of correspondence with local authorities and, in any case, would not have gone far enough. However, it would have provided greater certainty of protection against libel and defamation proceedings arising from the discussion of constituency cases with Ministers.

Nothing was done in response to any of those or similar reports. In 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered the matter again, and dismissed out of hand not only the wider extension of protection, which I believe is needed, but the more modest proposals of its predecessors.

Paragraphs 103 to 112 of that report are worth reading. They appear to reflect the interests and concerns not of the average Member of Parliament or their constituents, but of the Law Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, who chaired the Committee. The report acknowledged that there was a problem, but argued that there was "insufficient evidence of difficulty". If absolute privilege were to be extended to all correspondence with Ministers, it asks, where would it all end?

The report accepts that the distinction between a Member's letter, which enjoys no absolute protection, and a Member's speech or parliamentary question, which does, "can be somewhat arbitrary". It takes comfort from the fact that the defence of qualified privilege seems to have enabled members of both Houses to carry out their functions satisfactorily but admits that qualified privilege is "less effective."

Most important, the members of the 1999 Joint Committee decided not to recommend the extension of absolute privilege either to communications with Ministers, or to Members' correspondence more generally, because this exceptional protection should remain confined to the core activities of Parliament, unless a pressing need is shown for an extension. That is precisely my case—constituency work is, in practice, and should be recognised as one of the "core activities of Parliament", and one that is growing exponentially. We in this House all know that that is the case—most of their Lordships have no experience or understanding of the matter, or of the real nature of our jobs. Moreover, things have moved on since those reports were prepared. For example, the Data Protection Act did not exist at the time. Nor did the question of freedom of information. I believe that, as things stand under the present legislation on freedom of information, busybodies can ask for documentation that may be very personal to our constituents, while probing into central Government or local authority activities.

In November 2003. an interesting report was published by the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Australia, to which I believe the Government of Queensland are due to respond soon. It is a weighty tome, and contains a good analysis of the problem facing today's politicians. Reading the report, my impression is that the problems facing Members of the Queensland legislature are similar to some of those that I have mentioned in my contribution this afternoon. As modern politicians, we should examine some of the recommendations that that report makes. It proposes a series of protections believed to be essential if members of the community are to communicate frankly and freely with their parliamentary representatives about matters of significant public or private concern. The report states that the protections should achieve two main goals. Firstly, they should provide an appropriate level of immunity for disclosures to parliamentarians by members of the community, and action taken by members in response to those disclosures. Secondly,"— and equally important— they should preserve the confidentiality of constituency communications. There are a lot of worthwhile recommendations that the Government would do well to consider in that report.

I know that the Government are still considering what, if anything, to do about the 1999 Joint Committee. Some are calling for the full implementation of its recommendations and the introduction of a new privilege Bill. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to do one thing at least: not to take at face value what seems to me to be the over-complacent approach, of several years ago, to a matter that deserves the full consideration of Members of this House alone.

An inquiry into the question by a Committee would, I suggest, produce a very different answer. However, any such inquiry should consider wider concerns, too. It should consider all the issues that I have raised, legal and political, to ensure that we can do our job properly and effectively; that we can protect our constituents' privacy; that, equally important, we can ensure that those with whom we deal are themselves protected from undue influence and interference; and that we are able to respond to our constituents' problems fairly and openly, whether that involves correspondence with local authorities or local government departments. I raise those concerns not for my own protection, but to ensure that my constituents' cases are dealt with properly, effectively and fairly. I believe that that should be the objective of us all in this House.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is common practice to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before completion. We have 29 minutes remaining.

2.31 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for that advice.

I must confess that I was intrigued—and that is the correct word—when I discovered from the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) had secured this debate. I saw the hon. Gentleman in the Corridor before our proceedings started. I had not intended to speak, but he mentioned a borough that contains both our constituencies. We are neighbours: he is the hon. Member for Hendon and I am the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I feel impelled to intervene.

At the outset, I should say that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, while I certainly am not. He is a former leader of the opposition on Westminster city council, whereas I have never been a councillor in any tier of local authority. The hon. Gentleman has politicised the important issue that he has raised, and I do not blame him for that. I am sure that he mentioned Councillor Brian Coleman, who is not only a councillor on Barnet council—he is cabinet member for the environment—but the directly elected member for Barnet and Camden in the London assembly. I am sure that he will be very grateful for the publicity that he has been afforded.

