Privilege

Debate between Jim Sheridan and Louise Mensch

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Following on from the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), I am glad that the motion calls for us to “note” the report, because—it is worth beginning by saying this—three members of the Committee, of whom I was one, did not agree with the very last paragraph of the conclusions, particularly the wilful blindness allegations against James and Rupert Murdoch. Nevertheless, I support the motion as it is written, and I think it is important that we refer this matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee because that is the least worst choice before the House. Frankly, there is no ideal answer to the situation in which we find ourselves. Parliament is in a difficult position, but that does not mean that we should take no action.

We are here debating this motion because it is not usual for a witness before a Select Committee deliberately to mislead and lie to the Houses of Parliament. I must take issue with the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who has inferred again and again that our Committee ought to have put witnesses under oath, after which, had they lied to us, they could have been charged with the common criminal offence of perjury. The Committee considered this issue very carefully indeed, but decided that it would be better for our inquiry not to take evidence under oath because certain legal privileges would not then kick in, which would allow witnesses to deny us certain information when we requested it and would allow their lawyers not to co-operate with us. The Committee decided that taking evidence that was not under oath would give us greater flexibility in our inquiry. The point has already been made that one does not wish to get into a situation in which, in order to protect the integrity of Select Committee proceedings, we routinely put every witness under oath. Indeed, it is part of the dignity of Parliament that there should be a simple assumption that there is a requirement to tell the truth to Parliament.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) adduced the example of the Scottish Parliament and the powers that exist within that Parliament to punish those who lie to it. There is another example currently taking place across the Atlantic, where the baseball player Roger Clemens is about to go on trial for contempt of Congress, for having misled Congress. It is alleged that Mr Clemens lied to the American equivalent of a Select Committee of Parliament in, I think, 2009, when under oath he denied taking steroids, the allegation being that he did indeed take steroids, that he misled Congress and that a contempt of Congress was committed.

Perhaps when we consider this jurisdiction, that may be one way for us to square the circle. I completely agree with the thesis of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) that it cannot simply be the case that somebody lies to Parliament, sends a stiff letter to the Select Committee saying, “I don’t agree with your conclusions”, and that is the end of the matter. That cannot be acceptable. Nevertheless, we can all immediately see the problems inherent in the suggestion from the hon. Member for Rhondda that we should seek to imprison somebody without their being able to testify in their defence and without the legal protections that the European Court of Human Rights might demand in a procedure that was to terminate in imprisonment.

In America we see, perhaps, the way to square the circle. It is prosecutors who have brought the case for contempt of Congress. That will be tried within the courts system. We have determined that we have been lied to. A simple method, perhaps, would be that we could refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and a trial could proceed on the basis that defendants would have all the protections of the court.

After the referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee, perhaps there should be a wider debate in the House about what punishments ought to exist for serious contempt of Parliament. In the American system, the case against Mr Clemens is not merely that he lied to Congress. There is also a materiality test, as the hon. Member for Rhondda noted. The lies told to the US Congress must materially have affected the investigation that was ongoing. In the case of the Select Committee, that test would manifestly have been passed, as lies of substance were repeatedly told us by lawyers who should know better. There is a test of proportionality built into the offence.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady and others mentioned the situation in the Scottish Parliament. Depending how things evolve, the powers of the Scottish Parliament could be tested in the near future. I am concerned about the legal situation of witnesses who gave evidence via a video or conference link. Is that any different from witnesses who gave evidence face to face?

[Louise Mensch]

That is an interesting question. There ought to be no difference. People are testifying before the Parliament of the United Kingdom when they testify before a Select Committee, and Parliament has the right to expect that it is not materially lied to. In my opinion, the same sanctions should apply.

The whole House is familiar with the offence of contempt of court that is routinely used. Let us hope that it would not be so routinely used, but I believe an offence of contempt of Parliament ought to be created. It would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances and as with any other offence, it should be up to prosecutors to try it, and the protections of the court system and the defence system should kick in.

As the old joke says, I wouldn’t have started from here, yet that is where we are. We must rely on the Standards and Privileges Committee because there is nothing else for the House to do in the present circumstances. Perhaps we need to look at the wider powers of Parliament, the importance of Select Committee hearings, procedures for creating offences, and the material problem that Parliament has a right to be told the truth in serious inquiries, whether or not a witness is under oath. That is something that the House ought to consider in future deliberations. For now, I am delighted to commend to the House the motion to note and not to endorse the report.