EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

        

 

Parliamentary privilege: Responsible behaviour

The naming of Ryan Giggs by an MP this week poses difficult questions for the media and for the constitution

Contrary to what some politicians like to claim, not every right automatically implies a balancing responsibility or restraint. But a newspaper's right to publish, including the right to report what is said in parliament, hard won in the 18th century, is one that does. The right to tell the reader what has happened and has been said is balanced by a duty to tell the truth, to respect others and to act within the law. That is why the naming of Ryan Giggs by the MP John Hemming this week, in defiance of an injunction that is still in force, poses such difficult questions for the media and for the constitution.

MPs' and peers' protection under parliamentary privilege to say anything they choose is undoubtedly another such right. Privilege is absolutely the right word for this formidable constitutional protection, which dates from the time when parliament was the nation's frontline of defence against the authority of the church and the king. Yet in an era in which neither the church nor the crown poses such a challenge, new assumptions perhaps apply. As the select committee on parliamentary privilege put it 12 years ago: "Free speech is the most important parliamentary privilege and members should be careful not to abuse it."

Views differ as to whether Mr Hemming – or Lord Stoneham in the Lords last week – abused that right. The argument is not open and shut. And it is certainly not restricted to the issue of privacy injunctions. The case also raises further questions that have not been tested in modern times. When parliament last looked in depth at the issue of privilege, its main concerns were over MPs who might make statements on sub judice issues and on national security. Yet what would happen if a newspaper persuaded an MP to act as a mouthpiece to make otherwise defamatory claims about individuals in the public eye, then broadcast them through social media, in order that those claims – whether true or not – could then be reported in the newspapers and by broadcasters? It is not an altogether fanciful scenario and it is doubtful whether the Speaker could stop it, even if he wanted to. A retrospective suspension, even if MPs backed it, would be the equivalent of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

When parliament last examined the question of privilege, the internet was still in its infancy. Social media were embryonic. And the ink on the Human Rights Act was barely dry. The possibility that parliamentary privilege might intersect with the online world and the role of the press in all its complexity was not even imagined. At the very least, a new select committee examination is now required. And so, inescapably, are some clearer new responsibilities to go with MPs' ancient rights.

Greece and the eurozone: political battles, economic reality

What happens in Athens and Frankfurt will determine the outlook for the Greek economy and the entire eurozone for years

At the heart of the latest round of the Greek financial crisis lie two battles which are this week moving towards resolution. One is in Athens, the other in Frankfurt. What happens in both cases will determine the outlook for Greece's economy and indeed that of the entire eurozone for years to come. And in both cases the outcome is highly uncertain, which is why financial markets are on edge.

In Athens, George Papandreou finally won the approval of his cabinet this week for his privatisation proposals. After a marathon session, the prime minister got the go-ahead for his plans to sell €50bn of state assets over the next five years in an effort to reduce Greece's massive debt burden to the timetable imposed by the rest of the eurozone and the IMF. Two big questions are, however, still outstanding. The first is how on earth Mr Papandreou will manage to sell €50bn-worth of assets. The really big money-raisers would be utility companies, which are heavily unionised; and one of the reasons they were not sold long ago was because of fierce opposition from organised labour and within the governing socialist party. Winning the assent of the cabinet was merely the first obstacle, albeit a significant one, for Mr Papandreou; he now has to list the ports and water and electricity providers he plans to sell – and handle the inevitable unrest. It is worth noting that many of the analysts who have been over the figures doubt whether Athens will get anywhere near that €50bn target.

The second big question in Greek politics is whether the prime minister will be able to marshal support from within his own cabinet, let alone the wider socialist party, for a package of spending cuts and tax rises. Mr Papandreou has got further with this than many observers typically give him credit for, and has so far outlined about two-thirds of his planned austerity measures for the years from 2012 to 2015 (by which time, theoretically, the Greek budget deficit will be around 1% of national income). But it was notable after Monday's meeting that the cabinet did not announce an agreement on the so-called medium-target fiscal strategy. Evidently, a lot of arguing remains to be done; and that is before the government tries to make those spending cuts happen.

At the moment, however, it is not events in Athens that worry investors but those in Frankfurt. In the headquarters of the European Central Bank the most heated rows are being held in public (despite the best efforts of some officials) about whether Greece will have to pay back all of its debts at full value and on schedule. The central political fact of the past month is that eurozone politicians now recognise, extremely belatedly, that such a prospect is fanciful. Even Angela Merkel, Germany's hardline chancellor, now acknowledges that Greece will need a restructuring of its approximately €330bn of loan repayments. For other policymakers, especially around the European commission, the term du jour is "soft restructuring" – stretching the period over which Athens makes its repayments, and perhaps reducing the interest. Yet that has met with fierce resistance from Europe's central bankers, who have made it clear that they will not support such a proposal.

But whatever the high politics of the Greek crisis there is a crucial aspect of the discussion that is not often aired: the economic reality. The cuts already imposed on Greece have seen its economy collapse and the budget deficit soar way above official forecasts. The emergency loans that Europe and the IMF extended to Athens a year ago were really nothing more than a means for the government to repay its debts rather than regenerate the economy. As Vince Cable rightly remarked yesterday: "You can't just deal with this by cutting, cutting, cutting … it does not work." Sadly, Europe's policymakers are some way from recognising this; nor has the Athens government made the case.

In praise of … Brian Urquhart

A second world war soldier who set out on quest of peace and helped to create IAEA and UN peacekeeping troops

As the red carpet is rolled out for Barack, the symbolism of diplomacy is much in evidence, but this remains a world where the substance is often in short supply. Brian Urquhart is one whose life is an allegory of international co-operation. Statistically, he shouldn't be alive at all, his scrapes including a non-opening parachute during the second world war and a kidnapping by Congolese rebels. Among the first British paratroopers, in 1944 he cautioned his superiors against the disastrous Operation Market Garden and went on to liberate Bergen-Belsen. At the war's end, this superlative soldier set out on a quest for peace. The second recruit to the United Nations, he helped invent the International Atomic Energy Agency and UN peacekeeping troops, daubing their helmets blue. Later he mediated from Namibia to Kashmir and across the Middle East with what the Jerusalem Post called "an unblemished record for dispassionate compassion". He was the anti-bureaucrat: plain-speaking and even once criticised for keeping too small a staff. After four decades serving the UN he resigned to work on its reform. Today, aged 92, from a small study in Koreatown, Manhattan, Sir Brian writes wisely on world affairs. He is a rare argument for the unity of the virtues and a mark of what the UN could and should be. He says sovereignty needs to be reconciled "with the demands of human survival and decency in the astonishingly dangerous world we have absentmindedly created". Governments should listen.