The fact that I am not a lawyer will become absolutely apparent, but I want to raise a number of points. First, it is worth recording how Members of Parliament get in touch with their local councils when they receive a letter from a constituent. My practice is to write to the appropriate officer of the council rather than directly to the relevant cabinet member, although some people may do that. When I first came to this House in 1970, it was not unusual for the town clerk—I think that he is now called the chief executive of a local authority—to request that hon. Members write directly to him on any issue. He would then send the letter on to the appropriate person.

Matters can be pursued in different ways. I have always taken up an issue with the appropriate officer, regardless of whether the council is Conservative or Labour. If that officer passes on the contents of my letter to his cabinet member, if that is the right phrase, or to any councillor. I am exceedingly grateful. Usually, I am looking for publicity in trying to right what I believe to be a wrong, or in taking up what I believe to be a genuine complaint.

In general terms, when the information in a case is sensitive, my hope is that the officer involved does not divulge more than absolutely necessary. In such cases, I would take the precaution of putting "Private and Confidential" on my letter, in the hope that the officer would use his or her discretion when deciding what part of the information ought to be disseminated to a wider field. Equally, council officers have written back to me about cases and asked me to treat some information confidentially. I respect that point of view, as would the hon. Member for Hendon.

I accept that cases vary, and I am fascinated to know the Minister's thoughts on such matters. The hon. Member for Hendon spoke eloquently, but quickly, so perhaps I did not understand correctly what he said. Legally, an officer of the council is an employee of that council. Presumably, the employer is the council itself or, in our case, the 63 councillors who represent 21 wards on Barnet council. Whether we like it or not, a council officer may be obliged to inform the appropriate member of the council, or all members of the council, of the matters raised in any letter that we write. To use the phrase employed by the hon. Member for Hendon, he is trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We politicians must be robust, and willing to accept that, when we take up an issue, it is thoroughly ventilated. If hon. Members will permit me to express a certain vanity, the more people who know about the issues that I take up with the council, the better.

I hope that my final point is germane to this interesting debate. When I reply to a constituent, I always have at the back of my mind that what I write in my letter could appear on the front page of the local newspaper. Therefore, I must be willing to accept that what I write could be made public. That is an important point to bear in mind, although I am modest enough to accept that I can hardly expect anything that I write to my constituents to appear in the national press.

This Chamber is grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon for raising the issue, and I shall listen with interest to what other hon. Members and the Minister have to say. We should keep a sense of proportion about the matter. Members of Parliament are in the public domain, and we should accept that what we say—with the exception of some sensitive matters that we take up on behalf of constituents—will be broadcast, at least throughout our constituencies.

2.38 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire) (Lab)

My tale is tangential to the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). It has nothing to do with Barnet. If it is too tangential, no doubt you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate coincides with an issue that I am wrestling with at the moment, so it was too much to resist.

A few weeks ago, my constituent Mr. McDerby, who is a firefighter, came to see me about a common problem. Next door to him is a garage service station, which has changed into a 24-hour outfit, bringing with it much trouble, noise, disruption and litter throughout the night. It has a fast-food shop, too. In response to my constituent's complaint, I wrote to the council asking about the licensing of the establishment and to the police inquiring what they were doing about the disruption in the middle of the night.

A couple of weeks later, Mr. McDerby came to see me again, bringing a letter he had received from Drallam and Glover Solicitors of Liverpool. It reads: Dear Mr McDerby Re: 24 Hour Retail Licence at BP Garage, County Road, Ormskirk It has been brought to our client's attention that you have been coordinating a petition which seeks to rescind the 24 hour licence at the premises named above. It has been further brought to our client's attention that you have sought to gain the support of the local MP, Colin Pickthall, in your endeavours to restrict the terms of my client's licence. I wish to advise you, in the strongest possible terms, that my client considers your actions inflammatory and considers comments regarding the management of the premises to be unfounded and libellous. I am therefore putting you on notice that, should your actions not cease immediately, my client will have no alternative but to pursue the matter through the Courts to seek recompense for any loss of trade and damage caused to his good name and reputation.

