Sack MSPs Welsh And Northern Irish Assembly Members

 Get rid of the Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and get the MPs in the respective countries to do their duties instead.

Nominate certain days of the week for devolved matters and MPs would sit in their own countries chamber to discuss and decide what is best for that country.

So MPs elected in Scotland would on devolved days sit in the current  Scottish Parliament, Welsh MPs would sit in the Welsh Assembly building, Northern Irish MPs would sit in the Northern Irish Assembly building and English MPs would sit in Westminster.

Why is this idea important?

 Get rid of the Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and get the MPs in the respective countries to do their duties instead.

Nominate certain days of the week for devolved matters and MPs would sit in their own countries chamber to discuss and decide what is best for that country.

So MPs elected in Scotland would on devolved days sit in the current  Scottish Parliament, Welsh MPs would sit in the Welsh Assembly building, Northern Irish MPs would sit in the Northern Irish Assembly building and English MPs would sit in Westminster.

Changes to the way Parliament is Elected (RPA)

Participation in our democratic processes has been declining for decades.  The most obvious sign of this is the low turnout at elections, but the low participation in the whole process, from attendances at public meetings to membership of politicval organisations to people standing as candidates, is also a cause for concern.

The question is why are people not engaged when clearly they have concerns.  I think the answer is two-fold.

1.  People do not thinking they can change anything (i.e. their vote does not count).

2. People think that it does not matter to them who represents them as 'they are all the same',.

I seek to address the first point.

Most of us live in safe seats where the result of an election is known in advance.  Here the argument that an individual vote does not matter is valid.  The way to get round this is through a form of proportional representation where each vote really matters.

I would suggest that the next Parliament is elected using the d'Hondt method currently used for the Eurpean elections as people as familiar with it. However I would like to see one small change to this system.

At the moment the parties list their candidates in order.  What I would like to see is a seperate ballot paper where the electors can also vote for up to the number of candidates that there are seats available.  The order within the parties will therefore be determined by the voters.

This would enable a voter to express their disapproval of the behaviour or views of a candidate without having to vote against the party they support.  It would also enable all voters to express their views on who should be the representatives of all parties.

Why is this idea important?

Participation in our democratic processes has been declining for decades.  The most obvious sign of this is the low turnout at elections, but the low participation in the whole process, from attendances at public meetings to membership of politicval organisations to people standing as candidates, is also a cause for concern.

The question is why are people not engaged when clearly they have concerns.  I think the answer is two-fold.

1.  People do not thinking they can change anything (i.e. their vote does not count).

2. People think that it does not matter to them who represents them as 'they are all the same',.

I seek to address the first point.

Most of us live in safe seats where the result of an election is known in advance.  Here the argument that an individual vote does not matter is valid.  The way to get round this is through a form of proportional representation where each vote really matters.

I would suggest that the next Parliament is elected using the d'Hondt method currently used for the Eurpean elections as people as familiar with it. However I would like to see one small change to this system.

At the moment the parties list their candidates in order.  What I would like to see is a seperate ballot paper where the electors can also vote for up to the number of candidates that there are seats available.  The order within the parties will therefore be determined by the voters.

This would enable a voter to express their disapproval of the behaviour or views of a candidate without having to vote against the party they support.  It would also enable all voters to express their views on who should be the representatives of all parties.

Reform of the structure of Parliament

To create a "cyber parliament" enabling MPs to attend parliament digitally from their constituencies, using the existing internet technology. On election, Civil Servants can ensure that all MPs have the appropriate technology and passwords to access the system. The system can also be accessed and viewed in a non-contributory way by members of the public, and screened on TV. Parliamentary buildings can be retained for the State Opening  if desired – the rest of the time they can be used as a tourist attraction.

Why is this idea important?

To create a "cyber parliament" enabling MPs to attend parliament digitally from their constituencies, using the existing internet technology. On election, Civil Servants can ensure that all MPs have the appropriate technology and passwords to access the system. The system can also be accessed and viewed in a non-contributory way by members of the public, and screened on TV. Parliamentary buildings can be retained for the State Opening  if desired – the rest of the time they can be used as a tourist attraction.

