The Lords standards commissioner has been criticised over a sinister attempt to silence peers who spoke out in a debate about trans prisoners.
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/20/lords-standards-commissioner-accused-sinister-attempt-silence/
Really sorry, I can't access the full article. But complaints were made against those that supported the amendment to protect female prisoners. Complaints were dismissed on a ''technicality''. From Keep Prisons Single Sex:
After the debate on Amendment 97ZA on 10th January, complaints were made against 4 of the peers who spoke in support of the amendment. That's fine: this is a democracy and people are entitled to exercise their rights and to complain.
However, by dismissing the complaints on a technicality, on the grounds that they were made by a 3d party, this gives the impression that there was substance to the complaints. This undermines the principle of parliamentary privilege: guaranteed freedom of speech in parliament
There was a debate on this yesterday, and the transcript is here:
hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-01-19/debates/186DAEF5-320C-4A1B-A1B1-E92D85842E0F/ConductCommittee?highlight=%22sinister%20implications%22#contribution-A7701C1A-8798-4B6C-8123-32B0A5A
Here's Lord Cormack's speech highlighting the problem:
Last week, my noble friend Lord Blencathra moved an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the aim of which was to protect women prisoners from men who self-identify as women and are housed in women’s prisons. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meyer and Lady Fox of Buckley, and I supported it. As a result, all four of us received letters from the Commissioner for Standards saying that our speeches had been complained about. He had dismissed the complaints on a technicality—the grounds that they were third-party complaints and therefore not permissible. The four of us have written to the commissioner because we are deeply concerned by the implications of this decision, as it could give the impression that, because he dismissed the complaints on a technicality, there may have been some substance in the allegations.
Parliamentary privilege is one of the bulwarks of democracy. In the sixth edition of that splendid guide which many of us know, How Parliament Works, written by our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and a former clerk in this House, Rhodri Walters, they explain the importance of parliamentary privilege. It is a guarantee of freedom of speech within both Houses of Parliament and our committees. Anything said on the Floor of this House or in Committee is protected as a result of Article 9 of the 1688-89 Bill of Rights, which is one of our foundation documents. It states:
“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.”
There can be very few subjects which are more relevant or important to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who received these letters that the complaints against us were designed to silence us, and that has very sinister implications.
Members of Parliament and Peers must be able to speak up and express any opinion on a public issue without fear of legal action. This does not excuse the frivolous. Your Lordships’ House and the other place can deal with Members whom they believe have abused parliamentary privilege. That has occurred in the past, but we must be free. Our civil liberties in this country depend to a large degree on that power. That is why I am suggesting—I am doing no more than that, and I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said—that the new Conduct Committee, under its new chairman, should address this issue as a priority. Without freedom of speech there can be no free Parliament and no genuine parliamentary democracy.