In the usual course of events such a solicitor's letter would be thrown in the bin, but had Mr. McDerby brought his petition for me to present in Parliament there would have been a clear breach of parliamentary privilege. The petition was going to the local council.

My concern is that the solicitors have bracketed together the question of the petition and Mr. McDerby's request for my help as his Member of Parliament as a reason for threatening court action. A citizen has sought help from his MP on a relatively straightforward complaint, not unlike hundreds of others that we all deal with every year. That request has resulted in a threat of court action. If that were to become a common occurrence it would paralyse MPs' constituency work. Constituents would be reluctant to consult us.

How did the garage owners and the solicitors get information about my letters to the council and the police? The council officer concerned or the policemen might have told them that there had been a complaint from the local MP and asked what was going to be done about it. I do not want to make too strong a point about that, but it is not easy to find out how the contents of my letters reached the garage owners.

I hope I am not being unduly sensitive in this matter, which seems to me to show a potential and actual danger to the citizen's access, without fear or threat, to his parliamentary representative. That should concern us all.

2.43 pm
John Mann (Basset law) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate and on the elegant and informed way in which he introduced it. I, too, am not a lawyer. If I had to declare an interest it would be that, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), I have a series of cases—involving, for example, planning, miners' compensation and local authority car parking—in which solicitors have threatened to sue me and my constituents. In all cases, threats have been made to attempt to stop the issue being pursued.

In my robust style, f have rebutted such threats. On a planning case, for example, I declared that I would expose the lack of insurance on various houses on a new build. My constituent was threatened with being sued if did so. It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to inform new residents coming into the area of any potential problems. I will advise any of my constituents who are buying houses on a floodplain to check that they can get full home insurance at comparative rates. That is an appropriate role for a Member of Parliament and I do not expect to be threatened with legal action for carrying out those actions, and neither do my constituents. Similarly, I do not expect to be challenged on the double charging in relation to miners' compensation, and neither do I expect my constituents, who may have to take legal action against solicitors and who contact the Law Society, to be challenged.

The interpretation of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 is one of the devices being used in several cases, including those involving the local authority. That attempted defence is increasingly being used to confuse, hinder and stop the proper process of parliamentary representation. For example, the solicitors threatening me are also refusing to enter into correspondence because of their interpretation of the order. I have a range of such examples, because I throw the order back at people who refuse to allow me to represent my constituents.

The issue boils down to the definition of consent, and seek the Minister's clarification of the Government's view. If there is a matter to be resolved, what do the Government intend to do about it? If an individual asks to be represented by their Member of Parliament, and with due diligence and appropriateness the Member of Parliament takes the matter forward, he or she is representing that individual. For organisations such as local authorities to refuse to provide information in such cases would be wholly out of order and if the law in that respect needs tightening, it should be tightened. It is highly inappropriate if threats of litigation are made against Members of Parliament, as they have been against me: correspondence was copied to my constituent in an attempt to influence his willingness to pursue the case through my good self.

The best way to describe some actions taken by local authorities—I deal with several—is to use a real, but in this case theoretical, example of how I would take forward the Donnygate scenario involving Doncaster council, should such a case occur again. I remind hon. Members that Donnygate was a planning scandal. Councillors of all parties, developers and council officials were successfully prosecuted and jailed for what could broadly be described as irregularities in the planning process. Only last week, three more people involved in the case were sent to prison.

One of my constituents is a key informant in the Donnygate case, so it would create a potentially major issue were my probing and challenging correspondence to the local authority involved to be automatically copied to the very councillors whose probity may be questioned. I seek the Minister's advice on how the law stands in that respect.

I give a more mundane example of some issues that may arise should correspondence be widely disseminated. I know of local councillors ringing up individuals who have contacted me for assistance and whom I am representing, and they attempt dually to represent them without the individuals requiring or requesting it. That is a breach of any natural process of representation. If I choose to take up an issue, which could be dealt with by a councillor, that is my prerogative as a Member of Parliament and it is my constituent's prerogative to choose to come to see me—my constituents may regard me as more effective.

However, constituents may choose to go to their local councillor because they regard him or her as more effective. Things can get even more complex in multi-member wards, where different parties are up for election in the same year. We can envisage a scenario in which three councillors might try to jump on an issue and pursue it, which is clearly not in the interests of the constituents. How local authorities and other public bodies handle sensitive information according to the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming an ever greater issue.

