Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General—Oral evidence (QQ 1070–1102)
open to the Speaker to discipline a member who breaches standing orders. It seems to me
it is a matter for Mr Speaker to decide whether he wishes to do that. It could also be
referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The House of Commons might
consider—I do not make proposals for your Lordships’ House in these comments—that it
wants to beef up that system or make it more structured. I note that individuals who have
given evidence before you have asked whether there could be a system whereby an MP who
is very concerned whether he should be trying to breach an order can bring a matter to the
attention of the Speaker and seek some sort of concurrence that it is justified, or least
obtain an opinion that it is not. All those things might be considered.
It might be considered whether the rules of comity should be protected by more
than simply the sub judice rule. That rule is very tightly drawn. Those are matters to which
you may wish to give consideration, but I also accept that any changes, as is inevitable in
areas of law, will have potential problems associated with them. As a parliamentarian, the
right to freedom of expression in the House and the protections afforded by the Bill of
Rights are very important. But, like everything else, you will never get a perfect system.
They require self-restraint on the part of MPs because without it the situation will become
unworkable.
Q1090 Chair: Given that there are 650 members of the House of Commons and a
large number of members of the House of Lords, sometimes an individual will decide to
breach an injunction. In those circumstances, if the prime purpose of the injunction is to
protect knowledge of information, would you consider there might be a case for the House
of Commons or House of Lords saying that a statement made should be struck from the
record and therefore it would not appear in Hansard or be reported by the newspapers?
Mr Grieve: That is a procedural issue, and I can see that it might be fraught with
certain difficulties. I noted the comments of the Clerk of the House on this when he came
before you before Christmas. I would want to listen very carefully to his opinion on the
subject. You will be aware that what is said in Parliament is protected by the Bill of Rights;
Hansard is protected by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Beyond that, the reproduction
of what is said in Parliament is a matter of qualified privilege. If there is malice, or it is a way
of trying to engineer one’s way round a court order, the individuals involved in it, not the
parliamentarians who speak on the floor of the House, might be susceptible to contempt
proceedings. It is not without remedy, although it is quite a complicated area of law.
Q1091 Mr Buckland: To develop that, you just dealt with the point that the
mere fact there had been disclosure in Parliament would not necessarily bar contempt
proceedings.
Mr Grieve: No.
Q1092 Mr Buckland: Surely, it could be quite a material factor in helping you to
reach a decision as to whether or not contempt proceedings would be brought. If there
was clear evidence of some sort of subterfuge, conspiracy, malice, whatever you want to call
it, involving a parliamentarian which resulted in that disclosure, would that be a potential
basis for contempt proceedings?
18