Parliamentary Privilege

Introduction

Parliamentary privilege is a set of legal protections that allow Members of Parliament (MPs), peers, and those taking part in parliamentary work to do their jobs without fear of legal action for what they say or how business is conducted. In the UK, the key source is Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which protects freedom of speech in Parliament and prevents courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings. Alongside this sits the long‑recognised right of each House to manage its own internal affairs.

In practical terms, privilege serves two main aims:

• Free speech and debate in Parliament, so important public issues can be discussed openly.
• Independence of the Houses to set and enforce their own rules and discipline, without outside control.

Privilege is broad but not limitless. It protects “proceedings in Parliament” (for example, debates and committee work), but it does not protect wrongdoing or statements repeated outside Parliament. Courts respect these protections, but they also decide where the boundaries lie. This guide explains what is covered, what is not, and how the rules work day to day.

What You'll Learn

• What Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 protects, and why it matters
• The difference between freedom of speech in Parliament and repeating statements outside
• What counts as “proceedings in Parliament” (debates, committees, questions, votes, papers)
• How exclusive control of internal procedures works, including discipline and contempt
• Where privilege ends: criminal conduct, administrative acts, and out‑of‑House statements
• Key cases: Stockdale v Hansard, R v Chaytor, Prebble v TVNZ, Hamilton v Al Fayed, A v UK
• The role of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and fair reporting of debates
• Practical steps for MPs, staff, witnesses, journalists, and lawyers

Core Concepts

Freedom of Speech in Parliament (Article 9, Bill of Rights 1689)

Article 9 is the classic free speech protection: words spoken or things done as part of “proceedings in Parliament” cannot be “impeached or questioned” in any court. In practice:

• Absolute protection for statements during debates, questions, committee hearings, motions, and votes.
• Those taking part in proceedings (MPs, peers, witnesses, and officials) benefit when acting within those proceedings.
• Courts will not allow such statements to be used to found civil or criminal liability, or to be examined to prove motive or truth.

Publication linked to parliamentary business has special treatment:

• Papers and reports authorised by either House are protected by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
• Fair and accurate reporting of parliamentary proceedings enjoys qualified privilege under defamation law (e.g., Defamation Act 1996, Schedule 1), separate from Article 9.

Limits to keep in mind:

• Repeating or endorsing a parliamentary statement outside Parliament is not protected.
• Using parliamentary material in court to “question” or challenge what was said is barred, though limited reference may be allowed for statutory interpretation.

Exclusive Cognisance and Self-Regulation

Exclusive cognisance is the right of each House to regulate its own internal affairs. This includes:

• Setting procedural rules and controlling the conduct of business.
• Regulating membership matters and enforcing standards.
• Investigating and penalising misconduct (e.g., suspension, expulsion, admonishment).

These powers maintain institutional independence. Parliament may, however, choose to limit or structure aspects of its own control through legislation (for example, standards and expenses regimes). Courts generally avoid interference in internal proceedings but will decide whether an issue truly falls within privilege.

What Counts as “Proceedings in Parliament”

“Proceedings” are activities directly connected to the transaction of parliamentary business. Common examples:

• Speeches, questions, motions, and votes on the floor of either House.
• Committee inquiries: evidence, questions, reports, and deliberations.
• Drafting or presenting bills, amendments, and explanatory material for use in the House.
• Official papers ordered to be printed, and necessary communications for parliamentary business.

Usually excluded:

• Administrative or operational acts (e.g., handling of expenses, personnel decisions).
• Party political activity outside formal proceedings.
• Media appearances, press releases, and statements made at public events.
• Repetition or endorsement of parliamentary statements outside the House.

Guidance on scope is drawn from Erskine May, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (notably its 1999 and 2013 reports), and case law.

Limits and the Courts’ Role

Privilege is strong but not a shield for everything an MP or peer does:

• Criminal acts not forming part of proceedings (e.g., fraud) are not protected. In R v Chaytor, the Supreme Court confirmed that submitting false expenses claims was outside privilege.
• Courts will decide whether privilege applies to the facts before them. They will not question what was said in Parliament, but they can determine if a claim to privilege is valid.
• Using Hansard in court: permitted in limited cases to interpret unclear legislation (Pepper v Hart) without questioning the truth or motive behind statements (Prebble v TVNZ).
• Human rights: the European Court of Human Rights in A v UK accepted absolute immunity for parliamentary speech as compatible with Article 6, given the aim of protecting Parliament’s role and the availability of alternative remedies (such as complaints to the House).

