Comments on Tory Bear - right-wing political gossip: Parliamentary Delusion

Lord Millett in The Times this morning: "Sir...

2010-02-09T09:53:02.327Z

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 "

Spot on TB!!

2010-02-09T01:34:24.074Z

Spot on TB!!

The continued existence of the Brown Government is...

2010-02-08T17:44:50.880Z

The continued existence of the Brown Government is an ongoing crime.

Well as we all know, TB, the Rules do still apply!...

2010-02-08T13:52:40.053Z

Well as we all know, TB, the Rules do still apply!!!

The Declaration of Rights clearly states its objec...

2010-02-08T12:36:35.121Z

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".

You've misunderstood. The point being made b...

2010-02-08T12:30:31.999Z

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.