Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987
Title	Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987
Enacted by	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Year	1987
Citation	1987 c. 46
Royal assent	15 May 1987
Status	Current

Contents

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 is United Kingdom legislation that codified aspects of the relationship between the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the courts of the United Kingdom, and other bodies concerning legislative immunities and procedural protections. The Act followed debates involving figures such as Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and legal authorities including Lord Denning and Lord Diplock, and was influenced by earlier disputes involving the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It clarifies the extent to which privileges of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are recognized by the judiciary of England and Wales, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and other tribunals.

Background and Purpose

The Act arose after controversies that implicated actors like The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and parliamentary committees including the Standing Committee and the Select Committee on Privilege. High-profile cases before courts such as the Queen's Bench Division and appellate bodies including the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and the House of Lords (judicial functions) exposed tensions between common law doctrine from authorities like Sir William Blackstone and evolving practices in the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission. Parliamentary figures including Michael Foot and Margaret Beckett debated the need to delineate privilege to avoid conflicts with the European Court of Human Rights and to respect precedents from the Bill of Rights 1689 and decisions involving the Attorney General for England and Wales.

The Act defines categories of privilege referenced by institutions such as the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker. It specifies procedural rules affecting recourse to courts including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the High Court of Justice, and tribunals like the Industrial Tribunals and the Family Division. The text addresses protection for activities of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in parliamentary proceedings, delineating limits connected to precedents from cases involving litigants such as John Smith and institutions like the National Union of Mineworkers. It sets out mechanisms by which disputes between parliamentary bodies and external entities, for instance the Metropolitan Police Service or the Serious Fraud Office, are to be resolved without undermining legislative autonomy established in documents like the Act of Settlement 1701.

Enforcement provisions interact with judicial actors including judges from the Queen's Bench Division, appellate judges from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Act guides how courts should approach claims that would impinge on privileges asserted by the Speaker or committees such as the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Select Committee on Procedure. It contemplates coordination with law enforcement agencies including the Crown Prosecution Service and oversight bodies such as the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards when conduct intersects with statutory offences like those prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Following enactment, parliamentary procedure in the House of Commons and the House of Lords adapted in ways reflected in practice guides issued by offices like the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Archives. Committees including the Committee on Privileges and the Procedure Committee revised inquiry protocols, and speakers such as Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd applied the Act when adjudicating matters of contempts and privileges. The Act influenced interactions with media organizations exemplified by BBC News, the Financial Times, and Reuters in matters of reporting and parliamentary immunity.

Judicial interpretation has involved courts including the High Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in cases invoking rights under instruments like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. Litigants such as NGOs like Liberty (Britain) and press organizations including The Guardian have tested the boundaries of privilege in litigation touching on contempt, defamation, and access to parliamentary records held by entities like the British Library and the National Archives (United Kingdom). Key judicial figures referenced in case law include Lord Woolf and Lord Hoffmann, whose opinions drew on precedents from judgments associated with the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.

Since 1987, the Act has been applied alongside reforms introduced by actors such as the House of Commons Commission and legislation like the Human Rights Act 1998 and measures considered by reformers including Tony Wright and Norman Fowler. Parliamentary committees and officers including the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards have proposed procedural adjustments that interface with the Act. International comparisons have been drawn with privileges frameworks in jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where courts and legislatures—like the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada—have addressed analogous tensions.