The ultimate civil lberty: Public to debate and vote on all legislation

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Disestablish the Church of England

 

 

The Church of England has an unnecessary role the governing of the UK. It is the established church in this country, with 26 of her unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords playing a full role in the business of the upper chamber. They are there neither by merit or competency, nor for that matter politically allegiance. They justify themselves using intellectual moral grounds, and their contribution in debate is clouded by their religious doctrine. 

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The Church of England has an unnecessary role the governing of the UK. It is the established church in this country, with 26 of her unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords playing a full role in the business of the upper chamber. They are there neither by merit or competency, nor for that matter politically allegiance. They justify themselves using intellectual moral grounds, and their contribution in debate is clouded by their religious doctrine. 

Re-amalgamate Ministries

The Ministry of Justice, as an example, only came into being under the last Government. It should still be part of the Home Office. This was done cynically to create upper-echelon jobs for those who were being pushed out of other positions.

The population are well aware that the so called "top jobs" will protected during this weeding out process, and if this Government wishes to be taken seriously then it must listen to the Public voice and remove the upper jobs instead of cutting those who actually do the work. the effect of halving the management structure from "middle management" up would be the same financially as focussing the cuts on the operational grades, but would not affect the service provided in any way.

This would, of course, mean that Central Government would have to demand less in the way of statistics from its departments, but amalgamating several of the ministries, and losing MP posts as well, would allow the necessary assurance tasks to continue while keeping the "front-line" posts we are all afraid will bear the brunt of the cuts.

Why is this idea important?

The Ministry of Justice, as an example, only came into being under the last Government. It should still be part of the Home Office. This was done cynically to create upper-echelon jobs for those who were being pushed out of other positions.

The population are well aware that the so called "top jobs" will protected during this weeding out process, and if this Government wishes to be taken seriously then it must listen to the Public voice and remove the upper jobs instead of cutting those who actually do the work. the effect of halving the management structure from "middle management" up would be the same financially as focussing the cuts on the operational grades, but would not affect the service provided in any way.

This would, of course, mean that Central Government would have to demand less in the way of statistics from its departments, but amalgamating several of the ministries, and losing MP posts as well, would allow the necessary assurance tasks to continue while keeping the "front-line" posts we are all afraid will bear the brunt of the cuts.

English Votes for English Laws

Finally doing something about the West Lothian Question, where a Scottish MP is allowed to vote on matters that only affect England but the same Scottish MP is not allowed to vote on matter concerning his own consituency e.g a Member of Parliament for West Lothian being able to vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire but not Blackburn, West Lothian in his own constituency.

Another example being English students are required to pay top-up tuition fees, while Scottish students are not. The legislation imposing top-up fees on English students passed by a small majority of 316 to 311. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish students would not have to pay.

Why is this idea important?

Finally doing something about the West Lothian Question, where a Scottish MP is allowed to vote on matters that only affect England but the same Scottish MP is not allowed to vote on matter concerning his own consituency e.g a Member of Parliament for West Lothian being able to vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire but not Blackburn, West Lothian in his own constituency.

Another example being English students are required to pay top-up tuition fees, while Scottish students are not. The legislation imposing top-up fees on English students passed by a small majority of 316 to 311. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish students would not have to pay.

Layers of politicians/political life cycles

I think most citizens feel there are just too many politicians and all governed by considerations regarding their length of term.  Too often that means decision making ability/inability centres around any risks to them individually regarding re-election.

I also feel that there are just too many politicians – parish councillors, district councillors, county councillors and MPs.  count all those up – be transparent about how many politicians we have per head of the population, be transprent about that total cost (I don't think all citizens are clear about the layering of political life).

Be clearer regarding what decision making in DCs etc has involve politicians and give local officers and their public some freedoms where they can demonstrate they are making efforts to engage their public.

Why is this idea important?

I think most citizens feel there are just too many politicians and all governed by considerations regarding their length of term.  Too often that means decision making ability/inability centres around any risks to them individually regarding re-election.

I also feel that there are just too many politicians – parish councillors, district councillors, county councillors and MPs.  count all those up – be transparent about how many politicians we have per head of the population, be transprent about that total cost (I don't think all citizens are clear about the layering of political life).

