You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Parliamentary privilege is a set of legal rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament, its members and its committees, which protect the freedom and independence of Parliament in carrying out its functions. It is one of the oldest features of the UK constitution, rooted in the long historical struggle between Crown and Parliament, and it remains essential to Parliament's ability to scrutinise the powerful without fear or favour. For Edexcel A-Level Politics, privilege is significant because it is the legal foundation that makes genuine scrutiny possible: an MP who could be sued or prosecuted for what they said in debate could not hold ministers and others properly to account. At the same time, privilege has repeatedly become entangled with controversy over MPs' conduct, expenses and standards, making it a natural subject for questions about Parliament's integrity and public trust.
The recurring analytical theme of this lesson is the balance between protection and accountability. Privilege exists to protect parliamentarians so that they can do their job fearlessly; but if it shielded MPs from the ordinary law, or licensed reckless or self-serving behaviour, it would corrode rather than serve democracy. The history of privilege, and especially the developments of the past two decades, can be read as a continual effort to keep that balance — preserving the freedoms Parliament genuinely needs while stripping away the immunities and the lax self-regulation that the public will no longer tolerate. As ever, the most rewarding answers hold both sides together: privilege as an indispensable safeguard and as something that must be bounded by accountability.
A useful way to organise the material is to distinguish clearly between two things that are often run together. The first is privilege proper — the legal protections (free speech and exclusive cognisance) that exist to safeguard Parliament's independence and its capacity to scrutinise. The second is the standards and conduct framework — the rules, codes and bodies that govern how individual MPs behave and that have grown up, largely in response to scandal, to police their integrity. These are related but distinct: the first is about protecting Parliament from outside power, the second about protecting the public from the misconduct of members. Many of the controversies in this area arise precisely at the junction between the two — when the protections of privilege, or the tradition of self-regulation, appear to shield members from proper accountability. Keeping the two ideas analytically separate, while tracing how they interact, is the surest route to a clear and well-structured answer.
Parliamentary privilege rests on two main pillars: freedom of speech in proceedings, and exclusive cognisance (the right of each House to regulate its own affairs). Together these protect Parliament's independence from outside interference, above all from the courts.
The single most important privilege is freedom of speech in Parliament, guaranteed by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which provides that "the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament". This deceptively old-fashioned wording has profound modern consequences:
Key term — Article 9 (Bill of Rights 1689): the constitutional provision guaranteeing that freedom of speech and proceedings in Parliament cannot be "impeached or questioned" in any court — the legal bedrock of parliamentary free speech and, with it, of effective scrutiny.
Purpose. Freedom of speech in Parliament is indispensable to democratic accountability. MPs must be able to question the powerful, expose wrongdoing, name names where the public interest demands it, and raise sensitive matters without the chilling fear of legal retaliation. Without this immunity, the wealthy and the powerful could use the threat of libel actions to silence their critics in the one forum where they most need to be challenged.
Examples of freedom of speech in use. The protection is most visibly exercised when members use it to reveal information that the courts have otherwise restrained from publication:
These cases show privilege at its most powerful — and also at its most contested, since the same immunity that allows a member to expose genuine wrongdoing could in principle be used to broadcast a damaging and unjustified allegation. The tension between protection and responsibility is built into the privilege itself. They also raise a subtler constitutional question: when a member uses privilege to defeat a court injunction, free speech in Parliament is, in effect, overriding a decision of the courts. Supporters argue this is a legitimate function of an elected legislature acting in the public interest, and a healthy check on the growth of secrecy through the courts; critics worry that individual MPs, answerable to no one for the exercise of their immunity, should not lightly set aside the considered rulings of judges. The episodes are therefore valuable not only as illustrations of privilege in action but as a window onto the delicate relationship between Parliament and the judiciary — a relationship that the sub judice rule, discussed below, is designed to keep in equilibrium.
The second pillar is exclusive cognisance: the right of each House to regulate its own internal affairs without interference from the courts or any outside body. In practice this means that Parliament:
Key term — exclusive cognisance: the principle that each House of Parliament has sole jurisdiction over its own internal proceedings and discipline, free from interference by the courts — the institutional counterpart to free speech, protecting Parliament's independence as a whole.
The constitutional point of exclusive cognisance is to keep the courts and Parliament in their separate spheres, preventing the judiciary from intruding into the political heart of the constitution. It is, however, not unlimited, and the boundary between Parliament's internal affairs and the ordinary law has been tested — most importantly in the expenses prosecutions discussed below.
