Although I do not know where to find the 'list of things' to which the noble Lord West of Spithead refers in reply to you, I respectfully observe that:
- Communications with a legal advisor is privileged;
- Communications with a constituent is not - perhaps to the dismay of electors;
- Provision of 'privilege' only if the relevant authority finds it reasonable to identify privileged documents is in fact no privilege at all - (even if a court may order a privilege after the event);
I am astounded by the situation as revealed in debate and wonder really if Members of our Houses of Parliament do have a 'free' relationship with citizens.
It appears to me My Lord, that to realise protection and privacy in sensitive, democratic interaction with members of our houses of Parliament, a citizen would be required to right to his/her lawyer who would then right to the Member's lawyer, and, the Member file such documents separately with a 'privilege' label!!
A more reasonably practical approach would seem be, My Lord, requirement for a prior warrant granted by a judge (as you suggest), before any seizure of document; provided in the meantime no document is removed from the accommodation directly involved.
In my lowly and unfortunate experiences, detailed arguments assessing consequent application of law and related procedures are often unpopular while their projected effect upon and reception by the public, may be powerful in debate.
Thank you again My Lord (no doubt alongside other noble Lords), for your endeavour to produce good legislation.
I personally recognise the suffering of my ancestors by poor (and inhumane), them-and-us legislation; consequently upon succeeding societies including ours today.
On behalf of all like-minded citizens, I thank you for seeking to make a worthy difference My Lord.
Hubert Taylor
Posted on 9 Dec 2008 9:38 pm
My Lord Lloyd of Berwick,
Although I do not know where to find the 'list of things' to which the noble Lord West of Spithead refers in reply to you, I respectfully observe that:
- Communications with a legal advisor is privileged;
- Communications with a constituent is not - perhaps to the dismay of electors;
- Provision of 'privilege' only if the relevant authority finds it reasonable to identify privileged documents is in fact no privilege at all - (even if a court may order a privilege after the event);
I am astounded by the situation as revealed in debate and wonder really if Members of our Houses of Parliament do have a 'free' relationship with citizens.
It appears to me My Lord, that to realise protection and privacy in sensitive, democratic interaction with members of our houses of Parliament, a citizen would be required to right to his/her lawyer who would then right to the Member's lawyer, and, the Member file such documents separately with a 'privilege' label!!
A more reasonably practical approach would seem be, My Lord, requirement for a prior warrant granted by a judge (as you suggest), before any seizure of document; provided in the meantime no document is removed from the accommodation directly involved.
In my lowly and unfortunate experiences, detailed arguments assessing consequent application of law and related procedures are often unpopular while their projected effect upon and reception by the public, may be powerful in debate.
Thank you again My Lord (no doubt alongside other noble Lords), for your endeavour to produce good legislation.
I personally recognise the suffering of my ancestors by poor (and inhumane), them-and-us legislation; consequently upon succeeding societies including ours today.
On behalf of all like-minded citizens, I thank you for seeking to make a worthy difference My Lord.
Hubert Taylor
Birmingham