Be clearer regarding what decision making in DCs etc has involve politicians and give local officers and their public some freedoms where they can demonstrate they are making efforts to engage their public.

Repeal all laws that are specifically written by MPs for MPs and Peers

MPs should have no legal priveleges that the average citizen of Britain does not have.Therefore all the special laws applying to MPs and Peers must be be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should have no legal priveleges that the average citizen of Britain does not have.Therefore all the special laws applying to MPs and Peers must be be repealed.

Change the law making process to prevent useless law generation

Democratize the law making process. Legislation approval must be transferred from the parliament  to the citizens of the nation of Britain. All legislation must be presented to the people in a manner such as, "Your Freedom", via the internet firstly for comment and then for approval. No MP should be allowed to vote on legislation. MPs and Civil Servants only generate the proposals for consideraton by the public.

Why is this idea important?

Democratize the law making process. Legislation approval must be transferred from the parliament  to the citizens of the nation of Britain. All legislation must be presented to the people in a manner such as, "Your Freedom", via the internet firstly for comment and then for approval. No MP should be allowed to vote on legislation. MPs and Civil Servants only generate the proposals for consideraton by the public.

The new industry list for Britain

Create a list of new industries which Britain will develop as its long term economic base for the next 500 years which is sustainable and provides full employment for all able workers.

Why is this idea important?

Create a list of new industries which Britain will develop as its long term economic base for the next 500 years which is sustainable and provides full employment for all able workers.

Freedom of Political Thought

I believe that people should be able to support or vote for ALL political parties, right and left.

Any political party should be freed from press and political smearing and lies.

Democratic and political freedom is just that.  It is not just being allowed to support political parties approved by those in authority or with the biggest mouths.  It is the freedom to support whichever party you choose.

There should be a new law that ALL political parties, with a reasonable number of supporters, have a right to equal treatment in the printed media and TV and radio.  No one party should be demonised just because the other parties do not support their policies or because they think it is politically correct to slur them.

I have seen many instances of this rather nasty and sinister behaviour over the last 12 months or so.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that people should be able to support or vote for ALL political parties, right and left.

Any political party should be freed from press and political smearing and lies.

Democratic and political freedom is just that.  It is not just being allowed to support political parties approved by those in authority or with the biggest mouths.  It is the freedom to support whichever party you choose.

There should be a new law that ALL political parties, with a reasonable number of supporters, have a right to equal treatment in the printed media and TV and radio.  No one party should be demonised just because the other parties do not support their policies or because they think it is politically correct to slur them.

I have seen many instances of this rather nasty and sinister behaviour over the last 12 months or so.

Stop polititcal parties raising funds from lobby groups

Politicl parties should only raise their funds for campaigning. And this should be from their members only. Lobby groups should be banned from donating monies or any influence at all.

Why is this idea important?

Politicl parties should only raise their funds for campaigning. And this should be from their members only. Lobby groups should be banned from donating monies or any influence at all.

Open Government for the UK

            Alter the law/section that denies a citizen the right to see in detail where ALLgovernment collected money is spent i.e.: all salaries; fees; expenses; regardless of whether the recipient is a Crown employee or not;  regardless of whether the recipient is a UK citizen or not; regardless of whether the payment was made within the UK or not.

Why is this idea important?

            Alter the law/section that denies a citizen the right to see in detail where ALLgovernment collected money is spent i.e.: all salaries; fees; expenses; regardless of whether the recipient is a Crown employee or not;  regardless of whether the recipient is a UK citizen or not; regardless of whether the payment was made within the UK or not.

Abolish parliamentary flummery

Does anybody still really watch parliament for the ceremony and the historic trappings?

When a private member introduces a bill there is a little dance involving three bows to the speaker.  This is just one small example of the pathetic flummery our laws emerge from.

The state opening and queen's speech constitute an expensive and empty idiocy.  What is wrong with a government proposing a set of legislation in the commons (and as a simple public document)?  That is what is actually happening underneath all the brocaded prancing.

Abolish the lot.

