Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege
| Author | P. M. Sills |
| Date | 01 July 1968 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1968.tb01203.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1968 |
JULY
1968
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
485
Whatever decision is finally reached
on
the age of contractual
capacity, the recommendations of the Committee
on
infants’
contracts could usefully be implemented without delay,
if
only to
get rid of the thoroughly unsatisfactory Infants Relief Act
1874
and
the vague concept of
‘‘
necessaries
”
with all its overtones of wealth
and social distinctions. In this essentially technical area, however,
one would have welcomed
a
more precise expression of opinion
on
an infant’s liability for negligence, This matter was left open by
the Committee,28 and the fact that they seem to regard liability
under the Misrepresentation Act
1967
as purely tortious, when
it
is
clearly closely connected with contract, implies that they did not
pay due regard to the growing importance of negligence as
a
means
of regulating human conduct generally.
In spite of its weaknesses, to which some readers will attach
greater significance than others owing
to
the nature of the subject
and its inherent potentiality for arousing strong feelings among
the middle-aged, this Report fully deserves the welcome
it
has
received and should prove an invaluable basis
for
future legislation.
It
is right that its defects should be exposed because legislators, in
spite of cherishing their exclusive freedom
to
debate and enact
measures
on
the basis
of
their
own
experience and sources
of
know-
ledge,P‘ tend more and more to rely
on
the labours
of
small group
of experts who have had an opportunity of considering problems
in
more favourable and leisurely circumstances.
BERNARD
DOWNEY.
REPORT
OF
THE
SELECT
COYMITTEE
ON
PARLIA~~ENTARY PRIVILEGE
IN
recent years the House of Commons has come to realise that
“
a
rather longer and cooler look
”
than those accomplished by the
Committee of Privileges
“
should be given to the whole subject of
parliamentary privilege.” This Report is the result of the longer
and cooler
look.
The opportunity has been taken to clear obsolete
rules out of the cupboard,
e.g.,
the rule prohibiting reports of
proceedings of the House,l and it
is
proposed that out-of-date rights
and immunities be discarded.a Major changes are recommended in
28
Cj.
y&s.
866
and
866.
The oommittee recommend that an inf4nt should he
liab
e
for deceit unconnected with his age even
if
it
would result in the
indirect enforcement
of
a contract, but tha-t the immunity for deceit
ad
to age
ehould continue
:
paras.
85@-354.
24
A
typical exam le of
this
reaction
an
be found in the recent debate
on
the
Theft Bill:
cf.
b.L.Deb.,
Vol.
289,
cola.
1807,
1311
1
Rt.
Hon.
Herbert Bowden, M.P., moving the appoihtment
of
the Select Com-
mittee, July 6,
1966
(H.C.Deb.,
Vol.
781,
col.
868).
Ru!ea are proposed to regulate reporting of the proceedings of Committees
of the House and the attendance
of
strangers at such meetings.
Cf.
a
letter to
The
Times,
January
21. 1967,
from Mr.
0.
R.
Strausa, M.P.
8
i.e., freedom
from
civil arrest,
the
right
to
impeach, immunit from attendance
as
witness and from appointment
as
sheriff. Immunity &om
ury
service
would be retained,
&a
would most
of
the
House’s
corporate rights.
To continue reading
Request your trial