An important self-imposed limit on Parliament's own freedom of speech is the sub judice rule. The Latin phrase means "under judgement", and the rule restricts members from referring in debate to matters that are currently before the courts — that is, active legal proceedings awaiting decision. Although Article 9 would give members legal immunity to say whatever they liked, both Houses voluntarily restrain themselves by this rule.
The purpose of the sub judice rule is to respect the separation of powers and protect the administration of justice. If MPs and peers used the protection of privilege to comment freely on ongoing trials — pronouncing on guilt or innocence, or revealing prejudicial information — they could prejudice a fair trial and trespass on the proper function of the courts. The rule therefore embodies a mutual respect between the two branches: just as the courts will not question proceedings in Parliament (Article 9), so Parliament will not interfere in matters the courts are actively deciding (sub judice). The rule is administered by the Speaker (or the Lord Speaker), who can rule a member out of order for breaching it, though it can be relaxed where a matter of national importance is at stake.
Key term — sub judice rule: a self-imposed parliamentary convention under which members refrain from referring to cases actively before the courts, protecting the right to a fair trial and respecting the separation of powers, even though Article 9 would grant them legal immunity to do otherwise.
The sub judice rule is a good example of how privilege is balanced by responsibility from within: Parliament limits its own enormous freedom out of respect for another branch of the constitution.
Although examination questions focus on the contemporary operation of privilege, a sense of its origins illuminates why it takes the form it does and why it remains so jealously guarded. Parliamentary privilege is a product of the centuries-long struggle between the Crown and Parliament that culminated in the seventeenth century. For much of that period, monarchs sought to intimidate, arrest or prosecute members who spoke against royal policy, and the independence of Parliament could not be taken for granted. Freedom of speech in debate was won precisely because, without it, members could be silenced by the threat of royal retribution.
The decisive moment was the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 and the Bill of Rights 1689 that followed it, which settled the relationship between Crown and Parliament in Parliament's favour. Article 9, guaranteeing that proceedings in Parliament could not be impeached or questioned in any court, was part of this wider settlement establishing the supremacy of Parliament over the monarch. Understood in this light, privilege is not an arcane technicality but a hard-won guarantee of the institution's independence — which is why Parliament defends it so fiercely, and why attempts by the courts or the Executive to encroach upon it are treated as constitutionally serious.
This history also explains the modern shape of the protection. Privilege guards Parliament against external interference — historically from the Crown, today chiefly from the courts — while leaving Parliament free to discipline itself internally through exclusive cognisance. The threats it was designed to meet have changed, but the underlying purpose has not: to ensure that the legislature can scrutinise and legislate without being cowed by any other power in the state.
Privilege is powerful, but it is emphatically not unlimited. A clear grasp of its boundaries is essential, because a common misconception is that privilege places MPs above the law. It does no such thing.
It protects proceedings, not all behaviour. Privilege attaches to what is said and done within parliamentary proceedings, not to everything an MP does. Statements made in media interviews, on social media, on the campaign trail or at constituency events fall outside the protection and can be the subject of legal action like anyone else's.
The ordinary criminal law still applies. Crucially, privilege does not licence law-breaking. MPs can be investigated, charged and convicted for criminal offences. This was settled decisively by the expenses prosecutions: in R v Chaytor [2010], the Supreme Court held that the submission of false expenses claims was not a "proceeding in Parliament" and was therefore not protected by privilege. Several MPs and peers who had attempted to shelter behind privilege were prosecuted and, in some cases, imprisoned. The case drew a firm line: privilege protects the political functions of Parliament, not the personal criminality of its members.
Abuse of privilege carries internal consequences. If a member abuses free speech by making false or reckless allegations under its protection, they cannot be sued, but they can face censure or sanction from the House itself under its powers of self-discipline — a reminder that exclusive cognisance cuts both ways, empowering Parliament to police its own.
The overall picture is of a privilege carefully confined to its purpose: protecting genuine parliamentary functions, while leaving members fully subject to the criminal law and answerable to their own House for the abuse of their freedoms.
The expenses scandal of 2009 was the watershed moment in modern debates about parliamentary conduct, and it explains much of the regulatory architecture that followed. In May 2009, the Daily Telegraph began publishing leaked details of MPs' expenses claims, exposing systematic abuse of a lax, self-policed system:
Consequences. The political fallout was immense and lasting:
The expenses scandal is therefore best understood not as an isolated episode but as the trigger for a broad shift in how Parliament's conduct is governed: away from gentlemanly self-regulation and towards external, independent control.
A web of bodies and codes now governs the conduct of MPs, much of it strengthened in response to successive scandals.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is an independent official who investigates complaints that MPs have breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. The Code regulates such matters as:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.