The claimants in the case sought to refer to a National Audit Office (<strong>NAO</strong>) ‘value for money’ report on special educational needs as part of their evidence against the Government’s imposition of VAT on private school fees; the Speaker of the House of Commons (the <strong>Speaker</strong>) objected to its admission, claiming the report constituted parliamentary material and should therefore be inadmissible as evidence under the rules of Parliamentary privilege.

Amongst other things, the Speaker asserted that the admission of the report as evidence would be contrary to the principle of freedom of speech established by the Bill of Rights 1689. Essentially, because the intended use of the material was to establish facts that were in dispute, to allow the material as evidence would be to <em>impeach</em> or <em>question</em> the proceedings of Parliament.

The application of privilege to the oral communications of Members in the House is easy to comprehend. After all, the jeer-laden, partisan debates of the Commons are what most of us think of when we think of Parliamentary proceedings. The application of privilege to the subterraneous workings of the legislature, however, is a more complicated concept to grasp.