Parliamentary Delusion
From whatever way you look at it, the three MPs can in no way claim Parliamentary Privilege. Though it was in very different circumstances at the time, just look no further than the book that Michael Martin
threw
at Damian Green:I should also remind the House, as stated in chapter 7 of “Erskine May,” that parliamentary privilege has never prevented the operation of the criminal law. [Interruption.] Order. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in its authoritative report in 1999 said that the precincts of the House are not and should not beIf that was the rules in those ridiculous circumstance, then they definitely apply when there is actually evidence of a crime taking place.
“a haven from the law”.
There is therefore no special restriction on the police searching the parliamentary precincts in the course of a criminal proceeding—nor has there ever been.
Posts
6 comments:
You've misunderstood.
The point being made by Martin was about whether Privilege applies to the physical Parliament buildings. Which it doesn't.
But it does protect all Parliamentary proceedings from scrutiny in any courts.
The Labour MPs are presumably claiming that their expenses are a 'proceeding in Parliament'. Which they almost certainly aren't. But it has nothing to do with the Grieve case.
The Declaration of Rights clearly states its objective:
‘The privileges of Parliament are immunities conferred in order to ensure that the duties of members as representatives of their constituents may be carried out without fear of intimidation or punishment, and without improper impediment ... a privilege of Parliament is more properly called an immunity from the operation of certain laws, which are otherwise unduly restrictive on the proper performance of the duties of Parliament.’
There is no immunity for illegally claiming on a non-existent mortgage, because it has nothing to do with the MPs "proper performance of his duties".
Well as we all know, TB, the Rules do still apply!!!
The continued existence of the Brown Government is an ongoing crime.
Spot on TB!!
Lord Millett in The Times this morning:
"Sir, Memory is fallible, but I seem to remember being taught, more than 50 years ago, that parliamentary privilege, which may of course be invoked by individual members of either House when faced with civil or criminal proceedings, nevertheless belongs to Parliament and not to the Member (letters, Feb 8). If this is correct, then two things follow. First, Parliament can waive it. This would not require legislation; a simple resolution of the appropriate House would be sufficient.
Second, its Privileges Committee could rule whether any proposed proceedings would constitute a breach of privilege. It could not, of course, extend the scope of the privilege, but it could limit its application.
Waiving the privilege would not constitute a breach of the Member’s human rights, since it is a privilege not a right and (if the premise is correct) does not belong to him. Nor would it amount to a retrospective change in the law, since it would not be retrospective but affect a trial that has not yet taken place, and would not change the law but give effect to it.
Lord Millett
House of Lords "