I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation. If there are restrictions on our ability as Members of Parliament to carry out our proper and due duty, as defined by any reasonable assumption of good practice by an elected representative, they need to be removed. We need the power, without the distractions that are being thrown around, to represent our constituents to the best of our ability and to give them the best result we can. I am interested to hear the responses of both Opposition parties and the Minister.

2.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)

The debate has far exceeded my expectation in terms of interest, and I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for triggering it.

When a Labour Member attacks a Conservative local authority, it is something of a free ball for the Liberal Democrats. In snooker terms, it is a question of whether I go for the red ball or the blue ball. If I were ever to be locked in a barrack room and short of a lawyer, it is the hon. Member for Hendon whom I would want to join me. Equally, if I were not quite sure how many angels were on top of a pin, the same hon. Gentleman would be well suited to providing me with a number of different but equally intellectually sound answers.

Mr. Dismore

All I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in response to what I think was a backhanded compliment, is that if he were to repeat that allegation outside this place, it would be libellous.

Mr. Stunell

The hon. Gentleman has made my point admirably. In a moment, I will comment on the matters raised by the hon. Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made slightly different points.

The hon. Member for Hendon had complaints at two levels. First, there was the complaint about the organisation and staffing of the cabinet office of the London borough of Barnet. Frankly, that is not a matter for this House or this debate, although I have no doubt that it makes good stuff for the front page of, say, the "Barnet Chronicle". He conceded straight away that if it were a strategic issue involving the direction of the authority or the allocation of resources, he would, in any case, write to the relevant executive member. He seemed to think that that was entirely okay. What the hon. Gentleman was really complaining about were the non-strategic matters that he writes to the council about, such as the details of paving stones, streetlamps, overgrown hedges and so on. He is complaining about entirely the wrong things, and I shall develop that point in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the application of data protection. That is a more serious concern. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issues raised by not only the hon. Gentleman but the hon. Members for West Lancashire and for Bassetlaw.

We are talking about information given in good faith by a Member being passed to a third party, whether within or beyond an organisation, not with a view to satisfying the complainant or producing a solution—as might be the case if a director of social services passed information to a social caseworker for a briefing—but for an entirely different purpose that does not fall strictly within the local authority's remit. Passing on information with the aim of monitoring the number, severity, nature and geographic distribution of received social services complaints would be legitimate. However, to pass on information with a view to scoring a political point is not, and I hope that the Minister will give some attention to that element of the criticism made by the hon. Member for Hendon.

The hon. Gentleman had an entirely different complaint about the capacity of Members of Parliament to claim privilege in their communications both inside and outside the House. Significant people though we are, it is important that we do not become too pompous or precious. We should not claim for Members of Parliament privileges and exceptions that we would not want granted to other people. I am almost certain that the hon. Gentleman contributed to the public debate about the former hon. Member for Tatton and the House's decision to change the rules of privilege in that case. I am also sure that he had some strong comments to make about claims for exemption in the case of the London borough of Westminster. We have to be careful that in setting rules designed to make it easier for us in one direction, we do not inadvertently make difficulties in a completely different one.

It was a mistake to make it compulsory for local authorities to have an executive and cabinet system. That is having a profound effect on the internal political relationships of councillors, most of which is not for the best. Nevertheless, as a member of three different local authorities in my time, I know that it is important for a local authority to have political leadership. The current legislation makes it a matter of faith that the executive councillors are in charge and are the decision takers. Whatever one feels about that political framework, it was set up by an Act of Parliament for which the hon. Member for Hendon voted. He cannot complain too much when the political leadership of Barnet, whatever its colour, leads, tries to keep a grip on what is happening in its borough and takes an interest in the matters that come before it.

Mr. John Taylor (Solihull) (Con)

I profoundly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the imposition of the cabinet system in local government, but I should like to ask him not a personal but a general question. As a general proposition, would he consider it appropriate, when a constituent first brings a problem to a Member of Parliament, for that MP to share the consideration of whether the problem is more susceptible to treatment by the MP or one of the constituent's locally elected councillors? Should that discrimination be made or thought given along those lines?

