The House yesterday debated the report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I was one of those who spoke in the debate. (You can read the speech here.) The report was a measured and helpful report, arguing against having a statutory codification of privilege and instead putting the case for flexibility. It made a number of recommendations, though, to put privilege on a surer footing. I was concerned to ensure that privilege exists only insofar as is necessary to protect each House in fulfilling its functions. It does not exist for the personal benefit of members. We are, quite rightly, far more restrictive in the immunities granted to members than in many other legislatures.
I agreed with the Joint Committee in most of its principal recommendations. However, where I disagreed was in respect of its recommendations that peers should be exempt from jury service and should continue to be able to decline to respond to a court summons. Neither is essential to protect either House in fulfilling its core functions and I could foresee a member bringing the House into disrepute for failing to respond to a court summons. Others do not enjoy that immunity and I see no reason why we should
Where the committee was, in my view, correct was in arguing the case for a clarification of the penal powers of the House, not least in respect of those summoned to give evidence, and stipulating a clear and fair process for those summoned and for anyone charged with contempt. The recommendations were directed primarily at the Commons, but premised on the Lords pursuing a similar path in due course.
Lord Norton,
Is the resolution likely to be similar for both houses given that the power to regulate those in the House seems to be a major area of divergence between the houses. I am eager to see you respond to this or similar comments in part because the situation is not totally distinct from the custom in the US Senate and some other houses with less connection to Westminster.
I suppose what I would consider a very liberal view of these things might still draw a line at anything close to the party discipline available in Commons. We are having a bit of an ongoing crisis over the last decade in the Senate although not on exactly the same issue you are discussing. I feel also that since you have views which strongly favour collective responsibility that perhaps there is room for some internal dialogue on that point which we might glimpse here.
“case for a clarification of the penal powers of the House, not least in respect of those summoned to give evidence”
Err what clarification? The first time parliament imprisons anyone or compells them to attend by coercion the ECHR will strike it down as unlawful.