‘Parliamentary privilege‘ sets the boundaries for mutual non-interference between Parliament and the courts. It was laid down in the Bill of Rights of 1689 but had already been a committee responsibility prior to that. It hinges on MPs and Lords having integrity and knowing when and when not to speak out on sensitive matters in the course of parliamentary proceedings. Judges, in turn, only examine Hansard in a few specific circumstances.

It effectively cocoons the Palace of Westminster as regards civil matters such as defamation, as it gives immunity from legal action, thereby ensuring its own form of ‘freedom of speech’. It also gives it regulation of its own affairs. However, the business conducted in public committee rooms and both Houses is transmitted live by television and recorded for posterity by Hansard, so this immunity must be used carefully.

Members are allowed to use handheld communication devices while they are in proceedings, but parliamentary privilege does not cover what they may ‘tweet’, only what they contribute to the debate. Occasionally, someone abuses the privilege and ‘names and shames’ a person for some supposed wrongdoing. If this is sub judice, it can seriously affect the court case and even render it pointless.

(Image: Abir Anwar at Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 2.0)

For UK General Elections and local councils in England and Wales we have always used the first-past-the-post voting system, in a metaphorical reference to a horse race where the winner is, of course, the first horse to pass the finishing post. There are many calls for this system to be replaced, but while the people in power continue to be elected by its means, they will be very reluctant to pull the rug from under their own feet.

The system is simple and produces results quickly, in that it only involves counting one vote from each ballot paper. There are no second or third choices to consider and no transfers to calculate. In each of the 650 constituencies, the candidate who receives the most votes, wins. This MP or Councillor is therefore focused solely on their particular area.

However, being based entirely on constituency boundaries rather than looking at the totals for the whole country, it does also produce remarkable unfairness. For example, in the 2015 General Election, the Green Party had 3.8% of the total vote, giving them one MP. UKIP had 12.6% but also just one MP, while the LibDems had only 7.9%, giving them a disproportionate total of eight MPs.

(Top image: Karen Arnold at publicdomainpictures.net / Public domain)