Mr. Stunell

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. but I remind him that there are 659 of us, none of us has a job description and we all do the job in a way that suits our constituents and us best. Every four or five years, we find out if we are right or not. I find it difficult to advocate a precise definition of our roles and the split between the work that we do and that which we believe local councillors should do.

I commend to the hon. Member for Hendon a document that is colloquially known as the Cheshire conventions, which was being developed by Cheshire county council when I was a member of it, but has been widely adopted in the 20 years since by a range of other authorities. That document deals with the distribution of information inside those authorities and tries to establish conventions on having Chinese walls. If there is a missing ingredient, it is the lack of understanding of what a Chinese wall in Barnet might be and of the channels of communication in, through and out of that authority.

As much as I think it important that Members of Parliament be able to carry out their business effectively, I am against the House taking away the right of councils to decide their internal procedures. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) pointed to the need for exceptions, for instance in the case of whistleblowing, and the hon. Member for Hendon made the same point. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw pointed out, it is crucial in a case such as that in Doncaster that, if complaints of significant malpractice and wrongdoing are made, the accused should not be tipped off during the whistleblowing process. Given those obvious common-sense examples, a council ought to be free to arrange whatever internal procedures it thinks fit to progress fairly.

That brings me on to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hendon about expanding and extending parliamentary privilege. He conceded that a strategic question such as "Why have you cut £1 million from social services?" which is far more likely to be defamatory than "Why haven't you repaired the street lamp outside No. 26?" ought to go to the political leadership of the local authority. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how expanding privilege or exempting us from defamation would help in the specific cases that he highlighted.

Mr. Dismore

The problem arises not necessarily when hon. Members make defamation allegations, but when a constituent brings an allegation to an hon. Member who then relays it to the local authority, that is, transmitting the defamation: the Member is potentially liable even though they are not making the allegation.

Mr. Stunell

I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is making. I am not a lawyer, but it would be a perfectly adequate defence of good faith if one passed that allegation on to an appropriate investigating department or authority without putting it on the front page of a newspaper.

I shall now turn to the activities of Barnet council. I am amazed that Barnet council considers it worthwhile to circulate to its senior members the hundreds or possibly thousands of complaints that the hon. Member brings to its attention about paving stones and street lights. That cuts away the argument that the senior members are involved in the strategic management of the authority. I send roughly 1,000 letters to my local authority each year, and I can imagine the looks on the faces of my executive members if that torrent were put in front of them. I hope that the council has a wider purpose.

Mr. Dismore

That is the whole point.

Mr. Stunell

The hon. Gentleman says that that is the whole point. The council might have a wider purpose and I shall illustrate one example in which such a purpose may be beneficial—I am not saying that it is on this occasion, but I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that his paranoia might need modification. I briefly mentioned the example of ensuring that, when complaints are received about a particular department or service, someone at a strategic level decides whether there is a systematic pattern of failure. They may need to establish whether a section of the council is not delivering a service, whether a council is failing in a particular geographical area, or whether one aspect constantly causes grief. Is that not a sensible point that should be brought to the attention of members? I am surprised by what Barnet is doing, and I hope that it has a reasonable justification. I think that it has been clumsy and overbearing, but I do not believe that we should pass an Act of Parliament to stop it.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hendon has taken it upon himself to look at the cases of Chadwick v. Sheffield and of Strak v. Hyndburn. They are historic cases, but they laid down the need for council information to be open and to be explicitly available to people—to councillors and others outside the local authority. They also laid the foundations for access to information legislation and, in part at least, to the data protection legislation. In some ways, this debate would have been much more likely to have struck gold 20 or 25 years ago. I want Members to be able to do their job without let or hindrance, whatever their party. I also want to ensure that local authorities can do their job, whatever their party.

I will conclude by asking the Minister three questions. Does he accept that the Act that his Government introduced and imposed on local authorities that brought into existence the executive and cabinet system requires there to be a chain of command that stops with the executive member—and that therefore the complaint of the hon. Member for Hendon is, in effect, a consequence of that Act? Does he have any plans to extend or clarify the extent of privilege for Members of Parliament in their dealings with local authorities and other public bodies? That addresses the essence of the cases that the hon. Members for West Lancashire and for Bassetlaw brought to the Chamber's attention. Does the Minister also accept that the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 contains some ambiguities? It might be clear enough legally, but it is frequently ambiguously interpreted by public bodies with whom Members of Parliament correspond. That is a nuisance for Members. It should be tidied up, especially given the purpose of the order.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Lancashire that it is outrageous that any solicitors should be offering to sue either him or his constituent for raising a petition against a local nuisance. I am sure that the courts would be as dismissive of such an action as this House.