Why is this idea important?

Does anybody still really watch parliament for the ceremony and the historic trappings?

When a private member introduces a bill there is a little dance involving three bows to the speaker.  This is just one small example of the pathetic flummery our laws emerge from.

The state opening and queen's speech constitute an expensive and empty idiocy.  What is wrong with a government proposing a set of legislation in the commons (and as a simple public document)?  That is what is actually happening underneath all the brocaded prancing.

Abolish the lot.

Select Lords by Lottery

Going to first principles:  the main job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise laws made by the House of Commons.  

My suggestions would be:

1  Rename the House of Lords the House of Scrutineers.  

Lets face it the main job of the present Lords is to check laws made in the Commons.

2  We need to select people who are independent of the party influences.

I would suggest we adopt the methods of the ancient Athenians which is to identify potential candidates in each section of society and then select by lottery.  

How I would see it working is that we split the country into regions and then into different segments of society, such as:

  • corporate business
  • trade unions
  • small business
  • social enterprise
  • religion
  • the unemployed
  • charity sector
  • public sector and 
  • academia.  
  • Other sectors would need to be decided by discussion. 

People could apply to be candidates in one of these sections.  

There would be a vetting system for candidates dependent of the sector.  So the small business candidates would have to had worked for a small business or a relevant organisation, such as a Chamber of Commerce.  

There could be many or few candidates in each sector.  

The Lottery 

On a specific date each sector would be dealt with separately.  

So if their were say 300 candidates for the charity sector in the north-west and there were only 3 places in the new House of Scrutineers, then the names would be put into some form lottery, probably electronic, or like the balls in the Lottery, then the three successful applicants would be chosen.  

Terms of office for Scrutineers

It is assumed that Scrutineers would probably work the equivalent of half time and would therefore be eligible to combine this post with work in their appropriate sector or to work on projects for such organisations, such as the National Audit Office. 

Two year initial contract: I would suggest an initial two year contract for Scrutineers.  At the end of which the Scrutineer can resign or renew their contract.  There would also be some requirements of the Scrutineer to attend the House, to have voted and been in discussions and committees.  

Six year renewed contracts: The Scrutineer would then be able to renew their contract two, or possibly three, times.  This would ensure that there would a mixture of new Scrutineers as well as more experienced practitioners. 

Support

The Scrutineers would get a reasonable pay and a fixed living allowance.  In the region they come from there will be set up a secretarial and research service.  

Roles  

  • Scrutinise the work of the House of Commons
  • Evaluate existing laws and where necessary propose updates
  • Introduce laws for consideration by the commons.  

 

And the existng House of Lords?

  • It will lose its power.  
  • Whether existing Lords can retain their titles is a discussion for the public and the political class.
  • Some of the ceremonies, such as the Opening of Parliament, can be retained, as its good for tourism etc.  
  • However, the influence of the Lords will effectively have been removed.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Going to first principles:  the main job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise laws made by the House of Commons.  

My suggestions would be:

1  Rename the House of Lords the House of Scrutineers.  

Lets face it the main job of the present Lords is to check laws made in the Commons.

2  We need to select people who are independent of the party influences.

I would suggest we adopt the methods of the ancient Athenians which is to identify potential candidates in each section of society and then select by lottery.  

How I would see it working is that we split the country into regions and then into different segments of society, such as:

  • corporate business
  • trade unions
  • small business
  • social enterprise
  • religion
  • the unemployed
  • charity sector
  • public sector and 
  • academia.  
  • Other sectors would need to be decided by discussion. 

People could apply to be candidates in one of these sections.  

There would be a vetting system for candidates dependent of the sector.  So the small business candidates would have to had worked for a small business or a relevant organisation, such as a Chamber of Commerce.  

There could be many or few candidates in each sector.  

The Lottery 

On a specific date each sector would be dealt with separately.  

So if their were say 300 candidates for the charity sector in the north-west and there were only 3 places in the new House of Scrutineers, then the names would be put into some form lottery, probably electronic, or like the balls in the Lottery, then the three successful applicants would be chosen.  