Key Examples or Case Studies

Stockdale v Hansard (1839)

• Context: A publisher sued for defamation after the House of Commons’ printers published a report alleging his works were obscene. The House asserted privilege as a defence.
• Key point: The court rejected a blanket claim that an order of the House automatically protected publication. Parliament responded with the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 to give statutory protection to authorised papers.
• Practical note: Check whether a publication is authorised by a House order to rely on statutory protection.

R v Chaytor and others [2010] UKSC 52

• Context: MPs and a peer faced criminal charges over false expenses claims. They argued privilege and exclusive cognisance barred prosecution.
• Key point: The Supreme Court held expenses claims were administrative, not “proceedings in Parliament”, so privilege did not apply.
• Practical note: Administrative or personal financial matters are unlikely to be covered by privilege, even if connected to parliamentary roles.

Prebble v Television New Zealand [1995] 1 AC 321

• Context: A minister sued broadcasters for defamation. The defendants sought to rely on and challenge statements made in Parliament.
• Key point: Courts may refer to the fact that statements were made, but parties cannot challenge or question the truth or motive of proceedings in Parliament.
• Practical note: Do not plead or rely on parliamentary statements in a way that asks the court to assess their truth or propriety.

Hamilton v Al Fayed [2000] 2 AC 395

• Context: An MP argued that repeating in public what he had said in the House was protected.
• Key point: Repetition outside Parliament is not covered by Article 9. Statements made outside can be actionable even if the same words in the House were protected.
• Practical note: Keep contentious allegations within parliamentary proceedings, and take great care not to repeat them outside.

A v United Kingdom (2002) 36 EHRR 917

• Context: An individual claimed that absolute immunity for parliamentary statements violated his right of access to a court.
• Key point: The ECtHR found the immunity proportionate to the aim of protecting parliamentary debate and compatible with Article 6, given other remedies.
• Practical note: Privilege remains robust against human rights challenges, but proportionality and alternative redress are relevant considerations.

Practical Applications

• For MPs and peers

  • Use the protection for robust debate inside the House and committees.
  • Avoid repeating or endorsing statements outside Parliament; privilege will not protect you.
  • When publishing reports or correspondence, ensure they are authorised where appropriate to gain protection under the 1840 Act.
  • If in doubt, seek guidance from the Speaker’s Office, Clerks, or Committee staff on whether an activity counts as a proceeding.

• For committee witnesses and parliamentary staff

  • Evidence given to committees is protected when part of proceedings; follow committee instructions and keep to the remit.
  • Do not disclose draft reports or confidential committee material without authority.
  • Keep clear records where authorisation for publication is required.

• For journalists and publishers

  • Fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings benefit from qualified privilege in defamation; stick to accurate, balanced reporting.
  • Distinguish between reporting what was said (protected) and endorsing allegations (risk).
  • Check whether material is an authorised parliamentary paper to rely on the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.

• For lawyers and advisers

  • Do not plead matters that require the court to question what was said or done in Parliament.
  • Use Hansard only within the narrow Pepper v Hart conditions (statutory ambiguity, relevant ministerial statement, and no contrary intention).
  • Assess whether the act complained of is a proceeding; if not, privilege likely does not apply (e.g., expenses, employment decisions, press statements).
  • Consider alternative remedies: internal parliamentary complaints or referral to the relevant committee.

• For public bodies, charities, and companies

  • Engaging with inquiries: provide accurate evidence; your evidence is protected when given as part of proceedings.
  • If concerned about statements made in Parliament, seek advice on options such as submitting written evidence, seeking a right of reply, or complaints to the House.

• Comparative context (brief)

  • Australia: Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) defines “proceedings” and codifies aspects of privilege.
  • Canada: The Supreme Court in House of Commons v Vaid (2005) treats privilege as those powers necessary for Parliament to function effectively.
  • The UK has not fully codified privilege; practice is guided by case law, Erskine May, and Joint Committee reports.

Summary Checklist

• Article 9 protects words and acts within “proceedings in Parliament”; courts cannot question them.
• Two limbs: freedom of speech, and each House’s control of its internal processes.
• Proceedings include debates, questions, votes, committee work, and authorised papers; admin acts are usually outside scope.
• Repetition of parliamentary statements outside Parliament is not protected.
• Criminal conduct unrelated to proceedings (e.g., false expenses) is not covered.
• Use Hansard in court only for narrow statutory interpretation reasons; do not impeach proceedings.
• Check for House authorisation to rely on the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 for publications.
• Consider fair and accurate reporting protections under defamation law when publishing.
• Key cases to know: Stockdale v Hansard; R v Chaytor; Prebble v TVNZ; Hamilton v Al Fayed; A v UK.
• When in doubt, seek procedural guidance from House authorities or specialist advice.

Quick Reference