3.8 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

I am standing in for the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber. I think that this was an opportunity that he felt he could not miss. One got the tad of a hint that a press release in respect of Barnet council was already winging its way. He is looking very innocent, but we all know the way the game is played. However, I shall leave aside all the personality issues.

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the way in which his correspondence is dealt with troubled me. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, Members of Parliament have their own methods of working with their local authorities: how we deal with them, whatever their political persuasion, is down to us. There are no guidelines, but perhaps we can share best practice more. There may be an opportunity for the House to look at guidelines and to share experience and advice.

When I was elected in 1992, I took over from a very well respected Member who had been an MP for 32 years. Among the small amount of correspondence that he left for me was a standard letter that went as follows; "Dear whomever, I am afraid that this is not a parliamentary matter, it is very much a local government matter, and I refer you to your local council. Yours sincerely." We all wish that we could deal with what must amount to 30 per cent. of our postbag nowadays in that way, but we cannot do so. There are legitimate matters in respect of local authorities that we must take up.

Mr. John Taylor

I wish to be even-handed with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and with my hon. Friend. Having been a Member of Parliament for 21 years and never having received a letter from a solicitor, I have developed the practice of considering whether a problem brought to me is for me, as an MP, or whether it might be more appropriate to refer it to a councillor. I am talking about there being not a strict definition but an application of common sense. Does she accept that comment?

Mrs. Browning

That is exactly right. I do not treat my constituents' applications to me to do something about a local authority problem in the way in which it was treated many years ago, but we must use our judgment. For example, it would be wrong of Members of Parliament to pretend to have powers that we do not have. We must recognise that councillors of whatever political persuasion are democratically elected. They have their responsibilities in respect of individual planning applications, for example.

Sometimes, the general public believe that the council system is the same as the school system. If they do not receive the answer that they want from the local authority, they write to me thinking that I am the head girl and that I will bat the council around the head, so that they receive an answer. I point out to my constituents that I do not have that power. What I can do, however, is to draw the views of my constituents to the attention of the appropriate planning officer, so that those views are at least known when a decision is made.

I return to the essence of what the hon. Member for Hendon said at the beginning of the debate, which was that all his correspondence was conveyed to the appropriate councillor. I am sure that he agrees that the cabinet system of local government has not been helpful in such matters. It works differently from the old committee style. However, I regard the officers of a local authority as members of the civil service with whom I deal daily. I have the opportunity to talk to them and to councillors, whether they are my party councillors or opposition councillors, which I often do if they hold portfolios. There are other avenues to use, but it is for the individual Member of Parliament to decide how to proceed in their dealings with the council.

As with all of us, the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sends to his council will be a mixture of letters from people, for example, those with urgent housing problems. In such cases, we may telephone the housing department at the local authority to try to enable a constituent who is facing homelessness to be rehoused. In the course of such cases, we become party to much personal information that is pertinent to the representations that we make on behalf of our constituents. Moreover, my area has a county-district structure and we cover matters such as potential child abuse cases that may involve the social services department. Given some information that we, as Members of Parliament, receive, we really tread on egg shells.

I intervened earlier to ask whether the hon. Gentleman added to his correspondence the advice of the House authorities, which was given to us nine months ago. I am referring to the wording that should be placed at the bottom of our routine correspondence when dealing with personal information and the necessity to obtain a signed piece of paper in some cases, so that health authorities share medical information with us. The Minister may like to consider that best practice to see whether it could be better disseminated among Members of Parliament to protect us. I am advised by the Library that hon. Members had protection for their constituency correspondence, always provided that the channel of communication was a proper one for the transmission of a complaint or other defamatory comment, to the responsible authority, and that no malice was involved".

Mr. Dismore

rose—

Mrs. Browning

I shall give way in a second. The advice goes on: But it must be stressed this is a common-law right based on case law; every case is different, and Members are open to continued challenge in the courts in this respect. Although it is about five years since the Standards and Privileges Committee examined such matters in some detail, now might be the opportunity for the Committee to look again at such matters and to take soundings from Members of Parliament, although not necessarily for something to be put on the statute book, for which the hon. Member for Hendon asked. At the moment, I wish to reserve my opinion as to whether we need to go that far, but times are changing.