Terms of office for Scrutineers

It is assumed that Scrutineers would probably work the equivalent of half time and would therefore be eligible to combine this post with work in their appropriate sector or to work on projects for such organisations, such as the National Audit Office. 

Two year initial contract: I would suggest an initial two year contract for Scrutineers.  At the end of which the Scrutineer can resign or renew their contract.  There would also be some requirements of the Scrutineer to attend the House, to have voted and been in discussions and committees.  

Six year renewed contracts: The Scrutineer would then be able to renew their contract two, or possibly three, times.  This would ensure that there would a mixture of new Scrutineers as well as more experienced practitioners. 

Support

The Scrutineers would get a reasonable pay and a fixed living allowance.  In the region they come from there will be set up a secretarial and research service.  

Roles  

  • Scrutinise the work of the House of Commons
  • Evaluate existing laws and where necessary propose updates
  • Introduce laws for consideration by the commons.  

 

And the existng House of Lords?

  • It will lose its power.  
  • Whether existing Lords can retain their titles is a discussion for the public and the political class.
  • Some of the ceremonies, such as the Opening of Parliament, can be retained, as its good for tourism etc.  
  • However, the influence of the Lords will effectively have been removed.  

 

Reforming yet retaining the House of Lords – with elegant simplicity

Each elected member of the House of Commons shall, after taking his/her seat in the Commons nominate one unrelated person of substance and of the opposite sex to sit in the House of Lords for the Parliamentary term of the elected member. Upon accepting a seat in the House of Lords it shall be understood that the nominated Peer is not under any formal or indeed informal obligation to provide political support for the MP who nominated him/her, nor indeed the MPs party. Everybody bar blood relatives or relatives through marriage will be eligible for nomination. There shall be no judgement of character for example. The choice of Peer made by an MP; good or bad will ultimately reflect upon the MP. The existing aristocracy will keep their titles but will not be entitled to sit in the upper house unless they have been nominated by an MP to do so. Nominated peers will retain their life peerages even if their sponsor decides to nominate another person after any subsequent parliamentary election. Nominated peers will not canvas for support – it will be understood that a nomination is entirely in the gift of each MP. In fact nobody should ever canvas for a seat in the upper house.  In short the nomination and award of a seat in the House of Lords will be understood to be exclusively a matter of honour. The House of Lords will retain its vitally important role of scrutiny, revising and advising on government legislative proposals, together with the facility to inroduce legislation or even repeal legislation that is not considered party political in character.   Owzat? 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Each elected member of the House of Commons shall, after taking his/her seat in the Commons nominate one unrelated person of substance and of the opposite sex to sit in the House of Lords for the Parliamentary term of the elected member. Upon accepting a seat in the House of Lords it shall be understood that the nominated Peer is not under any formal or indeed informal obligation to provide political support for the MP who nominated him/her, nor indeed the MPs party. Everybody bar blood relatives or relatives through marriage will be eligible for nomination. There shall be no judgement of character for example. The choice of Peer made by an MP; good or bad will ultimately reflect upon the MP. The existing aristocracy will keep their titles but will not be entitled to sit in the upper house unless they have been nominated by an MP to do so. Nominated peers will retain their life peerages even if their sponsor decides to nominate another person after any subsequent parliamentary election. Nominated peers will not canvas for support – it will be understood that a nomination is entirely in the gift of each MP. In fact nobody should ever canvas for a seat in the upper house.  In short the nomination and award of a seat in the House of Lords will be understood to be exclusively a matter of honour. The House of Lords will retain its vitally important role of scrutiny, revising and advising on government legislative proposals, together with the facility to inroduce legislation or even repeal legislation that is not considered party political in character.   Owzat? 

 

 

 

 

Bring civility, order and decorum to the House of Commons, end “Yah Boo” politics now

MP's who behave inappropriately by point scoring off the opposite benches, cat calling, making jokes and generally behaving as if they are at a chimps tea party rather than in the place where the laws of the land are crafted, should be fined £1000 per offence, proceeds to go to the treasury.

After, say, ten such fines have been imposed on any one MP, then that MP is deemed to have demonstrated they are unfit to hold such a high office and will return to their constituency where an election for their seat will be held, they may of course stand again for re election but their prior record may count against them.

