Proceeding contribution from Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.
Legislative Process
When the Procedure Committee looked into the subject—the Chairman of the Committee made this point earlier—it considered not just the risk of influence, but the need to ensure the appearance of due separation and comity between Parliament and the law. There are two parties to any civil case, and the losing party should not feel aggrieved because they feel that their case has been interfered with by Parliament. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I may well expect judges to be above allowing their judgment on a case to be interfered with by the House, but the House must be seen not to interfere in the case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c365
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Debates Legislative process House of Commons Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Modernisation Reform Select committees Allocation of time motions European standing committees Standing committees Sub judice rule Standing orders Time limits on speeches
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:10:27 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357316
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357316
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357316