All the new legislation that is coming in, and particularly the interpretation of the Data Protection Act by statutory organisations and bodies, give us cause for concern. I try to take a belt-and-braces approach. I put that wording at the bottom of my letters. I get signatures of consent where possible. I never discuss an individual case with the press, even when constituents themselves have gone to the press, and I am always conscious of the information that I hold on my files. Perhaps we as Members need more information because of the nature and the breadth of the information that we hold.

I am moving away a little from the initial complaint that the hon. Member for Hendon raised. He would clearly like an answer to his complaint, but it is not for me to say how the problem with his council could be resolved. Some of the wider casework that we have heard about, in particular with Members of Parliament being threatened with solicitors' letters, is outrageous. Nothing should fetter us in doing our duty with the toolbox that we have in this House—whether we are presenting a petition to Parliament, tabling an early-day motion, or securing an Adjournment debate. Nothing should intimidate us in carrying out our responsibilities, or using our judgment about what is in our constituents' best interest.

In response to the hon. Members who have made personal contributions, I do not know whether they were talking about a try-on. I know that solicitors do try it on sometimes. They think that, if a solicitor's letter crosses somebody's desk, that person will shake with fear and trepidation. In my 12 years of experience, I have found that a piece of paper with the portcullis on the top makes people shake even more. I am sure that those hon. Members with their experience of this House have been able to help their constituents, and have not been intimidated. It probably ought to be exposed who the solicitors are who have the temerity to threaten Members of Parliament. The Law Society should be informed of who they are and their practices.

Mr. Pickthall

May I make a slight correction? I was not threatened by lawyers. My constituent was threatened for approaching me.

Mrs. Browning

Third-party intimidation, I think they call that, but the same principles apply.

I have some sympathy for the Minister. Because things have moved on, in particular with the Data Protection Act, it would be timely for him to initiate, with the Leader of the House and appropriate Committees of this House, another look at the way in which Members of Parliament correspond and the way the law may impact on us today. He could look to introduce some best practice guidelines for Members of Parliament, which would provide some security and protection for Members when applying guidelines. Clearly, we all work as individuals, and we have different relationships with local authorities and the other agencies with which we deal when sorting out constituents' problems. Such a review would be timely.

When that exercise has been completed, it may become evident whether things need to be moved forward on the statute book, as the hon. Member for Hendon suggested. I think that that would be going too far at this stage, but I have an open mind. We cannot, however, just leave things as they are because the situation has moved on and we are all having different experiences of how the legislation and rules impact on us. I hope that the Minister will take on the views that have been aired today—I am sure that he will—even though only a small number of hon. Members are present. I am sure that our views reflect what the wider membership of this House has experienced in recent years.

3.19 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas)

I start with the traditional congratulation of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on obtaining this debate and on drawing attention to this important matter. As I listened to the debate and the contributions moving on from the specifics raised by my hon. Friend, it struck me that this is one of those debates where the title does not suggest the importance of the subject. There is evidence in this debate of consensus among Members that something needs to be done. I share that view, as I shall explain.

My hon. Friend spoke very well. He has obviously researched the issue thoroughly, and his case was well argued, particularly as he was raising what could be interpreted as exclusively a party political issue, although it is not. He was in fact raising an important issue of principle.

I shall briefly respond to points made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who shares a borough with my hon. Friend, mentioned the necessity for robustness among Members of Parliament, and the issue of how one handles correspondence. I think, and hope, that he agrees with the central point. which is that what is at stake in the case raised—and, indeed, in other cases—is the use to which correspondence is put by recipients in the council. No one could seriously say that there are many instances in which directors and elected councillors should not be given information when they are solving a problem. An example was given of a managerial reason why some cases may legitimately be passed on.

