HOUSE OF LORDS - United Kingdom Parliament

freedom from service of court documents within the
parliamentary precincts;
absolute protection of all papers published by order of either
House. 1
Freedom of speech
12.03 Members need to be able to speak freely in the House and in
committee, uninhibited by possible defamation claims. Freedom of speech
is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689: “freedom of speech
and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or
questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. Article 9 affords legal
immunity (“ought not to be questioned”) to members for what they say
or do in “proceedings in Parliament”. The immunity applies in “any court
or place out of Parliament”. The meaning of “proceedings in Parliament”
and “place out of Parliament” has not been defined in statute. 2
12.04 The scope of article 9 has been the subject of two recent
developments in the courts. In 1993 the House of Lords decided (in
Pepper v Hart) that when interpreting ambiguous statutes the courts may
look at ministerial statements made in Parliament during the passage of
the bill through Parliament. The courts have also established a practice of
examining ministerial statements made in Parliament in another
circumstance, namely, when considering challenges by way of judicial
review to the lawfulness of ministers’ decisions.
12.05 In order to prevent abuse, freedom of speech is subject to selfregulation
by Parliament. Thus, for example, by the sub judice rule 3 the
two Houses ensure that court proceedings are not prejudiced by
discussion in Parliament.
Freedom to attend freely
12.06 SO 82 governs this privilege. Traditionally the privilege extends
from forty days before until forty days after the session, and it may cover
1 Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. SO 16 provides that the printing or publishing of anything
relating to the proceedings of the House is subject to the privilege of the House.
2 The registers of members’ interests and related proceedings have been found by the court not
to be “proceedings in Parliament”: see Rost v. Edwards [1990] 2 QB 60.
3 See paragraphs 4.60–4.64.
229