Why is this idea important?

MP's who behave inappropriately by point scoring off the opposite benches, cat calling, making jokes and generally behaving as if they are at a chimps tea party rather than in the place where the laws of the land are crafted, should be fined £1000 per offence, proceeds to go to the treasury.

After, say, ten such fines have been imposed on any one MP, then that MP is deemed to have demonstrated they are unfit to hold such a high office and will return to their constituency where an election for their seat will be held, they may of course stand again for re election but their prior record may count against them.

Cut the number of MPs

It has always amazed me why we need so many MPs we have more MPs than the USA has senators. Why does city need more than one MP?

Make the first cuts to the public sector by cutting MPs.

Why is this idea important?

It has always amazed me why we need so many MPs we have more MPs than the USA has senators. Why does city need more than one MP?

Make the first cuts to the public sector by cutting MPs.

Cut levels of Government, numbers of MPs and unnecessary elections

If you are looking to start pruning public spending there’s no better place to start than with Government and Democracy itself.

Firstly, there are far too many MPs at Westminster.  Most of the actual work seems to get done by a couple of hundred MPs. The rest of them seem to spend their time getting drunk in Westminster subsidised bars. So, let’s just reduce it right down to about 215 MPs (i.e. cut it down to a third). Each MP should also have an equally sized constituency. Then, it might be possible to pay an MP a bit more (to attract a higher calibre of candidate) and they could have a larger, paid team, to help with the additional casework.

Just think about it for a moment. Think of the 3 constituencies that surround you. Would it really be such a problem to combine those 3 constituencies and have a much larger team of MP’s workers serving you?

Then, let’s reduce the number of tiers of local Government. Let’s say there can only be two tiers (Parish and County), at the most. That would remove a huge amount of waste duplication and confusion.

I would go further and suggest that we do NOT automatically hold by-elections unless it is absolutely critical, EVEN for Parliament. For instance, there’s absolutely no point in holding a by-election for some obscure parish ward, at the cost of nearly £7,000, when there’s perhaps only one year of office to run. They could just co-opt someone on to the council.

Additionally – if there’s only going to be Conservative vs. Lib Dem – why not just have a Coalition candidate, and if no one challenges, don’t bother having a ballot.

We are probably spending , each year, 100s of millions of pounds on pointless elections.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If you are looking to start pruning public spending there’s no better place to start than with Government and Democracy itself.

Firstly, there are far too many MPs at Westminster.  Most of the actual work seems to get done by a couple of hundred MPs. The rest of them seem to spend their time getting drunk in Westminster subsidised bars. So, let’s just reduce it right down to about 215 MPs (i.e. cut it down to a third). Each MP should also have an equally sized constituency. Then, it might be possible to pay an MP a bit more (to attract a higher calibre of candidate) and they could have a larger, paid team, to help with the additional casework.

Just think about it for a moment. Think of the 3 constituencies that surround you. Would it really be such a problem to combine those 3 constituencies and have a much larger team of MP’s workers serving you?

Then, let’s reduce the number of tiers of local Government. Let’s say there can only be two tiers (Parish and County), at the most. That would remove a huge amount of waste duplication and confusion.

I would go further and suggest that we do NOT automatically hold by-elections unless it is absolutely critical, EVEN for Parliament. For instance, there’s absolutely no point in holding a by-election for some obscure parish ward, at the cost of nearly £7,000, when there’s perhaps only one year of office to run. They could just co-opt someone on to the council.

Additionally – if there’s only going to be Conservative vs. Lib Dem – why not just have a Coalition candidate, and if no one challenges, don’t bother having a ballot.

We are probably spending , each year, 100s of millions of pounds on pointless elections.

 

 

 

Modification of Parliamentary Privilege

Modify the rules on Parliamentary Privilege so that MPs accused of misuse of the expenses system explicitly cannot find any shelter behind the rules on Parliamentary Privilege.

Why is this idea important?

Modify the rules on Parliamentary Privilege so that MPs accused of misuse of the expenses system explicitly cannot find any shelter behind the rules on Parliamentary Privilege.