To draw a parallel with the civil service and Ministers, all hon. Members would be outraged if Ministers were to use correspondence that Members sent them to pass on to their civil servants in a party political manner if it involved an individual case. That is a parallel that opens up the question of parliamentary privilege.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) raised an important case, and mentioned the growing trend of intimidation of constituents by members of the legal profession, who are ever keen to make a buck. They are often referred to as ambulance chasers, but they chase other forms of business, too. I condemn that practice in clear terms and support him in his pursuance of the case of Mr. McDerby. My hon. Friend raised an important matter. If the case had been pursuant to a petition to Parliament or a parliamentary question, there would clearly have been a breach of privilege.

Interestingly, the Joint Committee report in 1999, to which many hon. Members have referred, which argued against extending privilege, referred to the 1967 report and drew a parallel that is pertinent: Members writing to Ministers asking a question on behalf of a constituent before tabling a parliamentary question. Of course, the letter to the Minister is not covered by privilege, but the parliamentary question is. The 1967 Committee concluded: The practical effect of this distinction seems to the Committee to be indefensible". That is a parallel that I want to expand upon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned threats of legal action that were made against him. I am aware of his work on the miners' compensation scheme. He raised the issue of dual representation. He pointed out that in some cases—we are all familiar with this: it is not just a party political issue—one's own councillors try to muscle in, particularly if there is an election on the horizon. Of course, a constituent may well he intimidated by an offer of help and may feel, particularly if the problem were in relation to a housing matter, or to do with council housing, that his or her case may be prejudiced by a refusal to allow that dual representation. Often, constituents come to Members of Parliament rather than councillors about council issues precisely because of such fears. They see Members of Parliament as independent.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked a number of questions and raised many important points. Again, it is the purpose behind the passing on of correspondence that is important; I think that he accepted that point. He drew our attention to the dangers of what the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has referred to, on the many Standing Committees on which I have served with him, as the law of the unintended consequence. In other words, there are other ways to skin a cat.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked three specific questions, the first of which was whether the problem arises as a consequence of the cabinet system. I do not believe that it does. I can see parallels with committee chairs, leaders and deputy leaders, although perhaps the roots are different. The problem existed before that system. I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which is that the problem arises as the world becomes more complex. She would say that that happens because of legislation, but I would say that legislation is the response to the complexity of the world. Nevertheless, the point is the same. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there are any plans to consider extended privilege. I put it on record, in response to the debate, that there are. I will explain, in the brief time that I have, how I intend to do it.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there are ambiguities in the implementation of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. Clearly, there are. I agree with him. Although the lack of clarity is not in the order, there is clearly ambiguity in its implementation. That matter has been raised in the House during business questions on a number of occasions with regard to a number of public bodies, not just local authorities. Again I shall explain what I hope to do about that.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked whether we could consider guidelines to see how we could better promote the advice available from the House authorities. I accept that that needs to be done.

We have talked about our relationship with local authorities and councillors. In Wales, there is the question of Assembly Members, and in Scotland there are the Members of the Scottish Parliament. In Northern Ireland, the issue is much more complicated because of the political situation.

Mr. John Taylor

I feel that I am getting drawn further into this debate, having been a borough councillor, leader of a metropolitan county council, an MP and, dare I say it, a solicitor. I ask the Minister the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Does he not think that in the normal, common-sense way of things, if a Member of Parliament is brought a problem by a constituent, it is worth while giving a moment's reflection to whether the problem may be more susceptible to handling by a councillor, rather than by the MP, or vice versa?

Mr. Woolas

I concur with that point. My predecessor Geoffrey Dickens taught me that. He had a sign in his office that said, "Pass this to councillor if appropriate". It was good advice from him, and it is good advice from the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon focused on privilege as it applies to one part of our work: not to the proceedings in Parliament, which, as he said, are guaranteed absolute protection by article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but to an arguably equally important part of Members' work—the correspondence that we conduct on behalf of our constituents with local authorities and other public authorities. As he pointed out, Members' correspondence is not considered to be part of parliamentary proceedings and can enjoy only qualified privilege. Therefore, there is a risk that Members might be subject to defamation proceedings, even though they would have a good defence as long as they acted without malice.

My hon. Friend outlined the point of the 2002 order regarding the exemptions of Members of Parliament from the 1998 Act. He drew attention to the 1999 report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to which I referred, which provides a wealth of information on Parliament's ancient rights and immunities. He thinks that we should reconsider that. I am happy to do so. I will seek the advice of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), Chairman of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as well as ministerial colleagues.