Page 278 - Law and the Media

Parliamentary Proceedings and Elections
16.2 Parliamentary proceedings

16.2.1 Privilege

Statements made in the course of proceedings in Parliament or in a committee of either
House are absolutely privileged against civil actions. Members of Parliament may not be
sued for libel in respect of any defamatory allegation or imputation made during official
Parliamentary proceedings.

There are, of course, numerous examples of MPs who have used the absolute privilege
afforded to them to ‘punish the unpunishable’ or make allegations which, if said in public
outside the chamber of the House of Commons, would probably result in an action for
defamation. The spies Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt were exposed by being named in the
House of Commons. The MP Geoffrey Dickens named suspected sex offenders on a number
of occasions in the House of Commons.

However, the media should take care when reporting such accusations. The publication of
fair and accurate accounts of Parliamentary debates and extracts from Parliamentary papers
is protected only by qualified privilege. The media can report a potentially defamatory
statement made during proceedings in Parliament as long as the report is fair and accurate.
However, if the claimant can show that the report was made maliciously, qualified privilege
will be no defence.

Parliamentary privilege may be invoked to prevent the publication of evidence, including the
publication of draft reports, taken by a Select Committee before it has been reported to the
House in cases where publication has not been authorized by the Select Committee or, if it
is no longer in existence, by the Speaker.

There is some doubt as to whether there is privilege against criminal prosecution for
statements made in Parliament. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 expressly allows a defence
for reports of judicial proceedings but omits a similar provision in respect of Parliamentary
proceedings. On the other hand, the statutory offence of inciting racial hatred specifically
excludes from prosecution anything said in Parliament.

16.2.2 Contempt

Contempt of Parliament is any act or words that disrupt or impede the proper working of
either House or disrupt, intimidate or wrongly influence MPs in discharge of their duty.

There is no statutory definition of what will constitute contempt of Parliament. Between 1998
and 2000, Neil Hamilton and Mohammed Al-Fayed were embroiled in a high profile dispute,
following allegations that Hamilton had corruptly demanded and accepted from Al-Fayed
various benefits in return for tabling parliamentary questions. This became known as the ‘Cash
241